From what the story says, it seems to me there were three idiots in that house, and the one who should have been old enough to know better is the only survivor. What a tragic mess.

I guess the moral of the story is DON'T BREAK THE LAW. It was probably a matter of time before those two criminals met a bad end if they have been breaking and entering and stealing from family already.

Now the idiots of this country will sob and wail on the "loss of life" and how tragic it all is... why don't we just start raising kids who have a moral code instead of banning religion and taking the psych "happy pills"?

The man did the right thing. Hisonly problem is he didn't call the cops right away and report it. But better to kill them, then have them sue you. Just stateing a fact. He could have come up with a better story. I would have.

After eight burglaries sounds like the kids of the area need to be told and told harshly to stop robbing the "easy mark" old man because he wasn't so easy. Consider them told. His only mistake was not burying them about fifty miles from his house. Once you bust in to a persons home all bets are off.

The man went over the line but this has nothing to do with gun "nuts"...unless you are advocating people steal from you and you just sit there and take it. Yes. This man would have done what he did, gun or not...interestingly, his guns were mere peashooters in comparison to weapons others have...

If there is a report that says juveniles robbed his sister's house, clearly there is a problem with thefts in the area and police should have done a better job...or parents should have been taking care of their kids. Sorry but that is the absolute truth. I almost feel sorry for the man.

Although I understand that legally he was probably wrong, justice was served in this case. You break in my home and i'm there, theres no question at all that i'm going to make sure you leave covered with a sheet. Thats the chance you take by being a burglar. They received exactly what they deserved.

I'm a gun nut and I wholehartedly agree with the charge of murder.

The man was defending his home from intruders. He had a history of break-ins at his home. The mistake he made was providing the investigators with a twisted account of how he took pleasure in killing the teenagers. He does sound sort of sick.

I believe the charge is warranted...but at the same time...I fully understand his rage...a man's home being violated is probably the closest he can come to feel how a women feels when she is raped.

If you're breaking into a house, be prepared to die.

These two broke into the house thinking "it's just an old man, he won't do anything."

And now they're dead...

This guy lived up to the old saying, "You just got on my last nerve." Yeah, it's terribly cold-blooded, as he was in his mind killing everyone who had ever stolen from him, not just these two almost-kids. He snapped, and if he were upper-class, or younger and prettier, he'd have a chance of being found "not guilty by reason of insanity" after his $500/hr. attorney explained how all of the thefts had caused him to develop PTSD and then brought in a $2000/day "expert witness" to verify this. As it is, he'll probably spend most if not all of the rest of his life in prison. He's simply not a sympathetic victim, either in looks or in actions.

The two victims were wrong to break into his house and I think a homeowner would be justified in shooting them but once each of them fell to the ground after being shot the homeowner should've called the cops and just kept an eye on the burglars. The only exception is if they were armed with a gun and posed a threat then I think he would be justified in shooting additional shots at them if they still posed a threat once they were hit. I can understand his rage at having his home broken into and losing quite a bit of valuables but, as we all know, life often sucks, and if you let your anger get the better of you it will end up sucking even more.

If these two "teens" broke into this man's house, he has every right to shoot them dead. And he has the right to shoot them dead without waiting to evaluate the situation to determine whether, say, they might have been armed. The fact that these intruders were "teens", and manner in which they were killed is irrelevant.

The fact that he methodically shot them dead merely muddies the legal waters. Had he been in a sheer panic when he shot them dead, there would have been no question about whether he had handled the situation in a reasonable manner.

The entire situation is an ugly and tragic event, but the sole responsibility for this chain of events rests with the "teens". As distasteful as this man's actions seem to have been, the murder charges against him should be dropped.

Doggone, you can't safely break into homes now a days?

Two less scumbags in the world, not shedding a tear for either one. The kill shot to the girl was a bit over the top but if more home owners would shoot intruders in their homes we would see a huge reduction of home invasion robberies, at least from repeat offenders.

Home break ins are getting dangerous.. I'm gonna have to go back to car jacking and armed robbery... probably a lot safer..... but seriously. the kill shots were probably more than just a little extreme... but hey, If you had been robbed a bunch of times for quite a load of valuables that I'm sure it took the old guy a bit of time and effort to accumulate, you'd probably get a little crazy too...

I'm a "gun nut" I own a bunch of them and I love them all. that said, this has nothing to do with guns. This has to do with our constitutional right to property. We are allowed to own our own home and we are allowed to protect that home. Everything else here is just details.

I suppose there are those who would have considered this killing more justified if the man had shot them each just once in the head and then sat crying and praying for gods forgiveness until the police arrived. I suppose that would be more forgiving than making it sound like a deer that almost got away, but the reality is the cause and the result of this situation remain the same. These teens broke into his home, again, and he decided it was time to defend his home. Regardless of his attitude, he was within his constitutional rights to do so. They may decide to prosecute him on some of the lesser offenses such as tampering with evidence or failure to notify police in a timely manner but the murder charge will never stick and it shouldn't.

This man should be allowed to go home.

What the hell is going on with the picture of this guy? He looks like he has GHOST EYES!

I'm too creeped out to go to bed now.

I see Takenaka showed up quickly.

Ban handguns. LOL. You mean ensure that law abiding citizens won't have any.

Register? Sure, most states do that, right? Like, already?

Make America safe? Lofty goal, and an admirable one. Perhaps it should start with accountability.

Although if you research crime statistics, you see that America is actually - gasp! - getting safer.

Without banning a thing.

No correlation and causality here - makes your argument weak, pal.

Weak.

Rightous shooting. it sounds like they got what they coming, they probably would have not hesitated to offer the same to an old man. Maybe if their parents had taught them some respect for law and order in the first place

He was robbed several times and these idiots even robbed a family member. The first time he pulled the trigger on each of them was just. And I even agree with the follow on shots he put in each of them. If he didnt kill them they could of sued him. Thats the F'd up part about this country not the gun nuts. But since he killed them after they were no longer threats is why they are charging him with murder 2. Stand up for yourselves people. And I would even wager If these teens were older no one would give a damn. I also bet if they were let to live longer one of thier next robberies could of ended in the killing someone. This man just saved us all some money.

I'm really surprised so many of you think shooting these kids was just. Someone breaking into your house is not an excuse to EXECUTE THEM when they are no longer a threat. Especially with the girl when she was on the ground. Truly disgusting.

Personally, I don't believe a word of this guy's story without some good solid evidence. Let's wait for forensics to have a look and see if his story matches up and just how much cleaning up after himself he did.

Look at this objectively; he moved the bodies, waited over a day before informing the police, and at least one of the shots was at point blank range under the chin of the 2nd female victim.

This is not anything resembling a normal crime scene. Clearly, if he waited that long to go to the cops, he didn't want the cops to know something; just because he went to the cops, doesn't mean he told them the truth. If he figured he could get away with it if he told the right story, then going to the cops becomes an option.

He knew he couldn't lie about shooting that girl under the chin and he knew he couldn't lie about moving them around before finally killing them.

He had a lot of time to think about what he would and wouldn't say to the cops; it looks like that was intentional. Only a fool would just let this guy off based on this crazy story.

Only a crazy person would do the things he said he did, and secondly, only a crazy person would say those things lie or no lie.

How do you know he didn't lure them down there? And if they did break in, how do you know he didn't get the drop on them and then just decide to kill them because he figured he could get away with it? You'd have to take this guy's word for it... and after that story, there's no way in hell I would consider his testimony entirely credible.

