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
I pointed out Minnesota does not have the death penalty 2 days ago. To say that fact is inconsequential is ridiculous on several levels.
Nick: The lack of recourse to the death penalty does not make my argument moot in the least; my argument was not about the specific penalty. Had I known that, the argument remains the same, one question is needed; “All in favor of letting this basturd rot in jail the rest of his life, say Aye.”
The argument is over how little jury deliberation is needed once the testimony is heard. But of course, you are too inept to maintain focus on real arguments, all you can do is look for inconsequential inaccuracies.
Arthur: A property crime involves property. A violent crime involves attacking a person. These teens were not attacking anybody; the transcripts that refer to specific parts of the video make it clear they thought the house was empty, and when each teen entered the basement they had no idea Smith was even there until he shot them.
Therefore any crime they were committing was a property crime, not a violent crime. They cannot have had any intent to do him harm if they did not know he was there.
A mugging or car jacking can be both a violent crime and a property crime. A person can be charged with more than one crime; like assault and theft. These teens were NOT involved in a violent crime, the descriptions of the video, the remarks of the prosecutor, both show there will be zero evidence they ever attempted to attack Smith. They opened the door to the basement while in the course of a property crime, and got shot by somebody they did not even see, because Smith had purposely turned out the lights and was sitting in the dark to ambush them.
That you “cannot imagine” something does not surprise me in the least.
Given the fact that they attacked his home at night. His car was still there Those things lead ME and Smith to conclude that they knew somebody was home. Thus they were going to attack him if they ran into him or possibly run away, but with two against one old man, I have a good idea how that was going to go. Smith has to assume the worst for self defense which is why the law is written to allow deadly force.
This is like saying that all that they wanted to do was to steal all his money, high priced objects, and knew he would be there, and if he resisted they would beat him. So why did they deserve to get shot and killed?
Ap,
The other day I experienced the same “awaiting” hold … I changed the word *itch and it went through.
Oh, and any defense attorney worth a damn would excuse you quickly, if the hypothetical did apply.
Once again, a moot argument. There has been no death penalty in Minnesota for over 100 years. However, please feel free to vent. I thinks it’s helping a bit.
Nick: Some folks throw out words like, “sociopath,” “liar,” kill the b#stard,” so cavalierly. That says much more about the person speaking those words than it does about anything else.
That was me that said that; and in the hypothetical context of being on the jury where the decision to put Smith to death would be mine to legally propose, as bluntly as I wish during jury deliberations.
What that says about me is I believe those that demonstrate inhumanity, sadistic brutality and a disregard for life deserve the same in return. I do not value the lives of monsters in the least. I will respect the law, but I definitely believe Smith deserves to be treated the same way he so cavalierly tortured and killed a child, and a near-child.
If I were on this jury, I would absolutely veto any verdict but “guilty as charged.” I would let it be a hung jury, if necessary. I hope this goes to trial and there is at least one person on the jury with the steel to do the same.
Arthur: No, they were NOT committing a violent felony, they were committing a property crime which is definitively NOT a violent crime.
You have absolutely zero proof the girl “heard the shots” and she probably did not, since she was recorded saying, “Nick?” which is the boy’s name. She was not attacking, she was searching for her companion. They were not committing a violent crime, they were committing a property crime. Look it up.
According to TC almost every crime would be a property crime then. From car jacking, bank robbery, since all of those crimes involve taking property. The fact is that burglary is as some say an inchoate crime which puts in jeopardy the safety of the people in the dwelling, thus it is a violent crime. If no person had been home, THEN I would agree that it would only be a property crime. Smith had no possible way of knowing whether or not the crooks were armed, In fact, waiting until the crooks shoot is a good way to wind up dead if they are.
I find it almost impossible to believe that a person in the house could not hear a rifle going off. That makes one hell of a lot of noise and only if the house was a mansion with 30 or so rooms, then you might have a case. Simply calling out the crooks name does NOT mean she is not armed. Incredible that you can make such a leap..
