Byron Smith case/Little Falls, MN Shootings

I think he was guilty, but not of 1st degree (premeditated) murder.

He didn't stalk them or force them into breaking into his house. Even moving his car to increase the likelihood of a break-in doesn't do it for me. The sequence of events that day were initiated by the two that broke in and no-one else.

The reasoning required to convict for premeditation in this case could also make anyone who loads a gun prior to having a reason for it to be loaded guilty (every carrying CCW holder everywhere) if that gun is fired in self-defense. In both cases, simply being prepared for a possibility is misconstrued as causing the possibility.

That said, he is the last person society would want to own a gun and I don't have sympathy for him. I just worry about the bad precedent set by a guilty premeditated murder verdict and how an overzealous prosecutor might abuse it against someone in a legitimate self-defense situation.

2AHokie said:

I think he was guilty, but not of 1st degree (premeditated) murder.

He didn't stalk them or force them into breaking into his house. Even moving his car to increase the likelihood of a break-in doesn't do it for me. The sequence of events that day were initiated by the two that broke in and no-one else.

The reasoning required to convict for premeditation in this case could also make anyone who loads a gun prior to having a reason for it to be loaded guilty (every carrying CCW holder everywhere) if that gun is fired in self-defense. In both cases, simply being prepared for a possibility is misconstrued as causing the possibility.

That said, he is the last person society would want to own a gun and I don't have sympathy for him. I just worry about the bad precedent set by a guilty premeditated murder verdict and how an overzealous prosecutor might abuse it against someone in a legitimate self-defense situation.

Click to expand...

Have you listened to the tape and looked at his interviews with the police ?

If you look through the jury instruction, it spells out the 5 elements that the state has to prove to sustain a first degree murder charge.

Anyone who looks at the evidence presented during that trial has to admit that the 5 elements of first degree murder under MN statutes were established with that evidence.

Then jury instruction goes through the 3 elements of a self defense claim (belief that it was necessary, judgement about gravity of peril must have been reasonable, application of reasonable man standard). Nothing in the evidence presented established anything beyond Smiths belief that it was necessary to use lethal force.

They further go through the three elements required for the justification of force in the defense of a dwelling. In that paragraph, the court gives him one of the points right in the jury instruction (the fact that Brady and Kifer were in the process of committing felony burglary). The other two points are that his assessment of the gravity of the situation must have been reasonable and further that his election to use force must have been that of a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have called the sheriffs dept. when he saw the burglar casing his house, or certainly at the point when he broke the window. Once the premeditated intent to kill is established, it is very difficult to claim that the use of force in this case was reasonable.

If you listen to this muttering fool gloating to himself how he 'left the house at 11 and they were dead by 1:30' and how he was killing them to keep them from coming back to steal from him again after they return from jail, there is just no doubt that he intended to kill them before they even entered his house. The 'reasonable man' standard is that, not the 'standard of the most aggressive home defense advocate' but that of a normal person asked on the streets of Little Falls, MN.

If you put it all together, there is just no other conclusion the jury could arrive at. There is something like 'imperfect self defense', where if you kill someone but in hindsight your judgement wasn't the best. In those cases, rather than murder you have to deal with a manslaughter charge. But there was simply nothing in there that would have even allowed to go to that downgrade.

What I find suprising about this case is that his mental state was not made the center of his defense. Some sort of 'battered homeowners syndrome', early dementia, paranoia or temporary insanity.

Ok so here is my take after listening to the full audio.

Lying in wait, so? His home.

You can HEAR the 1st deg burg occur as the window is broken. Now we have a home invasion.

Kid comes STOMPING down the steps. Shot dead. Ok.

Girl comes in 10mins later, shot a few times. Ok.

Girl " finished off". Not ok.

Audio recording it? Not ok. How did he know to set up the audio?

Moving bodies (evidence) definitely not ok.

Monologue after the killing. Effing weird.

My personal view:

Murder? NO
Self Defense? YES
Tampering with evidence? YES
Hindering an investigation? YES

He should be charged for criminally tampering with evidence, and also without a doubt be mentally evaluated because no sane person utters the things he did or records what he did. It is sick and twisted. Personally I hope he ends up in a mental institution instead if a jail. These kids chose their fate by being drug addicts and criminals. They were killed committing a felony. I will shed no tears for them. I think this trial did uncover a seriously disturbed and trouble man, but not a murderer per se. However his behavior is totally unacceptable.


Sent from the Bantu Wind using Tapatalk.