If the homeowner lay in wait with the intent to kill then it is pre-meditated murder. It doesn't matter whether he knew the specific person who would be killed, nor does it matter if they were there to burgle him. That's why he is being prosecuted - because, according to the prosecution, he decided to kill the people who broke in before they did.
Had he shot them, even killed them, because he found them on his property and believed they presented a risk to him it could then be be self defence - if he lost his temper and acted out of rage, then voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder depending on the type of intent.
He sat there waiting, and if they hadn't have come that night, I imagine he would have waited every night until they, or any other burglars, did break in.
Maybe. Which goes to show that you shouldn't go breaking in folks' houses, because they might just be paranoid, agitated and / or delusional, with a big gun.
To be fair, he has also made a conscious decision to shoot tham at point blank range, after already shooting them to nulify their threat as such. He could have reconsidered those actions and not shot them again.
Well, yeah, but it's rather futile to tell a nutter not to be a nutter. It's kinda like telling rapists not to rape people.
The intruder, unless they have some weird compulsive disorder, is the party who makes the conscious decision to do something that carries a risk of putting them in harms way so they're the one who has the best opportunity to alter the outcome by not breaking into somebody's house.
The intruders are not entirely blameless in this situation. I think if you break into someone else's house with the intention to steal, they are putting themselves in danger of being hurt or killed by the home owner defending his family and property.
However, saying that, I think the homeowner went way beyond necessary force and action. I mean, they were incapacitated and posed no immediate threat to him, his family or his home and he acted as judge and executioner. It may have felt like justice to him, but I don't think that should be called justice in any civil society based on the principle of fairness and as a result has due process (which he would benefit from).
Shoot / maim and then call the Police but to execute them both is too chilling for words.
"Smith dragged Kifer's body into the workshop and laid it on top of Brady's, Wartner said. Smith told investigators he thought he heard Kifer gasping, so he placed his revolver under her chin and fired what he told police was a 'good clean finishing shot to the head,' the assistant prosecutor said."
Horrible isn't it? she was a danger to no one at that point.
The intruder, unless they have some weird compulsive disorder, is the party who makes the conscious decision to do something that carries a risk of putting them in harms way so they're the one who has the best opportunity to alter the outcome by not breaking into somebody's house.
I think the point is more that a person who breaks into somebody else's house has obviously made a conscious decision to do so and, thus, they have opportunity to reconsider that action and not break into another person's house.
A home-owner who encounters an intruder has no such luxury. All they can do is respond to the situation which the intruder initiated.
That's true, but once the householder has disabled them by shooting them and is aware that that they are dying, is no justification for executing them.
Horrible isn't it? she was a danger to no one at that point.
His own words make me feel sick...as though he felt he was somehow being humane - like dealing with a wounded animal, putting it out of its misery with a final shot to its head.
I get the impression from reading some of the dm comments, that in his state, he has the right to shoot those that enter his property, so it is unlikely that he will go down for murder. I sincerely hope that he does not go to jail for murder, after all there have been many cases where the innocent home owner gets shot. I only hope this case may prevent other kids from breaking into peoples houses.
Those pair from the same family ( I've met many criminal families via work and sadly they rarely change and the crimes get more severe and frequent when they grow up) had already been in trouble before, so they reaped what they sowed. Had they escaped unharmed they probably would have started bringing guns with them. I guess they will never get the chance.:)
I don't agree with the death penalty for many reasons, but I do wonder if we did have that for people who think it is OK to enter another man's property to steal, would the rate of this truly awful crime go down?
Im sure this has already been said, but if they were not doing wrong in the first place then they would not have been killed.
His own words make me feel sick...as though he felt he was somehow being humane - like dealing with a wounded animal, putting it out of its misery with a final shot to its head.
I doubt they had any empathy or compassion for anyone, hence why they did what they did. He had dangerous pests in his house, he had every right to get rid of them.
Dunno about anyone else but I'd rather have the Police and due process determine punishments for crimes committed rather than allow anarchy via everyone becoming judge, jury and executioner.
