A retired State Department employee has been indicted on two charges of first-degree murder in the latest case involving “castle doctrine” claims. There is little dispute that the two teens, Nicholas Brady, 17, and Haile Kifer, 18, broke in the Minnesota home of Byron Smith, 64, on Thanksgiving Day. Indeed, Brady may have broken into the home twice before. However, Smith’s shooting the unarmed teens and his actions captured on his own videotaping system led to the charges.
Smith was an expert in setting up security systems for embassies and that expertise could prove his undoing at the criminal trial. His own camera system captured his taunting the teens. The tapes show Smith telling Smith “you’re dead” after shooting him and then taunting Kifer and calling her a “bitch” while repeatedly shooting her. He then allegedly dragged the bodies to his workshop and left them until the next day when he called the police. Police report that he told them that he fired “more shots than I needed to” and fired “a good clean finishing shot” into Kifer’s head as she was gasping for air.
That is a bad record to take to a jury. However, he does have the Minnesota Caste Doctrine law:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.
Notably, the law does not limit the use to a reasonable belief of a threat of great bodily harm or death but also “preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.” That would seem pretty sweeping. The teens were indeed in the progress of the commission of a felony. However, what does “necessary” mean if the teens were unarmed and Smith was armed?
Prosecutors say that Smith shot the teens multiple times as they walked down the stairs to his basement about 10 minutes apart. It will be difficult to prove that he clearly knew the teens were not unarmed unless the videotape shows the teens surrendering. Even under the common law, juries and judges would give a homeowner a considerable degree of deference. With a criminal charge, such uncertainty places directly into the question of reasonable doubt.
Notably, Minnesota’s Governor recently vetoed an expansion of the state’s Castle Doctrine law to extend its protections outside of the home to cars, motor homes, boats and even tents.
There was also an interesting increase in the charges. Smith was initially charged with second-degree murder but the grand jury required first-degree charges.
I have been a long critic of Castle Doctrine laws. The title refers to the old adage that “a man’s home is his castle,” which is not a common law doctrine of criminal law or torts but rather an aspirational statement. The Castle Doctrine is generally a reference to the modern trend of legislatively empowering homeowners to use lethal force solely on the basis of a home invasion.
Under the common law, there was not “fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others” so long as you acted in reasonable self-defense or even “reasonable mistaken self-defense.” In the case of Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113 (1896), a man chased a group out of his home only to fire when a man approached him outside his home from the stone-throwing mob. It turned out to be a deputy sheriff but the court found that Courvoisier could rely on reasonable mistaken self-defense.
The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes. These laws are based on an urban legend that people are routinely prosecuted for defending their homes from intruders. The laws have produced perverse results as in the infamous case of Tom Horn in Texas. Yet, the popularity of these laws have spawned “Make My Day Better” laws that extend the privilege of lethal force to businesses and cars. Montana’s law had been invoked in workplace shootings. As with the Harper case, these cases raise the question of whether lethal force would have been used absent the law, which is criticized as enabling certain people in the use of force. In one case, a Texas man was acquitted after allegedly forcing teens to kneel before him before shooting one. The teens had stolen junk food in his trailer home.
This case raises many of these classic issues of where to draw the line in the use of lethal force. The law was written to allow the use of lethal force in response to felonies in the home. It could well come down to the meaning of “necessary.”
Source: Star Tribune as first seen on ABA Journal
ap, People report burglaries to the cops unless there is a reason they don’t want the cops @ their house, or don’t want to report what was stolen, eg; drugs. “If you steal from a thief they can’t call the cops.”
Blouise,
I knew that he had only “reported” one of the burglaries, but I’m curious about the other alleged incidents.
I would want to know about all of his contacts with local authorities. Were there 911 or other calls to law enforcement?
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/180785621.html?refer=y
“The brother said this was the latest of eight burglaries within the last few years, with the most recent on Oct. 27, when about $10,000 worth of guns, electronic gear and cash were stolen after thieves broke out a panel in a lower-level door. He said not all the burglaries were reported but that the one last month was reported to the Morrison County Sheriff’s Office.”
“Lori and Scott Williams, whose property abuts the Smith land, said they were spooked by the man, who often fired guns on his property. They suspected Smith in the disappearance of neighborhood pets, Lori Williams said, and took their concerns to law enforcement. Deputies told her nothing could be done, she said.
Bruce Smith said neither he nor his brother liked dogs because they leave messes.
After six or eight burglaries of his house and garage in the past three or four years, Byron Smith was fed up and frustrated because he thought the sheriff’s office wasn’t doing enough to solve the break-ins, his brother said.
Sheriff’s records show that Smith had reported only one burglary, on Oct. 27, when sentimental items, including his father’s hunting shotgun, were among $10,000 in reported losses”
http://www.startribune.com/local/181772751.html?refer=y
How about a story on all the minorities in Connecticut�that are forced into guilty pleas…
________________________________
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246080/Byron-David-Smith-CCTV-footage-teen-cousins-breaking-Minnesota-home-Thanksgiving-shot-dead.html
“Smith’s home in Little Falls, MN has been burglarized eight times in recent years, his brother said.”
There’s more to this story than meets the eye.
“If you’re trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again,” Smith told investigators.”
That’s all they need. He is flat out admitting that he didn’t shoot her again because of fear for his life or even to prevent a felony.
We don’t know the specifics of the first shooting, but it may be argued that once the guy fell down the stairs, again, the threat was over and there was no additional felony to prevent. He’s already committed Breaking and Entering, shooting him doesn’t stop or prevent that crime. Any evidence of burglary?