Dredd: Every statement of fact I have stated
I am not concerned with any statement of actual fact, I am concerned with your misleading statements and speculation that you present as fact but have nothing to do with fact. For one example from many, your false claim that the teens “followed” him into the basement. No, they didn’t. They did not know he was there, they both entered the basement without any caution, and the girl entered the basement calling out, “Nick?” which means she was obviously looking for her cousin and did not know he was dead, she had not parsed the gunshots as gunshots, and she walked through the basement door unguarded and without any expectation of being assaulted by anyone. She was not “following” Smith; and neither was Nick when searching the house. As the surveillance video shows the teens weren’t even in the house when Smith set up his trap, they were outside it, and they never saw him in the house.
But perhaps you are just so dense you think this is some fun debate and you fail to apprehend that two teens were killed in real life for no good reason. I have not forgotten that, and do not care to treat that tragedy as cavalierly and callously as you obviously do.
The fact is that those two teens were killed for the REASON that they were committing a violent felony. I am amazed that some people can read minds. So since I am a far better mind reader than most, I will say what Smith thought. He knew that his home had been burglarized many times in the past, so he took defensive measures. He put himself in the out of the way basement, not his bedroom where he would stand little chance. So he shoots one crook, and the other one hearing the shots, rather than running comes down to investigate, showing that the person is more than likely ARMED. Smith knows that they know he is home since his car is there. It is nighttime,thus indicating that they have to assume he is home. Thus he shoots the next crook and shoots again and again. The law does not say he is only allowed one shot. Nor does being shot qualify as being harmless since even mortally wounded people have proven deadly to others.
While it is too bad that these kids did not survive their youthful stupidity, they have no grounds for complaint. Don’t do the crime and they would have been fine
Dredd, Well said..very well said. Some folks throw out words like, “sociopath,” “liar,” kill the b#stard,” so cavalierly. That says much more about the person speaking those words than it does about anything else. I’ve seen too much pain and death in my professional life. I’ve seen the pain inflicted by sociopaths and liars. That’s why I use those words carefully. And, despite all the horror I’ve seen done by bad people, I have never uttered the words, “kill the b#stard,” and never will.
Arthur: It is amazing that one can be accused of setting an ambush in your own home.
The ambush is in the purposeful deception with the intent to kill. The fundamental flaw in your concept is the idea that no laws whatsoever apply because you are in your home. To take an extreme example, do you also believe Smith could have tied up and raped the girl at gunpoint? Wouldn’t that have been a lesser crime than ending her life? If you believe that would have been wrong, why would rape be against the law but voluntary murder within it?
I am not a lawyer, but I believe it is fair to say (as the Grand Jury also apparently believes) the Castle Doctrine does not exempt one from all law, it only protects one in defending one’s life or property within the home. it does not give a license to deliberately choose murder, it recognizes the use of lethal force may be necessary in the defense of life and property.
These killings, however, were not necessary at all. Smith was never attacked, the kids did not even know he was in the house. He purposely deceived them multiple times and set a trap with the clear intent of killing them.
Tony C. 1, April 28, 2013 at 10:23 am
Dredd: Read the transcript of the article by Powell in the Star Tribune. It confirms my hypothesis and refutes yours. Because you do not understand how the world works, and I do. He ambushed them, he purposely undid the lights, except the one he needed to aim, and then lay in wait. The girl did not “follow” him to the basement, she was looking for Nick and called out for him, after the gunshots. The recording backs that up.
Keep twisting; you are defending a real-world sadistic child murderer and you are taking sick pleasure in it, reveling in the torture of children.
=====================================
I would be impressed with your ramblings if you were the jury.
Your fantasies are fine, make all you want, but the jurists and lawyers in the case do not have that play pretend luxury.
The jury will hear all the allegations of fact, and the judge will have to hear all the arguments of law, and you won’t have any impact on it.
So, soiling your knickers over it is ill advised.
Every statement of fact I have stated comes from the reports, and so do yours.
It is just that you err when you think your version is the only one the jury will hear.
Don’t fret so senselessly.