From what I see in this article...and I could be off a bit, it seems that this family (brother and sister) were targeted by the kids repeated times. It's like they got together and said "Let's go break into Smith's house, it's fun f'ing with him!" They're the crazies in this town to mess with! We had people like that in our neighborhood, but we rang the bell and ran...we would have never broken and entered, and being 10 that's the extent of the mischief. Now adays these kids aren't mischievous, they're destructive and brazen. When you know someone's "off" and repeatedly mess with them, what did anyone think would happen?

Each of you cheering these murders are hard-hearted wannabe killers. This man committed murder without reason. It doesn't matter how many times he has been burglarized, shooting people in the stomach so they will fall down the stairs so you can then kill them is chichen s%&t - just like the rest of you who support him. I hope he gets the maximum penalty.

I'm a "gun nut" I own a bunch of them and I love them all. that said, this has nothing to do with guns. This has to do with our constitutional right to property. We are allowed to own our own home and we are allowed to protect that home. Everything else here is just details

What does your "constitutional right to property" have to do with shooting someone several times - to ensure they are dead when that person didn't even have a weapon? There are other options like shooting to wound or calling the police.

I feel bad for the guy. Honest, law abiding citizen in his own home whose life was destroyed by these two thugs. I'm proud of him for taking out these 2 criminals. I'm proud of him for taking pleasure in it.

It's time to feel bad for the good guys rather than all this liberal love for the criminals. I hope he gets off.

If you initiate a crime, then the consequences are your own. How was he to know they were not going to kill him or if they had weapons? All he saw was 2 people breaking in...could have been more. People whining just because he got the upper hand on these 2 criminals and finished the job.

Let someone put a gun in their face and see how they feel...I bet they won't feel sorry for the criminals after that.

They broke into his house. Yes justified, if they were not committing a crime they would not have been shot. End of story. He should have waited to see if they were carrying weapons, shoot back at him, cut him with a knife, box cutter etc? Whatever.. You can cry a river that he was excessive the fact remains, he did not shoot them on the street, in his yard, in a playground or at a mall. IT WAS IN HIS HOUSE WHERE THEY DID NOT BELONG!!!! Let the bleeding heart bashings begin.

No, Cooper, he may have been justified in the first shot, however once they were disabled, he should have restrained them, and called the cops. Keep in mind the first shot to both of them were probably non-fatal. When he kept shooting after dragging them down to his basement, that is when he crossed the line. There is a difference between defending one's home, and cold blooded murder once a crime in progress has been stopped.

Rational part of me thinks the kill shot was over doing it. But the lizard part of the brain knows I'd do my best to kill somebody breaking into my home.

Too bad he didn't come up with a better/ more sympathetic story than the one he told the cops...

Here's the thing about his story that makes me think he's lying through his teeth about the whole thing - the boy comes down the basement stairs, and he shoots him, then shoots him again...and the girl, unless she's stone deaf (or he lives in a mansion) then COMES DOWN THE BASEMENT STAIRS??? After hearing several gunshots??? I just can't believe that she would do anything at this point except haul ass away from there. I honestly believe that he killed them both in cold blood, for some sort of revenge or personal pleasure.

Mr Smith did the state and residents of Minnesota a huge favor. You multiply the number of kids they would have had by how many years they would have been left free to commit other more serious crimes. Multiply that by at least 25 to 30 thousand a year state financial and medical aid per person or time in jail and prison and it saved the state and their county at least a couple of million for about 10 years. With the state picking up the tab for supporting their two prospective spouses and families. Let this do gooder go. He did the right thing.

Sam- Why so they could sue him for shooting them?

Eric- he didn't drag them into his basement he shot them while they were coming down into the basement where he was.

This is not even a discussion if THEY WERE NOT BREAKING THE LAW. They would be alive and well today save the fact they were engaged in criminal activity. This crime (B&E with someone present) in their state is punishable by 20 years in prison. They become even better criminals at the taxpayers expense and kill someone the next time. Yes my all means lets have sympathy for the criminal and hang the homeowner. Perhaps if your home is broken in to, you will serve cookies and milk to the kids till the cops arrive.

They tell you to make sure if someone's breaking in your home to allow them to get all the way inside before you pop a cap in their asz. That way it looks like self-defense and you'll not be prosecuted.

Then when someone breaks inside you have to be discriminating about how you go about popping a cap in them. Either way, whether you shoot them once or 20 times their going to be dead. Sure, this guy was over the top & seemed to enjoy it but where do you draw the line? Is it better to stab them or hit them with a bat & end up getting the weapon turned on you? Or do you just sit there and let them rob you them call the cops later so you can look more innocent?

Appears to be he was looking for a good reason to do what he was capable of doing even if he didn't have a reason. He killed them in cold blood and enjoyed every minute of it. Murder is justified.

You break into my home, and I hear you, I will wait in the shadows until you appear, and then I will send you to meet your maker. I am not going to wait to see if you are armed or not. Granted he went overboard but a person can only take so much. If I heard you outside then I would call out and tell you that if you break in I will kill you. If you keep coming, you made your choice. The world has gone to crap, kids will kill you in an instant. It has come to be a kill or be killed America. He shot her, she was laughting, if this is true, I would not want to have been there without protection if they had not been shot. Just the thought of what these two teens whould have done is scarey.

Does anyone know if Minnesota has a Castle Law. I live in Michigan and we have that law although everyone try's to keep it quite so things like this don't happen. Here and in 25 other states last I heard, we can shoot someone in our yard if you feel your in danger, Hell you can shoot someone if they are in your out building. The Law assumes that if these people are there where they don't belong, they are a threat. If you catch someone breaking into your garage you can shoot them. Now these 2 kids broke into this mans home. Several times it seems like. But once is enough. Yes he went over the top but he was with in his rights. There is no way the people of Minnesota will stand for this prosecution. The kids were in the wrong here, Once they broke into this mans house, there rights were gone. They are dead from there actions. What should this man have done, set there and let them harm him? over the top, yes but he was within his rights.

1SGFitzsWife4ID This is Mr Smith's own account mind you

After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. Smith said he dragged Brady's body into his basement workshop, then sat back down on his chair, and after a few minutes Kifer began coming down the stairs. He said he shot her as soon as her hips appeared, and she fell down the steps
Smith said he then shot Kifer in the chest several times with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to Brady, and with her still gasping for air, fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium."

Any shot after they were incapacitated and fell down the stairs is excessive and murderous.

At this point, it's really his word against theirs as to whether a break-in even happened, and they're not able to tell their side of it. Why did he feel such a need to silence them? Why wait so long before reporting the event? It'll be interesting, to say the least, to see what the investigation finds. All we have now is his story, and it doesn't add up.

Some of you people amaze me...Yes the shooting was justified...They broke into is effing house you dolts...You don't wait to see if someone who breaks in is armed or not...Was it a bit of overkill? Most definitely, but they DID deserve to be shot until the didn't pose a threat anymore.........

Wow rkarilius....Really?? Case closed...No need for an investigation....He/she has solved the case...Next.....

I'd say in this case, firing his first shot was justified self-defense. However, upon seeing the intruders were stupid teenagers with no weapons, there was no longer a reasonable threat to his own safety. Thus, Castle Doctrine no longer applies.

All the subsequent shots he fired were out of frustration and anger, not self-defense, The DA was right to charge the man with murder.

Way to go Seymore 1012100!! Break the law, and torture and execution awaits you! Kudos also for being brave enough to post under a pseudonym. This country can never have enough game boy waytt erps.

Rob, that's the problem. He kept shooting even after they didn't pose a threat anymore.