Maybe. Which goes to show that you shouldn't go breaking in folks' houses, because they might just be paranoid, agitated and / or delusional, with a big gun.
Yes! that is what potential criminals need to get into their head. Sadly some criminals are all to aware of this and instead of making them think twice, they bring weapons to defend themselves>:( How dare innocent homeowners spoil their robbing spree.
I can see a case whereby someone may have been driven to the edge if they had had their property broken into numerous times. If the guy was laying in wait for them how did he know for sure they were about to break in? Another poster said the same guy had broken into his property before. I think I might start to go a bit mental with the anguish/stress of it all etc. I wonder how much the police had done in this mans case prior to the murders. He definitely sounds like someone not in control of his emotions etc anyway.
The guy sounds like a complete psychopath and probably more of a danger than what those kids would ever have been.
Perhaps he was/is.
But as far as we know he has lived for 65 years without causing anybody harm and the two he killed couldn't manage 20.
Seems to me people are missing the obvious. Older man lives alone, home is targeted by local teenagers on many occasions.
It's not rocket science to understand what has been going on before this happened.
I'll bet money that if he had a mental condition (actually I don't think there is any dispute about that after the way he behaved) and was being bullied and targeted by local teenagers, half here condemming him now would be finding excuses.
Bottom line is, two teenagers with a lot going for them (from the article) never gave a moments thought to what they were doing to other people.
Sometimes Karma can be a bitch.
Maybe. Which goes to show that you shouldn't go breaking in folks' houses, because they might just be paranoid, agitated and / or delusional, with a big gun.
I'm sorry but this is the type of person who's actions you are excusing:
He shot the girl under the chin to finish her off because he knew it would work better because there is no bone there. He also shot her in the eye and behind the ear, all at point blank range. He shot the boy in the head at point blank range, after already shooting him in the stomach and back.
'He's looking, facing up at me, and I shoot him in the face. I want him dead' - Smith's own words.
'I just pulled out the 22 and I shot her...I did a good, clean finishing shot and she gave out the death twitch.' - Smith's own words.
This is not defending yourself or your property, this is killing two teenagers and enjoying it. The fact they were in the process of comitting a crime is irrelevant, that does not allow one to administer their own criminal desires; which is exactly what this is.
There is a world of difference between defending yourself, your family and your property from an active threat and undertaking an execution in this manner. His actions are not self defense.
Just playing devils advocate; if he had raped the girl, would you be saying "she shouldn't have broken into the property"?
Yes! that is what potential criminals need to get into their head. Sadly some criminals are all to aware of this and instead of making them think twice, they bring weapons to defend themselves>:( How dare innocent homeowners spoil their robbing spree.
Seriously, the report sounds more like a flipping scene from a mob movie than an innocent home owner defending himself.
Personally, I know which of the two parties from this story scare and give the chills the most, and it isn't the "theiving scum".
I'd say it's more likely to lead to someone arming themselves if they're desperate enough in the first place to be breaking into houses.
No reason to assume they were desperate. It's a good story and helps to explain actions but maybe this was just recreation for them. Not everyone tries to do positive things with their time.
If the homeowner lay in wait with the intent to kill then it is pre-meditated murder. It doesn't matter whether he knew the specific person who would be killed, nor does it matter if they were there to burgle him. That's why he is being prosecuted - because, according to the prosecution, he decided to kill the people who broke in before they did.
I know someone who lay in wait for a burglar on several occasions but only managed to go out and chase the guy when he'd shone a torch through a window. I'm sure it wouldn't have been too pretty if he'd caught him. I know he wasn't out to kill but he'd have been prepared to hurt the person and quite rightly so in my eyes.
I doubt they had any empathy or compassion for anyone, hence why they did what they did. He had dangerous pests in his house, he had every right to get rid of them.
Well, of course he has no legal right to get rid of human beings.
I get the impression that he knew they thought he wasn't in as the prosecution made a thing of him moving his truck away from the house - almost as an invitation to the burglars to break in as he wasn't there.