Dredd: Read the transcript of the article by Powell in the Star Tribune. It confirms my hypothesis and refutes yours. Because you do not understand how the world works, and I do. He ambushed them, he purposely undid the lights, except the one he needed to aim, and then lay in wait. The girl did not “follow” him to the basement, she was looking for Nick and called out for him, after the gunshots. The recording backs that up.
Keep twisting; you are defending a real-world sadistic child murderer and you are taking sick pleasure in it, reveling in the torture of children.
“Jury trials often surprise people because they do not try to think about how the jury is going to handle the opposing allegations and testimony.
That is why lawyers take reason to court instead of pitchforks.” -Dredd
Bears repeating.
Tony C. 1, April 27, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Dredd: You keep twisting; by his own words he wasn’t fearful, and the Grand Jury had it right. These were murders, and you are defending a child killer out of spite for me. What a pathetic human you are.
=================================
Pontificating from your lonely world again Tony C.
You would make a terrible lawyer.
Like you, all I know is what I read in the newspaper, except I do not twist it.
You falsely and dishonestly do twist things in order to molly coddle your narcissistic inner TC and your tiny laity’s world.
I convey all the facts and/or allegations the jury will hear, speculating on how those issues may or may not impact their decision:
(Star Tribune). You are very much like the pitchfork wielding Luddite crowd who incessantly yell at lawyers “how could you defend that scum“, thus exposing your growing distance from the high school level understanding of the Constitution, down toward the Akinoid level.
Some of those neighbors and others with like proclivities may be on the jury, and a seasoned lawyer, whether prosecution or defense, will be aware of that.
A competent lawyer must be mindful of the world of the jury rather than injecting their own wishful thinking, as you do, into the mix.
You might also take note of what the presiding judge said and ruled when the prosecution attempted to put him in jail without bond, as a reaction to the Grand Jury increasing the charge, up from 2nd degree as the prosecutor requested, to 1st degree:
(ibid, emphasis added). You would do will to read some Minnesota law then contemplate both sides of the issue before spouting off things you hear on Faux Snooze.
Jury trials often surprise people because they do not try to think about how the jury is going to handle the opposing allegations and testimony.
That is why lawyers take reason to court instead of pitchforks.
It should be an interesting trial, if it gets that far.
****http://www.startribune.com/local/east/183841961.html?refer=y****
Bail lowered for man accused of killing 2 Little Falls teens
Article by: JOY POWELL , Star Tribune
Updated: December 18, 2012 – 6:48 AM
LITTLE FALLS – Byron David Smith taunted the teen as she lay dying, shooting her again and again, according to a prosecutor who said an audio recording shows Smith went beyond self-defense in the Thanksgiving Day shootings of two cousins trying to burglarize his home.
“The state will show that this was an ambush, and a murder,” prosecutor Todd Kosovich said in a court hearing Monday, recounting the chilling details the recorder captured.
Kosovich also argued for an increase in Smith’s $1 million bail, but Judge Douglas Anderson ordered that Smith could be released from jail if he posted $50,000 in cash or a $500,000 bond and met conditions, including surrendering his passport.
Smith, 64, whose friends and relatives say had endured several previous break-ins, turned over the passport to authorities Monday night, but remained in Morrison County Jail as relatives worked to raise the bail money.
He is charged with two counts of second-degree murder in the deaths of Haile Kifer, 18, and her cousin, Nicholas Brady, 17. The teens were apparently trying to break into Smith’s red-brick rambler along the Mississippi River when he shot them and then dragged their bodies into a workshop where they remained for more than 24 hours.
Kosovich said that on the day of the killings, Smith had guns within reach as he sat in a chair, between tall bookshelves, facing the basement stairs.
He had unscrewed light bulbs from sockets, save for one above the stairs.
There was a loaded rifle next to him and a loaded .22-caliber revolver strapped to his side.
Search warrants have revealed that Smith, a former security engineer for U.S. embassies, also had a surveillance system that picked up images of Kifer and Brady outside his home. Inside the house police found hours of audiotapes on a digital recorder.
Kosovich said a recording includes the sound of breaking glass, presumably when Brady broke a rear window, crawled in and then went downstairs.
