Posted on 11/28/2012 7:28:26 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Edited on 11/28/2012 7:35:26 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
MINNEAPOLIS (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at brainerddispatch.com ...
People illegally in someone elses home abandon all rights to life and liberty as far as I’m concerned. I’m sorry that we disagree on this but my mind is unchanged on this matter.
Perhaps the next punk who thinks it’d be fun to rob someone will have a buddy say “hey, look what happened to these people” and show them this story.
Have you seen Smith's picture. Apparently he hadn't heard of it either.
And when you murder girls in a high profile case.....be prepared to become a prison bitch. And rightfully so.
It is true that the 2 perps seemed not to care that they were breaking the law. But this does not absolve the shooter from obeying the law. For example if he had wanted to rape the girl, clearly a violation of law, their abrogation does not commend his violation of law, it seeems to me. It does seem, purely on a human level, that the shooter did not have to kill to neutralize the threat. Once he is safe, his legal authority to shoot dissipates in that instance. But I am not a lawyer or judge.
It is true that the 2 perps seemed not to care that they were breaking the law. But this does not absolve the shooter from obeying the law. For example if he had wanted to rape the girl, clearly a violation of law, their abrogation does not commend his violation of law, it seeems to me. It does seem, purely on a human level, that the shooter did not have to kill to neutralize the threat. Once he is safe, his legal authority to shoot dissipates in that instance. But I am not a lawyer or judge.
I know that 26 does not equal 48.
My point was that the coroner was examining bodies that were at most two days old. 48 hours would be the outside limit - even on a holiday weekend - for a full examination to begin.
Coroner would have done an on-site analysis complete with forensic photography before ever moving the bodies.
Not every small police force has a response that thorough. Little Falls well may.
That being said, onsite analysis and a full forensic examination are two different beasts, and the prosecutor is going to want an autopsy.
And, if Smith's statement is accurate he's going to want one too - for probative value for his statement as well as to see if the intruders had narcotics in their systems.
I’m assuming that you are not a Christian.
He just shot the guy in the hip with a high power rifle that just he fell down the steps and was laying on the ground injured.
He had the strength to drag him into the other room and then put him on a tarp, but couldn't find a roll of duck tape, flip him over and tape his hands???
He wasn't a former preschool teacher but a former security officer for the State Department. The answer to your question is: YES
Get real???
My reference to the imbalance of the relative value of 2 lives for tangible property (he had been burglarized several times according to the report) was only in reference to after he had shot them, felt he could approach them to shoot them at close range in the head. Clearly he had a right to protect his property and life as he first became aware of the invasion of his home. But AFTER what seemed to be neutralization of the threat, the circumstances have seemed to change and his right to volitionally kill the two seems to be annulled. If he was to become again in fear for his life, then to take those steps necessary to protect his life and property would, once again, become a valid response.
I would allow some leeway for sure. But I am in a different state.
Perhaps not the kind you think you’ll be standing next to in Heaven, since apparently your definition of Christianity involves persecuting an old man for dealing with thieves.
I’m comfortable with how I’ll be judged.
Do you object to death in war? I’ll bet that you think that justified war isn’t murder...as do I. So we probably agree.
What we probably disagree on is what constitutes a war. God never said anything about nations or congress being necessary.
If you break into someone’s house with the intent of robbing them...you have declared war. You, as the aggressor, and the invader, have forfeited your life if it comes to that.
Simple as that.
Could you have sat there and watched someone choke to death on their own blood? Or would you have "finished them off"?
After being in such an incident, how cogent do you think your thought processes would be? Shock does some very weird things to people. This is why officers and soldiers are trained to deal with bodily responses to those stresses.
I think people are ascribing evil motivations where there doesn't need to be any such thing.
Yes, stress does weird things which are why for me some leeway may be justified. The evidence in court should help, but with the way the courts do things it may not matter. I would not let someone choke to death or to bleed out. I also think I would have shot more with no pausing in between.
Irrelevant.
From the Article: " When he saw Brady on the basement stairwell, he fired — then shot him again in the face after he fell down."
At the point of the dragging, Brady was already dead. Smith indeed, did not approach Brady when he was alive as you would require. You also cannot assert that Smith had ANY means of restraint reachable or even available in his home, or that it was required that he have such, except by YOU.
Additionally you assert that a 64 year old former (fill in the blank) can best a 17 year old, physically, in every case, because YOU say so.
That's real, alright.
I think what you just said says volumes about your character.
65 years old, former cop, served his community/nation with honor (since we haven’t heard otherwise).
But in your mind two drug addicted thieves matter more. The thieves get a slap on the wrist if caught...the old man makes a mistake and kills two people (who really were of no value, as druggie thieves) and it’s off to prison and say hi to bubba for me.
Pretty sick really. In fact if I had to choose between associating with a former cop who wasted two home invading druggies and a guy who gleefully imagines homosexual prison rape scenes as a form of punishment...I think I’d go with the thief killer.
You are a terrible person
Simply put, if the perp is dead, the police might have a *theory* about particular wounds, but it is exceptionally hard to propose a theory that rises to reasonable doubt.
The lawyer would never let the shooter testify, and outside of some very damning circumstantial evidence for which there is no plausible alternative, it is terribly hard to convict.
Remember that what the jurors hear is not what actually happened, but is often a blend of what the prosecutor says they think happened, according to police observation and forensic evidence; and the other story, what the defense argues *might* have happened. Importantly, the defense *does not* have to prove that there is guilt elsewhere, just that their client is not guilty of what the prosecution alleges, at least in the way he alleges it.
Police are just as prone as anybody to jump to conclusions about an event, after the fact. Sometimes they get it terribly wrong, but get emotionally invested in the wrong theory.
Unless the accused shoots his mouth off, even in damning circumstances, there is a good chance of acquittal.
The shooter in this case really fouled up in a whole bunch of different ways.
Are you a medical doctor or pathologist??? You don't know that.
And you don't know how much of his story is true??? He might have dragged him wounded into the other room and kept him alive and interrogated him for awhile before finishing him off.
But if you are going to take him at his word, then do so. He said: "I want him dead".
He didn't say he wanted him disabled or unable to move. He said he wanted him dead.
That is not self defense. That is murder.
Is this your first time here or have you been here before???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.