Who says these kids even broke into his house? This guy could be a murderer trying to cover up his crime. If he was so rightous, how come he didn't call the police right away? I say this guy is a murderer, the police have to take his word for it.

Jvalen, "Smith said...Smith said...Smith stated..." No witnesses. The guy is obviously mentally ill, to keep doing what any normal human being would find abhorrent. Why should anyone believe his story out of hand? Maybe he's telling the truth, but it makes no sense to me that the girl would have gone down those stairs after hearing gunshots coming from down there. And the delay in reporting it - that doesn't exactly support his innocence either. Nothing about this smells right.

Tough call. By all accounts these teens already had records and were well on their way to a criminal career.

She's laying there wounded and laughing at him? I wonder if meth or some other drug was involved.

A hundred years ago there would be no charges forthcoming.

All this assumes the accounts of this incident are accurate, something still to be proven.

It's nice that you all think killing someone over what was essentially a long held grudge is perfectly legal, but the self defense laws are pretty clear. Once you are out of danger of being harmed then you cannot escalate it any further. Those are the laws, like it or not....

- The first shot he fired on the first person was okay. The shot to the face was not. The kid was already disabled. If he moves again, shoot him in the leg or something. It doesn't say that the teen was armed.

- The first shot to the second person was okay. The several shots to the chest because she laughed were not. A teenaged girl laughing at you doesn't pose an imminent threat, so you can't use that as an excuse to execute her. It doesn't say that the teen was armed.

- You are within your legal limits on self defense when the intent of deadly force is to disable and ONLY disable, in order to diffuse the threat. Sometimes only 1 or 2 shots kill a person and that is acceptable. But if they aren't moving and you have time to think, you cannot unload all your ammo til you know they are dead. This old man said he "wanted them dead" therefore the intent for him was to kill, not disable. Which means this crossed over the line of murder.

Had the man checked both teens for weapons once they were on the ground at his feet, he could have safely called the cops. As a homeowner he still had a responsibility to save those lives if at all possible. He chose to let them bleed to death on his floor after excessive shooting, and then waited to report it. Saying "he didn't handle it well" is an understatement!

I don't think 2nd degree murder is appropriate because in all fairness the fight was brought to him, but he should get some form of Manslaughter conviction for his intent to kill and not calling for help afterward.

ApacheRosePea00

The man went over the line but this has nothing to do with gun "nuts"...unless you are advocating people steal from you and you just sit there and take it.

Agreed. This has nothing to do with gun "nuts". Just one old nut with a gun.

If he is smart he will have his lawyer ask for a psych evaluation so he can play the "Crazy, scared old man living alone" card for the jury!

I am a gun "nut" but that guy was just a moron. He used needless force and endangered the rights of all gun owners. Can't comment upon his shooting the thieves in the first place but really, how many times did he need to shoot them?

NOTE TO ALL GUN OWNERS...NEVER ADMIT THAT YOU ARE SHOOTING TO KILL! THE ONLY THING YOU EVER NEED TO SAY IS THAT YOU WANT AN ATTORNEY.

Any law enforcement officer will tell you, that during training, they are taught to keep shooting until the threat has ended. Stop the threat. However, all law enforcement training only shows silhouette targets from the waist up (higher percentage of a kill).

This guy made so many stupid statements, that he deserves the dilemma that he faces. The two "would be" burglars got exactly what they deserved.

There are many of you speculating that the first shot may have been justified but not the following shots. It is obvious to me that none of you have ever had selfdefense or weapons training. A single shot to the lower half of the body does not completely incopasitate a person. If there hands are still working then they can still pull a gun of their own. You don't give your attacker time to recover, you continue the assault until the threat is neutralized. The only questionable shot for me was the final shot to the head of the girl. This sounds to me like a "put a suffering animal out of it's misery" shot. Obviously she was not an animal.

Couple of interesting side notes for you all. The weapon he shot both the teens with initially was a Ruger Ranch Rifle. This is the civilian equivalent of a M-16 used by the military. They both shoot the exact same bullet, a .223 round. This round was designed by the military specifically to wound and not kill the enemy because if you kill someone you take out one soldier, if you wound him then you have taken out him and two of his buddies who are now trying to carry him off the field. Most self proclaimed "gun nuts" like myself will know this. Therefore the VICTIM here was justified with his follow on shots because he knew the first shot would not kill them.

Thats why I said it was overkill miscreant....

Yeah, I'm not suprised HaggisBingo would be on the side of the criminal delinquents that broke into this guy's home. This older fellow was in fear for his life as he had several break-ins before:

Minnesota law allows a homeowner to use deadly force on an intruder if a reasonable person would fear they're in danger of harm. Smith told investigators he was afraid the intruders might have a weapon.

Smith's actions "sound like an execution" rather than legitimate self-defense, said David Pecchia, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. Pecchia said his statements to investigators suggest he had eliminated any threat to his safety by wounding the cousins.

Smith's brother, Bruce Smith, told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis that the incident was the eighth burglary at Byron Smith's home in recent years.

This should be a message to all the P.O.S.'es out there that think they can break into a person's home and do whatever they want.....They are CRIMINALS and the world is a better place with them gone. I would do the same thing if someone breaks into my house, and just like this fellow I would FINISH THEM OFF.

But of course, in these times.."up is down and right is left"......

I agree with rkaralius (# 1.41, 1.50, 1.56), Eric-2189088 (#1.39), Chris-735081 (#1.33). Something just doesn't add up! There is more to this than someone defending his life/property. Even if it was just that--it was excessive, excessive, excessive! No, there is something more going on here!

Except, ToxicChemist, the fact that the 8 supposed break ins have no backing except the brother's say so(only one other police report filed, even if they did happened, the fact that they weren't reported does not bode well for him) and the fact that not even Minnesota law covers the guy cause once those two were on the ground, and he verified they had no weapons, he was no longer within his right to use deadly force. Let us also not forget the sadistic manner in which he outright murdered the second teenager. After he shot both of them one time, anything further was excessive, and he is fully deservant of the repurcussions. Again, there is a difference between defending your home, and cold blooded murder, and he crossed that line. The fact that he had presence of mind to ask his neighbor about a good lawyer, and that he waited till the next day to notify the police indicates that he knew he did wrong, and I bet there is going to be more evidence against him that comes to light as the investigation continues.

Smith said he tried to shoot her again with his Mini 14 rifle, but that the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him.

She sounds like an upstanding member of the community....

Eric, one police report filed.

The only report the Morrison County sheriff's office has for a break-in at the home was for one on Oct. 27. It shows Byron Smith reported losing cash and gold coins worth $9,200, plus two guns worth $200 each, photo equipment worth more than $3,000 and a ring worth $300.

Brady's sister, Crystal Schaeffel, told the Star Tribune that Kifer had broken into her home before. Little Falls police records show Crystal Schaeffel reported a theft Aug. 28, but the department said the report was not public because that investigation was continuing and because it named juveniles.

It sounds to me like Little Falls has a crime problem (that the police won't do much about). I seen the same thing myself when I had a motorcycle stolen....The police said to me "we're not going to do much about it...but you can file a stolen property report."......"You still want to report it??"

Eric, You call it "murder", others would see them as "killed in the process of committing a crime".....

Imagine if you will, you have a gun leveled at you, the person holding the gun pulls the trigger, but the gun jams. What is your reaction? Circumstances notwithstanding, the psychological reaction to such stress inducing circumstances is often laughter, a nervous jittery laughter, but laughter none the less.
Regardless, you fail to provide sufficient justification for his follow up shots after they were on the ground. At that time he had not legal basis to continue firing, they were at his mercy. Mind you I am not arguing his right to fire in the first place, in that he may have well been justified, but once they were on the ground, and they no longer posed a threat, then there is no further justification. And in the case of the theft, the term innocent until proven guilty comes to mind. A person could be guilty as sin, but until the evidence proves as such, we have no place to pass judgement.