Smith shot Brady three times, telling him, “You’re dead,” according to the recording. Within 18 seconds, Kosovich said, came the sound of Brady’s body being dragged on a tarp to a workshop.
“That’s how fast, that’s how well equipped he was to deal with the death of Nick Brady,” Kosovich said.
Ten minutes after the last shot, as Smith sat in his chair, Kifer’s voice can be heard on the tape, calling out “Nick?”
Twelve seconds pass and Kifer begins down the stairs.
“Then we hear the first shot,” and the sound of her body falling down the stairs, the prosecutor said.
Smith’s rifle jams. The click is audible and Smith is heard saying, “Oh, sorry about that,”
As Kifer moans, Smith switches to the revolver.
After the second shot, Kifer says, “Oh, my God,” and on the third shot, “Oh, God.”
After the fourth shot, she utters “aw” and Smith says to her: “You’re dying.”
Now, Kosovich said, she’s on the basement floor, “helpless,” and Smith calls her “bitch.” The sound of Smith dragging her to his workshop is audible and she is heard gasping.
One minute and 15 seconds later, again calling her “bitch,” Smith fired a shot beneath her chin and into her cranium, the prosecution contends.
“He shot Haile Kifer three times in the head,” Kosovich told the judge. “There’s no way that’s self-defense.”
The prosecutor noted that from the sound of the window breaking to when Brady came downstairs, seven minutes passed during which Smith could have called police.
At that, Smith’s older brother, Bruce Smith of California, laughed in the courtroom. The prosecutor also quoted Smith’s description of Kifer’s death to police: “She gave out the death twitch; it works the same as in a beaver or deer,” the prosecutor quoted Smith as saying.
“Oh, my God,” one of the teens’ family members whispered in the courtroom.
In asking for lower bail, Anderson’s attorney, Steve Meshbesher, said Smith is a Little Falls native who retired after 16 years with the Department of Homeland Security in a computer job.
Meshbesher also said Smith had written a memo to the sheriff’s office about his Oct. 27 burglary and others in the area. His basement door, on a walkout level, had been kicked in, and a lock broken, and guns, cash and other items stolen.
“He told the police his story because he wanted their assistance and guidance,” Meshbesher said, calling Smith a concerned, good citizen.
Kosovich argued that Smith is a danger to the community, noting that “he admitted he sat with the bodies for 24 hours.”
A neighbor, William Anderson, contacted the sheriff’s office 24 hours after the slayings because Smith called him, asking if he knew a good attorney.
After the hearing, Brady’s grandparents, Steve and Bonnie Schaeffel, said the bail should not have been lowered.
“That is not who you want to see walking down the street,” Bonnie Schaeffel said.
She doesn’t believe the cousins were involved in the earlier burglary at Smith’s home, and said they would have deserved legal punishment for breaking in on Thanksgiving.
Instead, she said, they ran into an enraged homeowner who carried out “a vigilante-style murder of children.”
(One link and it’s “awaiting moderation.”)
I see that the really dangerous persons walking the streets are the relatives of the crooks. They seem to think that it is OK for their sons and daughters to break into homes and be safe from the owners doing something bad to them. They refuse the right of self-defense for the poor guy who was their victim I can understand why their children became criminals now. Had they brought up their kids to fear for the consequences of their actions, they would be alive today. Instead they make excuses for their kids. They think that just because the crime that they committed was not punishable by death means that they are supposed to be immune from deadly force in the commission of a crime.
It is amazing that one can be accused of setting an ambush in your own home. I guess that simply having a gun in your house is setting a trap if you take actions to protecf yourself and that it is the fault of the homeowner for having property that the crooks want. INcredible.
While it is too bad that the crooks died, it is THEIR FAULT. Period. Now if the homeowner had tied them up and tortured them, then you might have a point. The facts and the law as I read it give the guy safe harbor.
A case which I DO think was attempted murder was the Goetz case in NYC. That was done in a public place, the kids were exactly that, had committed NO crime, had no weapons, and were no threat to Goetz, and retreated from him, yet they got shot, and then he tried to finish them off.. My position is once you commit a felony in the victims home, you become a legal target for whatever the homeowner does to you to stop and render the crook dead or harmless. So if they can let Goetz off, I see even more reason to find this guy not guilty..