When the owner's vehicle was absent burglars would assume the home is empty but no one would hide their car to make it look like they were out for no reason. This person was obviously suffering as a result of being regularly targeted and understandably hated the people who were victimising him.
People don't have to break into your property even once never mind repeatedly. They choose to. Now these two individuals have lost their lives. Lives that they'd decided to spend breaking into peoples' homes and stealing prescription drugs to get high. What worthwhile existences they imposed upon themselves.
Someone who was fed up of being tortured by their behaviour lay in wait for them; maybe once, maybe every night. Who knows? We do know that he believed they'd be back yet again - and they were.
If he hadn't executed them, would there have been an end to their burglaries? If someone hadn't lain in wait would they ever have been caught at all and even if they were and went to court, would they have stopped or would they have continued with their productive lives breaking and entering and necking pills until someone else shot them?
This is not defending yourself or your property, this is killing two teenagers and enjoying it.
The fact they were in the process of comitting a crime is irrelevant, that does not allow one to administer their own criminal desires; which is exactly what this is.
No, it is both. He did it in such a way that would be deemed illegal but it was defending his property. The people he shot had broken in.
The fact they were in the process of committing a crime is extremely relevant. We don't know anything about him every shooting anyone else.
Just playing devils advocate; if he had raped the girl, would you be saying "she shouldn't have broken into the property"?
Raping an intruder would not be a way of eliminating the threat they pose. Injuring or killing them would. Obviously he didn't actually need to kill them in this case, he chose to.
I can see a case whereby someone may have been driven to the edge if they had had their property broken into numerous times. If the guy was laying in wait for them how did he know for sure they were about to break in? Another poster said the same guy had broken into his property before. I think I might start to go a bit mental with the anguish/stress of it all etc. I wonder how much the police had done in this mans case prior to the murders. He definitely sounds like someone not in control of his emotions etc anyway.
The same thing happened to Tony Martin.
Drove him hatstand. He took to sleeping fully clothed in a chair with a loaded shotgun on his lap.
I'm sorry but this is the type of person who's actions you are excusing:
You're another who seems make the leap from making a sober observation about what people really ought not to do, to excusing and advocating what subsequently happens to them.
I think this case is just liiiiiitle bit more complex than that;-)
The poor homeowner sounds like he was driven mad by the threat of crime/ break in.
I work with offenders and a lot of them have no concern or consideration for their victims what so ever. They need to be deterred from committing crimes. Severe injury or death may make them think twice about breaking into a innocent persons house.
Comments
Had he shot them, even killed them, because he found them on his property and believed they presented a risk to him it could then be be self defence - if he lost his temper and acted out of rage, then voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder depending on the type of intent.
Maybe. Which goes to show that you shouldn't go breaking in folks' houses, because they might just be paranoid, agitated and / or delusional, with a big gun.
Well, yeah, but it's rather futile to tell a nutter not to be a nutter. It's kinda like telling rapists not to rape people.
The intruder, unless they have some weird compulsive disorder, is the party who makes the conscious decision to do something that carries a risk of putting them in harms way so they're the one who has the best opportunity to alter the outcome by not breaking into somebody's house.
However, saying that, I think the homeowner went way beyond necessary force and action. I mean, they were incapacitated and posed no immediate threat to him, his family or his home and he acted as judge and executioner. It may have felt like justice to him, but I don't think that should be called justice in any civil society based on the principle of fairness and as a result has due process (which he would benefit from).
And the shooter makes a conscious decision too.
His own words make me feel sick...as though he felt he was somehow being humane - like dealing with a wounded animal, putting it out of its misery with a final shot to its head.
Those pair from the same family ( I've met many criminal families via work and sadly they rarely change and the crimes get more severe and frequent when they grow up) had already been in trouble before, so they reaped what they sowed. Had they escaped unharmed they probably would have started bringing guns with them. I guess they will never get the chance.:)
I don't agree with the death penalty for many reasons, but I do wonder if we did have that for people who think it is OK to enter another man's property to steal, would the rate of this truly awful crime go down?
