Trial Begins For Man Accused Of Murde...

Trial Begins For Man Accused Of Murdering 2 Teens

There are 54 comments on the CBS Local story from Apr 21, 2014, titled Trial Begins For Man Accused Of Murdering 2 Teens. In it, CBS Local reports that:

Opening statements are expected to get under way in the case of a central Minnesota man who shot and killed two teens who entered his home.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS Local.

Yuletide

Seattle, WA

#23 Apr 23, 2014
His method of defense was extreme.

Their methods of burglary were extreme.(Three times in two months at the same residence. Perhaps more.)

Extreme behavior tends to initiate an extreme response.

I wish Mr Smith had shot twice and contacted police immediately. That being said, those young people stalked this man and repeatedly violated his home and and belongings. They taunted him over and over again and did not learn from their convictions.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#24 Apr 23, 2014
Buckshot wrote:
You enter my house with a weapon.....you're open game
If you wind up executing someone you've already shot in legal self defense of your home (legal up to the point of your executing the trespasser) just be sure to say that explicitly to the cops like this poor MN sad sack did - that you executed them.

Since you think you're discussing legal behavior and all....
Pretty People

United States

#25 Apr 23, 2014
This story should have never even made the news. The only reason it did as the girl was kinda cute.
I think this trial is a waste of time and money.
It is a sad state of affairs that a senior citizen sitting in his on home quietly reading has to be the repeated victim of habitual criminals. I side with Mr. Smith 100%. Of course he isn't very cute.
Yuletide

Seattle, WA

#26 Apr 23, 2014
He intended to eliminate the threat. He's not making excuses. That's for sure. He was beyond finished with the continual violation of his home and property. Just looking at the signs erected all over his property shows his distressed mental state. They pushed too hard. He pushed back too hard.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#27 Apr 23, 2014
Yuletide wrote:
He intended to eliminate the threat. He's not making excuses. That's for sure. He was beyond finished with the continual violation of his home and property. Just looking at the signs erected all over his property shows his distressed mental state. They pushed too hard. He pushed back too hard.
We know what he did and what his problems are. We also know the dead people were criminals.

The only matter under discussion is some posters' apparent belief that he acted entirely within his rights. Or that they (these posters) could do the exact same thing, mention it openly to the police, and not face prosecution.

They're almost as confused as this MN homeowner.
Yuletide

Seattle, WA

#28 Apr 23, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
<quoted text>
We know what he did and what his problems are. We also know the dead people were criminals.
The only matter under discussion is some posters' apparent belief that he acted entirely within his rights. Or that they (these posters) could do the exact same thing, mention it openly to the police, and not face prosecution.
They're almost as confused as this MN homeowner.
His reaction is not normal. That being said, if my home had been broken into eleven times, or even two times recently, particularly by the same person who was convicted not once, but twice, I am certain my mental state would not be normal at that point either. He went into full battle mode. The prosecution of him is correct under the circumstances. I will be surprised if he is convicted however.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#29 Apr 23, 2014
Yuletide wrote:
<quoted text>
His reaction is not normal. That being said, if my home had been broken into eleven times, or even two times recently, particularly by the same person who was convicted not once, but twice, I am certain my mental state would not be normal at that point either. He went into full battle mode. The prosecution of him is correct under the circumstances. I will be surprised if he is convicted however.
You mean his lawyer can successfully argue not guilty by reason of insanity?

That still doesn't come without some penalty or restrictions.

And that out for him does not address these posts, or yours, which maintain these posters would act in the same way and admit it and get away with it, because, as they opine, you get to do whatever you want [sic] when someone breaks into your home.

You don't get to do whatever you want. The law tends to provide a lot of latitude as to what you may do. Not total carte blanche. Especially if you own up to a fact pattern like this one.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#30 Apr 23, 2014
I meant to add that of course his mental state would tend to lessen any sentence if he doesn't avoid criminal culpability entirely by reason of insanity.