Question haunts Little Falls: What led shooter to kill?
Article by: JOY POWELL , Star Tribune
Updated: December 3, 2012 – 6:47 AM
Byron Smith admitted killing two teen burglars. Some see a decent man, one who helped youths and was only trying to protect himself. Others see a U.S. Foreign Service retiree who coldly executed two wayward teens
http://www.startribune.com/local/181772751.html?refer=y
According to police, the shooter left the two bodies in his basement and did not report it to the police because it was Thanksgiving and he didn’t want to bother them on a holiday. The next day the shooter told his neighbor about the two bodies in his basement and the neighbor called the police. The shooter called a lawyer.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22067764/little-falls-man-describes-finishing-teenagers-shots-heads
“When Brady came down the steps, Smith shot him twice. The teen fell to the base of the stairs, and Smith shot him in the face. He then dragged his body to a workshop and return to his chair.
“I want him dead,” the complaint says Smith told investigators.
Minutes later, Kifer came down the stairs, and Smith shot her. After she fell to the bottom of the steps, Smith told investigators, he tried to fire at her again, but his rifle jammed.
Smith said Kifer let out a laugh — a short one because she was in pain — when the gun didn’t fire. Smith told investigators that angered him, so he pulled out a .22-caliber revolver he was carrying and shot her several times in the chest.
“If you’re trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again,” Smith told investigators. (On the video tape I believe it was when she laughed that he called her a “*itch” )
He also acknowledged firing “more shots than I needed to.”
Smith said he dragged Kifer into the workshop. But when he realized she was still alive, he shot her “under the chin up into the cranium,” the complaint quoted him as saying.
He described that action as “a good clean finishing shot” because he wanted to end her suffering.”
The law might support the first shot for the attempted felony, but the subsequent shots, the killing shots, were deliberate and unnecessary. He needs to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Arthur, I know cops better than most. I know they can be real good and REAL bad, most in the middle..that bell curve. Like yourself, I have nothing but derision for the bad ones. I just refuse to lump all cops in w/ them. I know you don’t, but you must admit in your dark moments, you may sometimes do.
1st degree, 2nd degree, that pitch will rest almost entirely upon the video evidence. However, given that the grand jury was sent 2nd and came back with 1st? That’s not a good sign for the defendant. A lone prosecutor might be simply overcharging. A grand jury – composed of a group of people – is less likely to do so. Either way, this guy is going to prison and – as our host notes – for how long is likely to turn on the definition of necessity.
I think a jury will go with 2nd degree murder, like Nick said.
If cops had done it they would have walked.
If true.l. It sounds like the necessity ended when they became immobile….. Sucks for him that this guy is good with technology…. It will probably be his undoing….
Arthur, You really have a problem w/ the Houston police! Do we need an intervention? Hopefully you know now this is simply good natured. I give you a verbal emoticon “wink.”
ns The only problem I have with HPD is that most of them were crooks and killers. Now if they did their job properly and did not steal, rob, and basically acted like the public servants they are supposed to be, I would have no problem. Thankfully, over the years, many of the worst have retired and the KKK is no longer running the place as they were when I first came here.
I most certainly hope that you TOO would have a problem with them back then. The Houston Post is no longer in existence by the way.
My daughter lives in the Twin Cities and this has been a big story. from speaking w/ folks up there and reading/watching the coverage the good people of the Twin Cities don’t abide this. I’m w/ them. First degree will be tough, it will probably be a second degree conviction. The good people of the Twin Cities also know these kids had some culpability.
I lived in a condo next to a Houston cop who was constantly stealing my Houston Post from my door. I told the paper to make sure the newspaper guy tossed my paper into the patio area which had a six foot wooden fence around it. Then if the cop came over the fence to steal the paper, I could legally shoot the SOB. I guess the cop knew the law too, and I had no more problems.
So I am all in favor of castle laws since it should make crooks a lot more wary, and obviously the crooks thought that they were immune from being shot in this case. Too bad. Maybe the next burglars will take this example to heart.
I have seen a lot about this case & its not pretty. The guy claims these kids had broken in before but I am not sure how he determined that. He shot the boy & when it was obvious he was not going to die he shot him again – all that without warning or any threat from the biy. He then waited for the girl to come downstairs and shot her. She didn’t die fast enough either but he had trouble with his gun and had to get another, walk over and by his own admission, talk to her before shooting her in the head.
This was murder no matter what his justifications might be. He was no longer defending his home (you might argue he never really was since he could easily have called the cops & held the two at gun point) even if he had to shoot them the cold blooded execution was murder.
The kids had no business in the house & deserved to be punished for it but last I check burglary was still not a capital offense in Minnesota
I would vote with Tony if on a jury. I agree with the to right to use appropriate force in defense but this was an execution.
Another story, from Texas of course, where a woman, after emptying a handgun at, and killing, a pursesnatcher was cleared of all charges.
Were I on the jury, I expect I would find him guilty. If it was not necessary to kill the teens to preserve his own life then their deaths were his choice and in my mind that makes it deliberate murder. His comments as quoted above are sufficient for me to see that he could have held them for police, I suspect his video shows the same, and IMO he should be put to death. Deliberately.
” Indeed, Brady had broken into the home twice before.”
Obviously, the column has to present a condensed version, but I am intrigued by your statement above.
Suggests history between them – a degree of recklessness on the part of Brady (maybe even a deliberate assault), inability/willful neglect by law enforcement, building anger, etc.