‘ Now if the homeowner had tied them up’
It seems to me there is, perhaps, another way to think of this event.
At some point the legal justification to use lethal force has to terminate else individuals could walk around shooting anyone they please.
I would argue that the legal justification for lethal force terminates when the crime is over.
Could the home owner track the perpetrators to their home and shoot them there – I don’t think so. At point the crime complete and the threat to the home owner ceases.
Could the home owner take the perpetrators into custody, handcuff them and then shoot them? I would argue – no – the threat to the homeowner and the threat of completing the crime are over when the perpetrators are in custody.
In this case the homeowner shot the women as she lay, presumably helpless and likely mortally wounded, on the basement floor. In his words he shot her, not to deal with a real or perceived threat, but to put her out of her misery.
It seems to me that in so far as the commission of the crime is concerned there is no difference between being tied up, and being wounded on the basement floor. In either case the perpetrator has no further ability to conduct the crime.
Once the crime has terminated, I wonder what conceivable justification there is for the use of additional force.
BTW, I don’t think anyone has suggested that the homeowner should not be able to defend himself or his home. What is under discussion is whether the homeowner can apply the coup de grâce once the perpetrator is helpless.
What ever justification there is, it clearly has nothing to do with protecting the home owner or property.
It should be an interesting trial, if it gets that far.
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/183841961.html?refer=y
Bail lowered for man accused of killing 2 Little Falls teens
Article by: JOY POWELL , Star Tribune
Updated: December 18, 2012 – 6:48 AM
LITTLE FALLS – Byron David Smith taunted the teen as she lay dying, shooting her again and again, according to a prosecutor who said an audio recording shows Smith went beyond self-defense in the Thanksgiving Day shootings of two cousins trying to burglarize his home.
“The state will show that this was an ambush, and a murder,” prosecutor Todd Kosovich said in a court hearing Monday, recounting the chilling details the recorder captured.
Kosovich also argued for an increase in Smith’s $1 million bail, but Judge Douglas Anderson ordered that Smith could be released from jail if he posted $50,000 in cash or a $500,000 bond and met conditions, including surrendering his passport.
Smith, 64, whose friends and relatives say had endured several previous break-ins, turned over the passport to authorities Monday night, but remained in Morrison County Jail as relatives worked to raise the bail money.
He is charged with two counts of second-degree murder in the deaths of Haile Kifer, 18, and her cousin, Nicholas Brady, 17. The teens were apparently trying to break into Smith’s red-brick rambler along the Mississippi River when he shot them and then dragged their bodies into a workshop where they remained for more than 24 hours.
Kosovich said that on the day of the killings, Smith had guns within reach as he sat in a chair, between tall bookshelves, facing the basement stairs.
He had unscrewed light bulbs from sockets, save for one above the stairs.
There was a loaded rifle next to him and a loaded .22-caliber revolver strapped to his side.
Search warrants have revealed that Smith, a former security engineer for U.S. embassies, also had a surveillance system that picked up images of Kifer and Brady outside his home. Inside the house police found hours of audiotapes on a digital recorder.
Kosovich said a recording includes the sound of breaking glass, presumably when Brady broke a rear window, crawled in and then went downstairs.
Smith shot Brady three times, telling him, “You’re dead,” according to the recording. Within 18 seconds, Kosovich said, came the sound of Brady’s body being dragged on a tarp to a workshop.
“That’s how fast, that’s how well equipped he was to deal with the death of Nick Brady,” Kosovich said.
Ten minutes after the last shot, as Smith sat in his chair, Kifer’s voice can be heard on the tape, calling out “Nick?”
Twelve seconds pass and Kifer begins down the stairs.
“Then we hear the first shot,” and the sound of her body falling down the stairs, the prosecutor said.
Smith’s rifle jams. The click is audible and Smith is heard saying, “Oh, sorry about that,”
As Kifer moans, Smith switches to the revolver.