Innocent until proven guilty? Really? The two individuals were guilty of a crime the moment they broke the window. They were guilty of another crime when they entered the residence. It is the entering of the residence that made the initial shooting justified. It doesn't matter if their intent was just to use the bathroom.

However, the shooter took some really stupid actions and made some really incriminating statements. In my opinion, the only way he gets off is if his attorney can prove that the initial shots would have been fatal. But, even that is a stretch.

Given that the only evidence that you have that the kids broke in is HIS WORD, and that he has admitted to going WAY beyond simply protecting himself and his property, I'd have trouble believing anything he said.

Do the kids have records? Are the police sure they even broke the window, or did the homeowner do that as attempted cover for his two murders? For all we know he was a sexual predator, and they started to resist once he got them in his basement.
There is no excuse for breaking into a man's home, but we can't be sure they even did that. All we do KNOW is that he continued to shoot these folks well after they were no longer a threat.

I have no sympathy for burglers, but I have even less for murderers. We suspect the kids were the former, we KNOW he is the latter.

Charging him with second degree murder. I guess the prosecutor is pretty sure that there is evidence to support that they broke in to the house. Otherwise, they would have charged him with first degree murder.

Please try to read a little more closely, rather than just jumping off the gun, so to speak. I was not referring to the incident which resulted in these to being shot to death, but rather the prior incidents of which those two stood accused.

By the way here is the article out of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, gives a lot more details than this article
http://www.startribune.com/180785621.html?refer=y

It wouldn't matter if they committed previous thefts or not. Murdering them would not be justified for past crimes (proven or otherwise).

The homeowner was within his rights to defend himself with deadly force. His problem is that he made it known that his intention was to kill them. The evidence supports those statements, making the charges justified.

I did not post that to try and justify Mr. Smith's actions, merely to provide additional information. One thing that I find myself coming back to is this: Why that particular house. From some of the other things I have read, the man has a reputation of sorts, and has been complained about by neighbors regarding his guns, police couldn't do anything because he was on his property, and outside the city limits(I can understand some of the concerns as the complaintants were worried about their children). With that in mind, why that house? What possessed those two kids to break into that particular house? If they were looking to score, why not pick a less risky target?

I get the feeling many people on here believe those stupid ADT commercials as reality...

As for the laughing when you think you're about to die and don't I wouldn't be surprised if I laughed involuntarily. It seems like people think she was mocking him or something. How does that make any sense in that situation? Like "haha you couldn't kill me"? Really? Like she wanted to die or something? He could have been lying too obviously.

I love how so many of you equate any criminal regardless of the severity of their crime. Not all crimes are the same and not all criminals are the same. Saying they were a "criminal" doesn't mean they deserve to die. These kids were young. They had time to change and this man took that away from them. Assuming they even broke in in the first place...

Guess this will not have a happy ending, all three were stupid. From self defense it turned out to be Cold blooded murder, not a happy ending that's for sure.

Eric-2189088

1SGFitzsWife4ID This is Mr Smith's own account mind you

After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. Smith said he dragged Brady's body into his basement workshop, then sat back down on his chair, and after a few minutes Kifer began coming down the stairs. He said he shot her as soon as her hips appeared, and she fell down the steps
Smith said he then shot Kifer in the chest several times with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to Brady, and with her still gasping for air, fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium."

Any shot after they were incapacitated and fell down the stairs is excessive and murderous.

Eric, I was merely pointing this same fact out to the person who said he dragged them into the basement, he didn't drag them down there, he was already down there.

I was in a serious motorcycle accident years ago and as they were untangling me from the bike I was laughing hysterically because I thought I was dead (so they tell me, as I don't actually remember it)

It's time to feel bad for the good guys rather than all this liberal love for the criminals. I hope he gets off.

Oh please, save the political melodrama for something that won't make you sound so ignorant. This guy will not get off and it has nothing to do with liberals. It has to do with the fact that he broke the law and crossed the line admittedly to murder. The same laws exist even in places completely dominated by conservatives. Anybody with any sense understands that this guy went beyond self-defense. He flat out admitted to murder. Durrrrrrrrr.

If you break in my home you have he right to remain silent and i will insure you use it.

Smith said he then shot Kifer in the chest several times with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to Brady, and with her still gasping for air, fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium."

"Smith described it as 'a good clean finishing shot,'" according to the compliant, but also that he acknowledged he had fired "more shots than (he) needed to."

I am all for home and self defense but there are lines you can't cross and not expect to go to jail. This guy is a total idiot and should spend the rest of his life in jail.

His problem was not his story. His problem was what he did.

Self defense implies that there is a viable threat.

Well there are a few things wrong here on a couple of levels.

First off, saying that he should shoot to wound is an idiotic comment from someone with no firearms experience. That only works on TV.

Secondly, Police are trained to shoot until the potential threat stops being a threat. It takes half a second or less for someone to draw a concealed pistol and shoot you. Your choice, you stop shooting and allow them to start, or you shoot until they are unable to start. Small handguns can kill you just as surely as big ones.

That being said, once the threats were neutralized, (unconscious or otherwise immobilized) he should have not continued shooting them. A Mini 14 is a good weapon, but not a great choice for inside of a home. A 12 ga pump shotgun would've been far more effective with the first shot than the Mini 14 with less risk the rounds passing out of the house. As a victim of repeated burglaries, I can empathize with how upset the man must have been. When the dispatcher asked if I knew who the last burglar was, I responded that he'd be getting a call about a body in the desert if I knew who did it. The dispatcher replied that I shouldn't say those things. The homeowner shouldn't have put the pistol under her chin and shot her. That's at least manslaughter. I honestly believe that the man has a good case for temporary insanity. With his age, dementia is a real possibility and would be easily enough used for an insanity plea.

I do not think killing is right; I think it is the legal systems fault, that these two with their backgrounds were not locked up. Sure, they were young, but they choose to go down the wrong path, (and stay on it) which got them killed.

I'm as pro gun and pro self-defense as anyone... but regardless of situation, this is a bad shoot from a self defense perspective. Pissed off or not, he was also pretty stupid to manipulate bodies, and fire as many as he did.

If you are so inclined to react similarly... you should suffer whatever fate he does.

Shoots like this is what gives gun-control advocates traction in legislation... worse yet when people defend shoots that are clearly out of line.

"It wasn't right for them to be there and, yes, he had a right to defend himself. But to execute them like that..."

That's the crux of it right there. I don't have much sympathy for the teens, at least they won't be breeding now, but that was such an overreaction from the homeowner.

He went into overkill territory with the girl for sure, and manipulating the body definitely gives the impression that his behavior was more methodical than instinctual.

In any case, I don't feel any bit of sympathy for said stupid teenagers.

the law in Minn. is ,you have a right to use deadly force if persons or person break into a inhabited dwelling, if a reasonable person would be in fear of their life or bodily harm to themselves or others. Minn. law is a little different from most of the other states, most states do not have the caveat of, if you have a reasonable expectation of fear for life. etc., interesting case to follow. his waiting until the next day to alert law enforcement is going to hurt him badly.

Aren't we glad this man had a chance to exercise his rights to own a gun and kill people. And there's plenty of people who are willing to try and excuse what he did because they would like an excuse to do the same thing.