Im sure this has already been said, but if they were not doing wrong in the first place then they would not have been killed.
I doubt they had any empathy or compassion for anyone, hence why they did what they did. He had dangerous pests in his house, he had every right to get rid of them.
The guy sounds like a complete psychopath and probably more of a danger than what those kids would ever have been.
Yes! that is what potential criminals need to get into their head. Sadly some criminals are all to aware of this and instead of making them think twice, they bring weapons to defend themselves>:( How dare innocent homeowners spoil their robbing spree.
Perhaps he was/is.
But as far as we know he has lived for 65 years without causing anybody harm and the two he killed couldn't manage 20.
Seems to me people are missing the obvious. Older man lives alone, home is targeted by local teenagers on many occasions.
It's not rocket science to understand what has been going on before this happened.
I'll bet money that if he had a mental condition (actually I don't think there is any dispute about that after the way he behaved) and was being bullied and targeted by local teenagers, half here condemming him now would be finding excuses.
Bottom line is, two teenagers with a lot going for them (from the article) never gave a moments thought to what they were doing to other people.
Sometimes Karma can be a bitch.
I'm sorry but this is the type of person who's actions you are excusing:
This is not defending yourself or your property, this is killing two teenagers and enjoying it. The fact they were in the process of comitting a crime is irrelevant, that does not allow one to administer their own criminal desires; which is exactly what this is.
There is a world of difference between defending yourself, your family and your property from an active threat and undertaking an execution in this manner. His actions are not self defense.
Just playing devils advocate; if he had raped the girl, would you be saying "she shouldn't have broken into the property"?
Seriously, the report sounds more like a flipping scene from a mob movie than an innocent home owner defending himself.
Personally, I know which of the two parties from this story scare and give the chills the most, and it isn't the "theiving scum".
They took the risk now they're dead, oh well.
I know someone who lay in wait for a burglar on several occasions but only managed to go out and chase the guy when he'd shone a torch through a window. I'm sure it wouldn't have been too pretty if he'd caught him. I know he wasn't out to kill but he'd have been prepared to hurt the person and quite rightly so in my eyes.
Well, of course he has no legal right to get rid of human beings.
A danger to who? If he's a danger to society then bearing in mind his age, he should have plenty of previous to take into consideration.
When the owner's vehicle was absent burglars would assume the home is empty but no one would hide their car to make it look like they were out for no reason. This person was obviously suffering as a result of being regularly targeted and understandably hated the people who were victimising him.
People don't have to break into your property even once never mind repeatedly. They choose to. Now these two individuals have lost their lives. Lives that they'd decided to spend breaking into peoples' homes and stealing prescription drugs to get high. What worthwhile existences they imposed upon themselves.
Someone who was fed up of being tortured by their behaviour lay in wait for them; maybe once, maybe every night. Who knows? We do know that he believed they'd be back yet again - and they were.
If he hadn't executed them, would there have been an end to their burglaries? If someone hadn't lain in wait would they ever have been caught at all and even if they were and went to court, would they have stopped or would they have continued with their productive lives breaking and entering and necking pills until someone else shot them?
The fact they were in the process of committing a crime is extremely relevant. We don't know anything about him every shooting anyone else.
Raping an intruder would not be a way of eliminating the threat they pose. Injuring or killing them would. Obviously he didn't actually need to kill them in this case, he chose to.
The same thing happened to Tony Martin.
Drove him hatstand. He took to sleeping fully clothed in a chair with a loaded shotgun on his lap.
You're another who seems make the leap from making a sober observation about what people really ought not to do, to excusing and advocating what subsequently happens to them.
I think this case is just liiiiiitle bit more complex than that;-)
The poor homeowner sounds like he was driven mad by the threat of crime/ break in.
I work with offenders and a lot of them have no concern or consideration for their victims what so ever. They need to be deterred from committing crimes. Severe injury or death may make them think twice about breaking into a innocent persons house.