After the second shot, Kifer says, “Oh, my God,” and on the third shot, “Oh, God.”
After the fourth shot, she utters “aw” and Smith says to her: “You’re dying.”
Now, Kosovich said, she’s on the basement floor, “helpless,” and Smith calls her “bitch.” The sound of Smith dragging her to his workshop is audible and she is heard gasping.
One minute and 15 seconds later, again calling her “bitch,” Smith fired a shot beneath her chin and into her cranium, the prosecution contends.
“He shot Haile Kifer three times in the head,” Kosovich told the judge. “There’s no way that’s self-defense.”
The prosecutor noted that from the sound of the window breaking to when Brady came downstairs, seven minutes passed during which Smith could have called police.
At that, Smith’s older brother, Bruce Smith of California, laughed in the courtroom. The prosecutor also quoted Smith’s description of Kifer’s death to police: “She gave out the death twitch; it works the same as in a beaver or deer,” the prosecutor quoted Smith as saying.
“Oh, my God,” one of the teens’ family members whispered in the courtroom.
In asking for lower bail, Anderson’s attorney, Steve Meshbesher, said Smith is a Little Falls native who retired after 16 years with the Department of Homeland Security in a computer job.
Meshbesher also said Smith had written a memo to the sheriff’s office about his Oct. 27 burglary and others in the area. His basement door, on a walkout level, had been kicked in, and a lock broken, and guns, cash and other items stolen.
“He told the police his story because he wanted their assistance and guidance,” Meshbesher said, calling Smith a concerned, good citizen.
Kosovich argued that Smith is a danger to the community, noting that “he admitted he sat with the bodies for 24 hours.”
A neighbor, William Anderson, contacted the sheriff’s office 24 hours after the slayings because Smith called him, asking if he knew a good attorney.
After the hearing, Brady’s grandparents, Steve and Bonnie Schaeffel, said the bail should not have been lowered.
“That is not who you want to see walking down the street,” Bonnie Schaeffel said.
She doesn’t believe the cousins were involved in the earlier burglary at Smith’s home, and said they would have deserved legal punishment for breaking in on Thanksgiving.
Instead, she said, they ran into an enraged homeowner who carried out “a vigilante-style murder of children.”
Dredd: You keep twisting; by his own words he wasn’t fearful, and the Grand Jury had it right. These were murders, and you are defending a child killer out of spite for me. What a pathetic human you are.
Tony C. 1, April 27, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Dredd: Defendant Smith rettreated to his basement. Those committing the felony followed him.
That is a bullschit assertion. They were unarmed, the most plausible scenario is clearly that they did not even know he was IN the house,
======================================
He shot the first one several minutes prior to shooting the second one.
Unless the weapon had a silencer on it the loud gunshot should have alerted the second burglar.
He would have been in his rights to be fearful when the second one came in his direction after a loud gunshot resonated through the house.
It is not whether a burglar is armed or not, it is whether they are committing a felony or not under Minnesota law.
Dredd: Defendant Smith rettreated to his basement. Those committing the felony followed him.
That is a bullschit assertion. They were unarmed, the most plausible scenario is clearly that they did not even know he was IN the house, they thought he was gone and they were searching the house for something to steal. Perhaps drugs, money, or something they could pawn. They did not “follow” him to the basement, they were unarmed and the boy entered the basement to search it, where Smith was lying in ambush. In all probability, the 10 minute delay before the Kifer girl entered the basement is because she and the boy had split up to search, and she had finished her part and was looking for him. If she heard the gun at all, she may have mistaken the noise for the boy knocking stuff over in a frantic search; since she did not expect anybody else to be there.
You are correct, it would not be normal for her to enter a basement unarmed (and apparently without any caution) if she knew the homeowner was down there and that shots were fired. That is the very mental model of typical human behavior that we use to infer that she did NOT know the homeowner was down there, and probably had not even recognized the basement-muffled sounds as being gunshots, or she would not have left herself a wide open target at the top of the stairs.
They were both surprised by Byron Smith; neither of them entered the basement with any intent of attacking him. He ambushed them, and then murdered them.