Darwin's Law at work.

Sick.

Kyle

So you admit you would be a murderer in the same circumstances as described in this story. You are unqualified for gun ownership and should not be entitled to Second Amendment rights. This puts you in the same category with lots of folks who are a lot more concerned with their gun rights than with their gun responsibilities.

He should of dumped them in the woods and kept his mouth shut, he lived in a remote area.

Other then that..Job well done!

The real victims are these poor teenagers. They will never be able to beat an elderly person to death in one of the homes they raid.

mike

Disgusting. But I don't have to tell you that .... you already knew it, didn't you?

John-2032532 Darwin's Law at work.

So, you do believe in evolution!

Don Giacomo

You are absolutely correct. I'll never forget a scumbag (who used to be a friend until this point) telling me that he wishes someone would break into his house so he could use his guns. There are a lot of people with this sick mentality out there, and this guy is DEFINITELY one of them. This was not self-defense. This kind of MURDER has no excuse. Getting "kill shots" on two people (teens or not) who have already been incapacitated is MURDER, MURDER, MURDER. And if intelligent people in our society (yes, I am ignoring all comments on this board) somehow find that this case is anything but, I am so leaving this unsalvageable pitiful country.

The charges of murder are a reach. He is more likely guilty of manslaughter or something. He was in his own home when two criminals broke in. He didn't go out looking for trouble, it came to him. These two idiots perhaps didn't deserve death, but you have to wonder why the girl went into the basement after hearing shots fired. How would the homeowner know she wasn't armed?

He's being thrown in jail for shooting teens who broke into his home? What the @!$%#?

I have always defended gun owner rights with the exception of automatic weapons. Events in recent years have given me serious reason for doubt. Reading several of these posts has only broadened those doubts.

Responsible gun ownership is at least as serious as driving an automobile. We must take tests that measure our knowledge of the laws as well as tests to illustrate our physical and mental ability to actually control the car. We must pass these tests to be granted a license to drive.

All of the blowhard and foolish comments (just today) prove that we should have the same requirements for purchasing or being in possession of a fire-arm. Most of you would surely fail such a test and be denied a gun license.

There was a time when there was no need for a drivers license. Many irresponsible drivers gave demand for ways to keep them off our roads and highways. Now we have the DMV. That day has arrived to require gun ownership licensing for the very same reason.

He's being thrown in jail for shooting teens who broke into his home?

No he is in jail for shooting them again and again and again.

We must take tests that measure our knowledge of the laws as well as tests to illustrate our physical and mental ability to actually control the car. We must pass these tests to be granted a license to drive.

Not a great argument to hang your hat on, that bar is set pretty low.

True, but imagine the utter chaos without licensing requirements.

WhiteJudge

He's being thrown in jail for shooting teens who broke into his home? What the @!$%#?

He's being thrown in jail because he murdered two teens who posed no threat to him or anyone else. How many other killers are you cheering for?

The point of owning a weapon for self-defense is to stop "the threat." It is not to execute the threat. Once the kid was no longer a threat, the show is over. No need for coup de gras. Makes us responsible handgun owners look bad. He was a killer. We are proactive in self-defense. There is a difference.

Ed Peters

John-2032532 Darwin's Law at work.

So, you do believe in evolution!

Ed...um...duh!

This doesn't pass the smell test to me.He could have very well lured them to his home to kill both of them.He may have suspected them of being the previous burglars.lSelf defense if somebody breaks into your home doesn't mean you should murder them so viciously,drag them into another room(in this case a a basement) and then wait this long to report it.This is a case of cold blooded and possibly premeditated murder.

He's in jail because of repeated shots, including moving the girl after shooting her and then getting his "kill shot" after his first gun jammed, then not calling the police until the following day. Wonder if he sat staring at the bodies all night.

"Remote" is a stretch. Little Falls is a rural area and not near the interstate but far from remote.

In another Minnesota case, a teen in a drug and alcohol stupor who did not know where he was wandered into an unlocked apartment which was the residence of a guy who kept a loaded shotgun next to his bed. He first asked the kid if he was "all right". The kid didn't answer, just stood weaving. The guy left the living room, got his gun, and returned. When he painted the gun at the kid, the kid raised his arm and grabbed ("grabbed" is not exactly accurate, the kid was in a stupor), at which point the guy shot him. The kid stumbled out of the apartment into another apartment where he died screaming. The guy did not keep shooting and shooting, and the police were called immediately. The guy was initially taken into custody on suspicion but released the next day and was never charged.

I had my house and cars broken into several times over a few years, and many items stolen besides the property damage. Yes, I was mad, but I never would have thought keeping a loaded gun around was the solution.

There was a case very similar - almost identical to be concise besides the fact that it took place on a subway - that took place in New York in 1986 called People v. Goetz. The charges were ultimately dismissed. Since it is Minnesota a judge can find differently, but I expect the outcome to be somewhat similar.

Noone died in People vs Goetz. It's not even close to similar.

The fact that he didn't call the police right away speaks volumes. Is anybody surprised that the same people who are beating the drum for the shoplifter being killed by Walmart employees are also beating the drum for this old man? If you have no sympathy for these people who died don't be surprised when nobody give two tin sh*ts when it's you. I already can imagine the "I would never do that" protests but how can you know if somebody else is going to jump to conclusions and act when it's you and you can't profess your innocence because your dead. You'll be just like the guy in Hot Coffee who supported tort reform and then when he needed to sue and couldn't said quote unquote " I thought it was for those other people filing frivolous lawsuits. I didn't think they meant me." You never think it will be you until it is. i have to wonder how many people gloating over the death of these teens go to church every week and call themselves "Christians". Probably the same people who like to bash the poor. Don't you have a new star to put upon thar Sneeches?

They deserved to be shot...but executed in that fashion is ridiculous. She was already shot multiple times in the chest! He then goes further to shoot her under her chin and then watch TV right next to the bodies!!!!

He's sick! What teenager would laugh after being shot in the hip and seeing her cousin dead on the floor?

g0ne4n0w

You are absolutely correct. I'll never forget a scumbag (who used to be a friend until this point) telling me that he wishes someone would break into his house so he could use his guns. There are a lot of people with this sick mentality out there, and this guy is DEFINITELY one of them.....

I don't know the circumstances surrounding your former friend, but if his home had been broken into once or more, or someone he loved had been harmed previously then it is 100% natural for someone to carry around that desire to use their protective methods, whatever they are. And, again not knowing what your ex-friend has been through, you may be judging them a little too quickly.

When someone has been wronged in the past, whether through theft or violence, one usually takes measures to ensure it doesn't happen again. But that feeling of being violated doesn't go away magically. Some people want a 2nd chance to take the control back.

Take guns out of the equation for a second......

Last year my car got broken into and my very expensive stereo system got ripped off. We spend hundreds of dollars on an outside security system: Motion sensor lights, night vision cameras and a DVR kit that recorded and archived every camera for up to 90 days. That made me feel better, but it didn't stop me from wanting someone (ideally the original thief) from trying to rob me again so I could catch them red-handed. I didn't have any deadly intent towards anyone. I just wanted to regain the control of my life and my property again so as to not feel so violated.

I don't think it is wrong to want to catch someone that is breaking into your home, especially if it has been done before. Wanting to kill or shoot someone is completely different than just wanting to scare the crap out of them when you hold them at gunpoint. Perhaps you labeling "these people" as having a sick mentality is a bit of an unfair generalization on your part.

He's being thrown in jail because he murdered two teens who posed no threat to him or anyone else. How many other killers are you cheering for?