Again, that doesn't mean a homeowner gets to do _whatever_ he wants when faced with people who broke in. It can't go beyond what the law says is self defense.
Yuletide

Seattle, WA

#31 Apr 23, 2014
Xstain,
I do not argue that a person can do whatever the heck they want once someone enters their home illegally. They cannot.

This is an extraordinary case because the burglars had Smith's home on their bi weekly hit list.

I am not saying insanity is a defense. What can be reasonably argued in this case in my opinion is that the burglars caused extreme mental anxiety and fear causing his eventual reaction to be extreme.

I wish he had shot them each once and called police.
Xstain Mullah Franchisee

Philadelphia, PA

#32 Apr 23, 2014
Yuletide wrote:
Xstain,
I do not argue that a person can do whatever the heck they want once someone enters their home illegally. They cannot....What can be reasonably argued in this case in my opinion is that the burglars caused extreme mental anxiety and fear causing his eventual reaction to be extreme.
Right, temporary insanity, in so many words. And I conceded that any sentence he gets will certainly be reduced on the basis of his irrational actions during and after the executions he perpetrated.

Other posters have clearly indicated they think the homeowner is [sic] free to summarily execute disabled intruders. In fact, I might double check your earlier posts in this regard....
sdo

United States

#33 Apr 24, 2014
keeping_distance wrote:
They didn't belong in his house, and he had other break-ins before this. He was just looking out for his own welfare, it's his home.
It's like buyer beware, or ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK, u break into someones home UP TO NO GOOD , this is what can happen to u.
In schools They should have a A mandatory class Teaching kids Exactly what you just posted.
Then give them a test on it.
Somehow make the kids know and understand The dangers out there
Yuletide

Seattle, WA

#34 Apr 24, 2014
Xstain Mullah Franchisee wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, temporary insanity, in so many words. And I conceded that any sentence he gets will certainly be reduced on the basis of his irrational actions during and after the executions he perpetrated.
Other posters have clearly indicated they think the homeowner is [sic] free to summarily execute disabled intruders. In fact, I might double check your earlier posts in this regard....
Feel free to check my earlier posts. While I understand you taking issue with those that feel a person can do anything any time to someone who enters their home illegally, I fail to see why you have singled me out as one of those people.

Mr. Smith is no ordinary man. Nick Brady et al were not ordinary burglars either. They terrorized a senior citizen over and over again.
Latter Day Faints

Philadelphia, PA

#35 Apr 24, 2014
Yuletide wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to check my earlier posts. While I understand you taking issue with those that feel a person can do anything any time to someone who enters their home illegally, I fail to see why you have singled me out as one of those people.
Mr. Smith is no ordinary man. Nick Brady et al were not ordinary burglars either. They terrorized a senior citizen over and over again.
I agree there are mitigating factors in the shooter's evident state of mind and in the behavior of the two dead teens, but I don't think that adds up to "no conviction" as you posted.

Let's think this through:

"No conviction" would, in fact, indicate that you think this homeowner had a right to commit two summary executions in his home.

I guess that is why I attributed that notion to you.
Latter Day Faints

Philadelphia, PA

#36 Apr 24, 2014
sdo wrote:
<quoted text>
In schools They should have a A mandatory class Teaching kids Exactly what you just posted.
Then give them a test on it.
Somehow make the kids know and understand The dangers out there
Right, another one with imaginary laws rattling around in his head.

The law is not "anything goes," particularly if you explain to the police after the fact that you intended to execute a pair of already shot intruders and did so.
Sally

Rowlett, TX

#37 Apr 24, 2014
Now I suppose anyone who keeps a gun close to them in their own LOCKED home can be charged with "lying in wait," if they use that handy weapon to kill intruders. Secondly, no one who has ever been shot and fallen has still reached for a gun and shot someone... or have they? IF he;d shot them each once, would he still have been charged with "lying in wait?" Which member of the police force had offered to be free security for his home 24 hours a day. Now, he could have left the home, instead of pretending to and come home to his best most valuable stuff stolen...
Surely as an American, that is his duty.

