Posted on 05/04/2014 9:26:54 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
When Jere Hilland teaches you how to defend yourself, he always preaches using "reasonable force."
"In other words, if someone punches you in the nose, you can punch them in the nose," said Hilland, who has taught firearms classes in North Dakota for 10 years. "But you can't keep punching them in the nose. That's excessive force."
That's where Hilland guesses Byron Smith went wrong. Smith was found guilty Tuesday of premeditated murder after fatally shooting two teenagers who entered his home in Little Falls, Minn., on Thanksgiving Day 2012.
Smith, who admitted shooting the teens "more times than I should have," used excessive force, Hilland said, and so he was not protected by law.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
I am reminded of the story of the Quaker gentleman farmer, who awakened in the middle of the night and heard noises of a suspicious nature from the first floor. He proceeded to investigate, carrying a double barreled shotgun.
He found a questionable person stuffing the family silver into a pillowslip in the dining room. He then stated firmly, “Friend, I would not harm thee for all the world, but you are standing where I intend to shoot!”
Not if he went to get another gun to shoot the girl and saying die bi**h as he put the gun under her chin. That was premeditated. She was already down with a gun shot.
My guess is that these teens almost certainly had a criminal record. You don’t just jump to burglary from a clean slate.
They should have used former mug shots.
The NoDak law needs to be fixed for all venues.
If you find them, then show us the photos, Trayvon had his on the internet.
“Officers are taught to use common sense when faced with a potentially deadly situation, and citizens should use the same kind of good judgment, Vettel said.”
Oh now there’s some real enlightenment. Being taught and getting away with as an LEO are mile apart. The citizen should be given this much leeway as well.
"When the female stopped moving, he dragged her by her clothes and into the workshop, too. There, he said, he noticed she was still gasping and didn’t believe she should suffer, so he gave her “a good clean finishing shot,” he said."
After finishing off both teens as they lay wounded, he waited more than 24 hours to notify anyone because he didn't want to disrupt people on "Thanksgiving".
“I saw it as a static situation,” he told police. He said he also thought for a bit that although his Thanksgiving was ruined, he didn’t have to ruin it for others by calling authorities that day.
Even a cop couldn’t get away with what this guy did, see post 27.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065
I don’t think a reasonable person believes someone unarmed and dying in front of you is a threat of death or great bodily harm(why the jury did what they did) If he believed that, he probably wouldn’t come as close as he had to to deliver a ‘kill shot’ under the chin.
The Minnesota homeowner shot one in the head at point blank range after they were no longer a threat and recorded himself taunting before doing so. (Then he kept the bodies overnight before calling police.)
Juvenile records are typically sealed .
They were likely not even admissable as evidence, although I’m not certain in this case.
He probably should not have shot them AT ALL, unless he could see that they were armed with firearms. Even if they had had a bat, or a knife, I think I would have told them “FREEZE!” while aiming at them.
That more than anything was the clincher on Smith to me. Every state law I’ve read distinguishes between aggressor and defender, with the legal test generally being whether you are in fear of death or bodily harm.
Proximity bears heavily in that, at all times any wise armed defender would want to keep a certain distance (beyond hand-to-hand) and cover between them and the aggressor so as not to negate the advantage of having a gun. When you willfully advance uncovered to point blank range and do what Smith did, you are no longer in fear of your life. In fact you have reversed the roles and are no longer legally covered.
Did you read what you posted?
Seriously read it?
bfl
google ‘Tueller Drill’.
The only part of this case I don’t agree with is the concept of premeditated murder. I don’t care if he hid his car, he still has a right to hang out in his own house and the two teenagers only got shot because they broke in. Finishing them off when they were down and not immediately calling authorities was his crime. Considering the man’s history as a crime victim I consider that a crime in the heat of the moment, but not premeditation.
Kinda where I sit on this as well.
yeah...
what is your point?
If someone breaks into your darkened house in the middle of the night and you take time to see if they are armed you will die. I always assume that they are intending to kill me. I will shoot them dead.
A lot of us leave our houses looking like that, probably including you.
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.