They were trespassing and your going to say he was in the wrong for shooting intruders? And to answer your question O.J. Unless Goldman was standing there waiting to be killed I don't believe he killed her. I say there was an accomplice to help O.J. but there was no way he killed both women on his own.

12 gauge.

When you think about it that's basically what he's being charged with, not having a big enough gun.

If he had fired once and it was a clean kill he'd probably not be charged.

Which is dumb actually because if they lived they'd be suing him and they'd get his house anyway.

Or . . . stay with me here . . . . you could use guns for self defense and stopping threats, rather than going out of your way to kill as many as you can without breaking the law -.-

Yep--12 gauge with 3 1/2 inch magnum loads!

No David, if they live you get sued. Shotgun 12 guage.

and if it is a justified shoot you win the lawsuit. Proper self defense should be focused on keeping yourself alive, NOT on going out of your way to kill anyone you can get a chance to

mathuin

12 gauge.

If you live alone:no collateral damage; go with the first two 00buck,slug,slug,slug.

If there are others in the home,with drywall,or paneled walls. Go with all #6 birdshot. No big penetration past what your target is.

Also;if you live alone there is some very nice home defense ammo for scatterguns. (shrapnel rounds,razor rounds, flare rounds,........;)

Also shorten up the barrel (to the legal limit 18") for ease of movement in hallways etc....

BTW the Mini14 shoots the same round as an M-16, M-4, AR15, are our soldiers under armed?

12ga for defence indoors, think I'll stick to .45acp

Beangrinder

You are psychologically unfit to have a weapon. The founders did not have people like you in mind when they fashioned the Second Amendment.

I noticed that you had lots of people who agree with your ignorant statement. Very sad.

don97524 - he (and everyone like him) are psycologically unfit to live. But for some stupid reason, they do anyway. That, too, is very sad.

don97524, Beangrinder wrote nothing wrong in my opinion. He didn't suggest going out to shoot people who MIGHT do something wrong (Trayvon Martin), he stated that anyone inclined to defend themselves and their property do so with suffcient caliber ammo. That way multiple shots aren't needed and second guessing will be minimal.

You should be more concerned that criminals think nothing of breaking into occupied homes to take what they want. If burglars don't break in they can't risk getting shot. Your sympathy is misplaced...

NB

I expressed no sympathy. I stated that Beangrinder is unfit to own a weapon, as is every other citizen who believes that shooting to kill when no life is threatened is justified. Smith believes that shooting kids that are guilty of nothing more than property crime was justified. Beangrinder believes that Smith's only problem was that is gun lacked sufficient firepower. Both are fools.

As is your thought don97524. If there is a band of teens or anyone repeatedly breaking into properties, after a while, you think the law would actually take the initiative and stop them. That was not happening...so yeah, in his demented mind, I could see it seeming justified. Seriously, two underage kids stealing? The bigger fool is anyone considering themselves the parents of these kids.

He killed the teens because he wanted to--not because he had to or was afraid. That is murder. How do I know? His statement. Made things pretty clear when he fired a shot into the girl's cranium. If they were still standing and armed...fire away...until they are down and no llonger a threat...After that, it's time to call 911--not make coup de gras shots for your pleasure...then sit and think it over with the dead bodies for a day or so. Geez...folks. You really need to see the difference here between responisible behavior and blood lust....or just P!ssed off to the max.

I agree, from his statements, in my opinion, he wanted to shoot them, out of rage, or out of anger over what had already been stolen from him, and that is against the law if you shoot when they no longer pose a threat. However, I don't think it's wrong or sick to have a shotgun. From what I hear, it's actually smart. A lof of burglars don't get so nervous when a homeowner has a handgun because they know that a nervous homeowner can easily miss. However, a lot of burglars get very nervous when they hear a shotgun being pumped because they know that due to its wider spread the homeowner most likely won't miss them.

don97524........I expressed no sympathy. I stated that Beangrinder is unfit to own a weapon, as is every other citizen who believes that shooting to kill when no life is threatened is justified

Don, in the place of this homeowner, I wouldn't have gone on shooting once the perp went down. Whether he/she lived or died would be up to God....but I would fire the first shot. How would I know that my life wasn't threatened? Are you in that rainbow colored world where I'm supposed to shout a warning and hope the bad guy isn't armed?

Our society is fast going down the road that Greece and Spain is on, because of our country's insane spending and borrowing. One day someone, probably China, is going to turn off the spigot and just say "No More Money!" In Greece and Spain the riotous crowds protest with sticks and rocks. When it comes our turn, our citizens have guns. You'd better go over in your mind now how far you would go to protect your home and family if that day ever comes.

Beanie

The point is that he shouldn't have shot at all, and neither should you in the same circumstances. You worry about "our society is fast going downhill" and fail to recognize that this unwarranted vigilante action is the sign of a broken culture. You think try to justify killing another human being as "protection of your family" when the truth is that, in this case no person or family was at risk. The guy was retaliating against a failed property crime and he is a murderer. You are a murder sympathizer.

Your ridiculous argument states that if the guy only fired once, "whether he/she lived or died would be up to God." God has nothing to do with it and to blame any of this on God is just another weak attempt to mitigate the actions of a mean-spirited, irrational child killer. God doesn't kill people. People kill people and you defend their right to do so.

Except, don97524, for the first shot, Mr. Smith was quite possibly within his legal rights. He had unknown individuals whom had just shattered a window and entered his home(from what was in the Minneapolis paper, it seems that the girl was a recovering prescription addict who was about to relapse) to look for pills to steal. I am willing to understand a warning shot, or even a non-lethal shot. However Mr. Smith did act in excess afterwards, with shooting the boy after he was on the ground, as well as repeatedly shooting the girl after she laughed when his gun jammed(a reaction that I am more inclined to think would be due to the shock of the trigger pull, and no bullet, rather than laughing at Mr. Smith for the gun jamming), and of course the final shot through the lower jaw into the skull.

Weird, they look like any other teenagers...

Yes, they should not have broken into his house but could I ask you readers something? Did you ever do anything stupid when you were a teenager?

I often say that I should be able to own any type of gun that I want, but I am not so certain that the rest of you should. Sorry, but we need to do a lot better as a civilization.

Bill, I did plenty of stupid things as a teenager. One could argue that some of the actions I took in my early 20s were along the same lines. Never did I do anything illegal.

Sometimes stupid kills.

Teach your kids about consequences or they will learn the hard way.

A little parental supervision wouldn't hurt either.

Did a lot of stupid things when I was young. None of them included breaking in on an armed homeowner, since I am still around to post this. Now don't get me wrong -- this guy is way too cold-blooded not to be found guilty of anything. If he's smart, he'll plead down to voluntary manslaughter for the minimum if it's offered, since he showed planning/intent by moving them around and not calling police in a timely way.

Lisa is right though. We're supposed to live in a civilized society where you respect others and their property. When you choose not to, sadly, you're at the mercy of your victim. He chose not to have mercy. Eventually someone was going to do the same thing.

Apache

Who is less civilized? ...... kids breaking into a house or the (unthreatened) guy who executed them? Your answer will reveal a great deal about your character.

Kids almost always grow up and stop making foolish decisions. Smith didn't.

lisa-3322183-- this case just does NOT add up--he waited a whole day to call authorities, he dragged corpses to a different area--and that shot to her head execution-style. No, it does NOT add up! People need to QUIT defending him!! At the least, it was excessive, excessive, excessive!

Yeah, Apache, your "victim" executed 2 intruders. Not exactly self defense.

