Why is a question of "when is use of force justified" irrelevant in a thread about the justified used of force? Sounds like it's just an uncomfortable topic for you to discuss.
There are quite a few people having trouble reading the complaint correctly. He killed the boy by shooting him in the head; then he moved him. Yes, he moved and executed the girl, by his statement. But his statement about the boy reads like he shot him...boy fell down the stair case into the basement where the owner was...so, owner shot him again. The dude admitted to executing the girl. I don't see the need for anyone here to exaggerate and assume statements about the boy's killing. That killing sounds as close to being justified as it sounds like being murder. We don't know from the complaint, but we do know the man was not withholding his testimony about the girl, so why would he about the boy, too.
I don't think the article gave enough info on the boy. Here is what we have: In the complaint, Smith said he was in his basement when he heard a window breaking upstairs, followed by footsteps that eventually approached the basement stairwell. Smith said he fired when Brady came into view from the waist down. After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. "I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith telling an investigator. The first shot is clearly justified. After that, it becomes a bit more murky. If he's unconscious on the floor and the guy thought "I want him dead" just for hell of it, that's a problem. If he was conscious and potentially still a threat, and he was thinking "I want him dead for my safety", that's a different thing.
This thread has really taken off. Just a few brief comments. MN law does require notification of a killing in self defense and I think it is prompt notification . MN also doesn't have a death penalty.
No question he should have called the police immediately. However there are defense attorneys out there that would LOVE to take this case because they can make a name for themselves. The brutal honesty of the home owner, coupled with a history of prior burglaries of his home can be used as a launching pad for a defense claim.
so you approve of him executing the unarmed girl, but also want the world rid of this danger to society that kills people who break into his private residence and threaten his safety? a whole lotta nonsense being spewed in this thread. i think there's too much sympathy being factored in to the age/gender/societal status of the criminals who broke in to this mans house and compromised his safety, and i don't think it's fair factoring that in whatsoever - any burglar is one in the same. if these were 2 adult male gangbangers and he executed them and let them rot in his basement for a week, i'm guessing none of you guys would be calling this guy a menace to society.
Guy, you are legitimately off your rocker. We get it, people who break into your house are bad. Doesn't mean you get to execute them if you are not in any danger, sorry.
He'd still deserve to go to jail, even if I would have a different level of sympathy for the victims. Everyone makes mistakes. Some bigger than others. Most, especially the young, deserve another chance to grow into better people.
all this is very easy to say when you are on the outside looking in, and not the homeowner whose safety was compromised.
His safety wasn't compromised when he put a gun up to an incapacitated person and shot them through the head in an execution. As he admitted, he just wanted to kill them.
You're right. If I was in his shoes, I wouldn't have a gun since I don't own one. They would most likely still be alive, and I'd be buying new stuff.