Here is an interesting thought, "You've shot an intruder, making a hellava lot of noise. Afterwards, another intruder STILL has the balls to descend the staircase.... Just how armed and dangerous would you have the common sense to assume that second intruder was?!?!?

It's probably better to use the biggest buckshot possible the first time, keep your mouth shut, other than to say, "I feared for my life and shot some intruders who broke in through a window, please send and ambulance and police." This call should be made within a few minutes. Don't record your stupid comments BTW!! Don't talk to police, do talk to your lawyer, let the prosecution try to convict you without your testimony. ALL problems solved, including two little jackasses who are now out of the gene pool!
Yuletide

Seattle, WA

#38 Apr 24, 2014
Latter Day Faints wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree there are mitigating factors in the shooter's evident state of mind and in the behavior of the two dead teens, but I don't think that adds up to "no conviction" as you posted.
Let's think this through:
"No conviction" would, in fact, indicate that you think this homeowner had a right to commit two summary executions in his home.
I guess that is why I attributed that notion to you.
In this particular case, given the number of break ins and convictions I don't feel this particular homeowner should be convicted. I would not feel that way under every circumstance. They targeted this man. They stalked him. Repeatedly. I would like to see him set free to live out his life.
Latter Day Faints

Philadelphia, PA

#39 Apr 24, 2014
Yuletide wrote:
<quoted text>
In this particular case, given the number of break ins and convictions I don't feel this particular homeowner should be convicted. I would not feel that way under every circumstance. They targeted this man. They stalked him. Repeatedly. I would like to see him set free to live out his life.
Right, you're saying you think he could do whatever he wanted in this instance. Funny how I grouped you in with the people who are also saying that, even if they don't claim to be saying about just this case.

But you don't even know to say convicted of what charge. That means, if you would think it through, that you don't want him charged with anything....

I mean, why charge him if you already think he shouldn't be convicted?
Latter Day Faints

Philadelphia, PA

#40 Apr 24, 2014
Sally wrote:
Now I suppose anyone who keeps a gun close to them in their own LOCKED home can be charged with "lying in wait,"
That has nothing to do with what happened here. You've gone into over dramatization. It was two, openly admitted, stark executions. It was not merely having a gun for home defense, nor even using it for self defense. Again, this went way beyond anything like that.

I think you don't know what a "fact pattern" is.

And the old guy is equally someone who should have been kept out of the gene pool.
Yuletide

Seattle, WA

#41 Apr 24, 2014
Latter Day Faints wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, you're saying you think he could do whatever he wanted in this instance. Funny how I grouped you in with the people who are also saying that, even if they don't claim to be saying about just this case.
But you don't even know to say convicted of what charge. That means, if you would think it through, that you don't want him charged with anything....
I mean, why charge him if you already think he shouldn't be convicted?
Because its a judgment call. All the facts and background need to be considered in my opinion. The charges are correct and in this situation only, given the background I think this Senior citizen should be allowed his freedom by a jury of his peers.

I would like to know why Nick's family, after he was convicted of burglarizing Mr. Smith the second time, did not take drastic action to repay Mr. Smith and get their habitual felon into boot camp for reform.
Latter Day Faints

Philadelphia, PA

#42 Apr 24, 2014
Yuletide wrote:
<quoted text>
The charges are correct and in this situation only
You have already posted that you don't think he should be convicted of anything.

Your statement that the charges are correct here therefore makes no sense, because you don't charge people if you don't think they should or will be convicted.

I'm not sure you have a grasp of the basics of the legal system.

I agree there are a lot of mitigating factors here...beyond the guy summarily executing two people and then openly telling the police that's what he intended to do and did....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 4 min _Susan_ 8,802
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min Dont_You_Dare 19,673
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 7 min Calisportsgirl 5,116
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 17 min Dont_You_Dare 2,929
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 22 min AliceBlue 197,293
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 28 min Poppyann 44,586
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 30 min Interesting Data 59,675
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 32 min Dman 33,147
More from around the web