They deserved what was coming to them but thoughts and prayers to all. Whatever you goof. Murder is wrong on every level.

The man has committed murder. He was never fearing for his life and was in complete control of the situation from the beginning. He fired disabling shots and then administered the "Coup De Gras" where death was assured. Unless he is mentally incompetent he should be tried for murder and punished harshly. Kids do stupid things and should not be summarily executed for stupidity. The families of the children should seek a civil action against this man and his estate.

Had they arrived with weapons or demonstrated through actions intent to threaten the man the situation would have been different. But he waited in ambush to systematically kill both of the kids.

A disabling shot to a limb would have sufficed

What? Yea, when I was young and in the Army we shot a warning shot first. If they keep coming shoot to maim then the third was for shoot to kill.

Now, I'm going to keep shooting as long as the intruder keeps coming. A wounded person can still harm you.

BUT, what this guy did with the second teen was totally unjustified. Sounds like some wanna be hit man.

A disabling shot to a limb is counter to what every trained, responsible gun owner is trained to do. If someone is a threat to your life, you shoot for center mass to quickly end the threat. If they are not a threat to your life, you don't shoot. Period. That said, what this man did is clearly well outside of self defense. While you could argue that the first shot is justified because he is fear for his life from the intruder (please note, this is not a guaranteed defense. You have to have a reasonable fear for your life. If he later testified that he shot not out of fear for his life but because he wanted to kill them for robbing him, it would NOT be valid self defense). Once the intruder fell to floor, he ceased being a threat. To walk up and then shoot him in the head is nothing less than an execution. Once he's done that, he's lost all claims of self defense on the second person as well. He's no longer defending himself, he's now lying in wait with intent to kill. He then does the same to her, only with more excess, firing multiple times into her after she is clearly unable to be a threat to anyone, then delivering another execution. All this time, no 911 call by him, and it takes him a day or so later to report it? This wasn't self defense. There wasn't fear for his life. This was murder, plain and simple. Cold, calculating, and brutal murder. The fact that the two victims were petty burglars doesn't even remotely excuse that.

Career advice for aspiring burglars: Do your best to avoid the homes of psychopaths.

Well stated, David. Not only common sense, but, exactly by the book. And Arnold, you are also right. Not a good idea to break into home where unstable people might live. In fact, you just never know, so breaking into home might be a bad idea altogether.

I may have to backtrack. In this man's place......If by some method I knew that neither kid voted for Obama, maybe I wouldn't have shot them. I'm just a 70 year old softy I guess.

The first one might not be murder but voluntary manslaughter. (it depends on the laws in the state) Usually Murder has to be planned. The first one had no pre-plan. Second one yeah, he planned it. Some states combine Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter.

How would you know they were unarmed???? You going to ask them before they come down the stairs? You are an idiot Camerica2. The guy did however go beyond overboard, however.

Go beyond overboard? He committed murder. I agree he was right to shoot them on the stairs, because he didn't know if they had weapons. But once the girl was incapacitated on the ground, and he physically moved her so he knew she wasn't capable of defending herself, he should of called the police - not shot her in the head to kill her quicker. That action was murder.

After reading the comments I think that most of the posters a really sick. I mean probably beyond cure. And some of them should be restrained in a closed institution.

No pity for brats? agreed

But your second statement shows you either did not read or are sadistic. I would empty my whole clip into anyone coming into my house if it meant defending myself so the number of shots argument is bullcrap, but the way he did it...dragging them and THEN putting the gun to the chin and shooting again? The self defense argument just went out the window there.

To those who say he fired too much, give the rest of us what you consider a 'proper' number of times to shoot before you consider it exessive. That is such a steaming pile of manure... Fine the guy for littering or something...

At the point where they were disabled enough that he felt he could safely drag one of them next to the other then shoot her in the head.

That was at least 1 shot > enough.

The law is very clear about how many shots is excessive. The moment they aren't a threat to you, any more shooting is excessive. That means at most the first shot against the first intruder was justified. Even before the girl gets involved, firing that coup de grace to the other person's head after they've already been rendered a non-threat is clear cut murder

Malfaen so you make it sound as if they entered his house he should be able to do whatever he wanted. What if he would have tied the boy up and raped the girl or both even, would that be alright because the deserved it after entering his home. What if he was a convicted felon protecting his property by shooting these kids would that be alright also? This man was an idiot, by the way I am for any man or woman being able to protect what is theirs, being they straight law abiding folks or folks who have served their debt to society.

Sad and unfortunate, however, the guy used a .22 cal. That caliber will NOT stop a person unless it's a head-shot. You use the weapon you have....to defend yourself. A larger caliber would have been preferred.

I would use half a clip on the 1st fool, and if the 2nd fool is dumb enough to follow the 1st fool down the stairs (after hearing 5 shots), then the 2nd fool gets the other rounds.

However, I think the guy lost self-defense when he was able to get near the bodies and place them side by side. It was execution at that point.

Lastly, the teens should not have been there to begin with. Condolences to the families.

Um, no. The "sick" ones are those of you who think criminals should have the right to break into homes, steal, and possibly kill the homeowners, all without fear of any harm coming to them. We have to make sure those poor little criminals feel safe when they're inside the VICTIMS' homes.

Yes, it is so sick to think that we shouldn't brutally execute people once they are already incapacitated just because they committed a property crime.

So by Janelle's reasoning, burglars should make sure to be armed because it is not safe to rob a house without a weapon. Brilliant!

I don't feel sorry for the two brats at all. He was excessive, true, but they WERE in his house, and they WERE trying to rob him. This is a waste of money, this trial... and those arguments about the number of times he fired? Please... To those who say he fired too much, give the rest of us what you consider a 'proper' number of times to shoot before you consider it exessive. That is such a steaming pile of manure... Fine the guy for littering or something...

Well my first response is just once. But I also agree with Mark-423819, I'd probably just unload the clip into the guy all at once. Self defense. Period. What this guys did, Shooting them once then dragging them off to another part of the house and then shooting them multiple times until they were dead is called murder. It goes beyond self defense into cold premeditated murder.

There's a line between self defense and murder and this guy crossed it. I'm all for self defense in these kinds of situations. I would and am prepared do the same myself. But there's a line and he crossed it by dragging them off and then "finishing the job".

I should change my name to "GunTotingLib".

That's not even remotely feasible. There is too much variability within humans. If you go the chemical route (like tranqs) then whatever is powerful enough to knock a 6'3" foot tall 240 man out instantly will kill a 4'6" 90 pound person. Anything designed to knock out the smaller person will fail to neutralize a much larger person, giving them time to kill you will have a similar issue with electric and biological agents used to incapacitate.

It also wouldn't have helped in this situation. This man clearly went well out of his way to execute both of the teens in his house. Had he had access to this fantasy incapacitation device he still would have been just as minded and able to execute the two once he knocked them out.

The problem is the teens would not have gone to jail, and they know it. He would have gotten sued and they would be free to keep harassing him.

If teens aren't afraid of courts, maybe they should be afraid of breaking into homes of crazies. They're dead, he's headed for jail and society won't miss any of them.

Yea, set your phasers to stun!! LMAO. This is Cold-Blooded Murder. There are hundreds of things this guy could've done to diffuse the situation and send these teens to jail.

Even IF they would've gone to jail, and that's a big if, they wouldn't be there long. Then they would've sued him. This man had had enough, even though what he did WAS excessive, at least the other people that live around him (including the teens own families) won't have to worry about them breaking into their homes again.

By that logic we should cheer on someone to walk into the county jail and start executing the inmates one by one through the bars

No, once they are in custody they entitled to a trial. When you are in the act of committing a crime you have no such entitlement until you have been controlled...

And what crime was the male committing as he laid on the floor bleeding from the first shot and was executed? What about the female? What crime was she in the process of committing at the moment when he decided to put a half dozen rounds to her chest and then one under her chin? In both cases, they were already incapacitated, and not in the act of committing a crime or threatening anyone. The only difference between them and people in jail is the person who has them captive.

David, the crime was called breaking and entering. That's a death penaly if the home owner catches you in the act.

No. It isn't. First, they weren't breaking and entering when they were executed. They were bleeding, lying on the floor, incapable of doing anything. While they had broken and entered, they were no longer actively doing so when he butchered them. Secondly, how the heck do you justify an automatic death penalty for breaking and entering? I mean, really? Are you kidding me? That's not even remotely justified. Just because the owner catches you in the act that doesn't mean he gets a free pass to murder you in whatever way he wants to. The only justification for shooting someone is the reasonable fear for your life from them, which you don't have when they are bleeding on the floor and barely able to move, let alone pose a threat.

David, Great. Put a sign out in front of your property stating that you will not kill people for breaking and entering your property. Leave them some milk and cookies out too. Maybe you can read them a bedtime story and tuck them in for a nap before they leave.

@CaptainHeartMan

What is this, the 19th century? Where horse theft was a capital offense and punishable by death? I'm pretty sure our laws have evolved from that, and nowhere does it state that breaking and entering warrants a death penalty. Thinking that the owner has the right to deal out justice by executing already incapacitated criminals is not only vigilantism, but cold-blooded murder. And honestly, there is a difference between getting your property stolen and having your life threatened, which I hope you do realize.

It seems that society is becoming so materialistic that we value our possessions more than a human life.

You arm yourself to protect your family from people who shoot intruders in their own home?

So you're a family of burglars?

Guess I can see why you'd feel so threatened.

I think he means he arms himself to protect his family against a sadistic man who would go out of his way to execute people who were already lying on the floor, helpless.

He didn't go out of his way, he was at home. They went out of their way.

He is not dangerous to you unless you break into his house.

So you are concerned your family of thugs may not be treated fairly. My goodness the next people who try to rob him might get treated unfairly too!

You don't know how that pains me. lol

He went out of his way to ensure that both of them died. Yes, they broke into his house, yes, that was wrong of them, and they deserved punishment. It is NOT his place to decide punishment for them, and to be shot repeatedly when helpless is NOT appropriate punishment for a property crime. Just because someone breaks into your house, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to them. If instead of executing her he tied the girl up in his basement and raped her repeatedly, would you defend his "right" to do that as well? After all, in that case "He didn't go out of his way, he was at home. They went out of their way. He is not dangerous to you unless you break into his house." Hey, she was a burglar, she deserved to be raped? I'm assuming you would not support someone doing that. So how can you turn around and say you support her being brutally murdered?

All your bellyaching still can't explain how this guy buys firearms to defend his family from another guy in his own home.

Again, sounds like a family of cowardly burglars.

He is saying he wishes a defense against the TYPE of person who goes out of their way to kill. He's not saying that that he is doing it to protect against this specific individual.

Does this incident remind anyone else of the scene in Pulp Fiction where the gunfight between Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames ends up with them in a torture chamber in back of a pawn shop?

If he was a police officer he would have emptied 3 clips in each and been cleared of any wrong doing.

I am going to stop reading the comments after I leave this statement because I have to be honest. I don't have an issue with the karma comments and the "they deserved what it" comments. Why not? This man was in his home, minding his own business. Were the teens supposed to be there? If they had chosen not to rob him, would they be dead? I get it...he was excessive. But since when do criminals have a care or regard for life?

Sorry for all involved...but as bf stated above, these kids were out of place. Not the man in his home. Even if he was excessive I can't have say what he did was wrong because the only way he is a danger is if you try to harm him or his property. The kids on the other hand? Criminals. Maybe our laws should change so criminals are not always as protected as they are. Then more people might think twice before committing a crime...and victims like this man would allow the law to do what the law is supposed to do. If his story is true however, clearly the law was failing him.

Really Apache? "Even if he was excessive I can't have say what he did was wrong because the only way he is a danger is if you try to harm him or his property."

Just because a 12 year-old gets bullied on the playground doesn't mean it's alright for him to randomly one day shoot the bully when he isn't attacking him. Especially not without exploring other avenues. The only way the bullied kid was a danger was if you tried to harm him or his property - still doesn't justify killing someone in cold blood. Once the girl was down he moved her - he knew she didn't have a weapon and was incapable of self-defense. He should of called the police.

"The kids on the other hand? Criminals. Maybe our laws should change so criminals are not always as protected as they are. Then more people might think twice before committing a crime...and victims like this man would allow the law to do what the law is supposed to do. If his story is true however, clearly the law was failing him."

So you admit then that what he did was take the law into his own hands? He decided the punishment they would get before the courts wouldn't satisfy him so he punished them himself. He didn't care about justice, he cared about how he felt and nothing else. He was judge, jury, and executioner. So I guess we all now get to go by our own sense of justice outside of the system. Seems to me like if everybody is allowed to decide for themselves what is just and what isn't there will be an increase in people breaking into houses thanks to the tendency of people when left to themselves to develop a self-serving moral codes. Nah...

bf-907217 -- this is a bad case to use to defend a persons right to defend self and property--several things in the case just DO NOT ADD UP!! This is not a simple case of self defense!

If you shoot people beyond any semblance of a reasonable use of force... you also get to pay the price.

Any gun owner should carefully consider these sorts of things well in advance.

Funny thing about our legal system, we don't get to declare that "This person is a criminal, therefore they can be murdered in cold blood without any consequence". It's this funny little thing called due process and a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. What you are suggesting is that anyone who commits any crime, no matter how nonviolent or unthreatening to life and limb, should be fair game to brutally murder. "Who cares how they died?" is probably one of the most twisted things I've heard in a while.

The usual headline is Elderly man found beaten to death.

But owning a gun is no right to murder either. He shot on then made a second shot to make sure he was dead. He shot the girl how many times before, firing a shot under her chin "up into the cranium." I think it said he stated he shot her several times in the chest. Having lived on a farm and slaughtering cattle and hogs I would have never done this to an animal. This man is a murderer and I hope to read he was sentenced to life.

I don't think the method was correct. It wasnt a clean kill by any means. If he was a better shot or used a higher caliber, he wouldnt be in the trouble he is in now. The problem is that he neutralized the threat when he wounded the two kids and then decided to just outright kill them. If he just used a 12 gauge off the bat and killed them with a single shot each, he wouldnt be in trouble. Kids are still idiots though.

glad ur NOT a judge.....

If you were on the jury, you would have to decide if he met the requirements for self defense, which you just stated he did not. If it wasn't self defense, it was a crime. So, how can you then justify acquiting him?

He didn't kill them because he had to. He killed them because he wanted to. That's murder to anyone who has a lick of sense. How can anyone pretend they aren't smart enough to understand you can't kill an incapacitated person to get even with them for something they did before they became incapacitated? Pro-gun people who claim he was within his rights provide some of the best "ammo" the anti-gun people have.

Not to mention that he shot the girl again because she "laughed" after the first shot--probably a hysterical wtf laugh. God only knows why she headed for the basement stairs after hearing the earlier shots.

The crime scene tape will keep them out.

So true - I really hope there is Karma and it burns to the ground in his absence. Then he can feel satisfaction as he rots in prison for defending a bunch of worthless crap.