Jauronimo Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) But in his head (and this is just an assumption), he had his built-in alibi with the history of house robberies he claimed, There's something very off about this story. The fact that pets from the neighborhood seem to go missing on his property is off-putting as well. Casting doubt on a year's worth of documented robberies while declaring neighbors suspicions regarding pet disappearance as fact? You're getting pretty carried away. Take what you wrote a step further. Hes been patiently working on his robbery alibi for months in order to somehow lure two teens into his house to shoot them? http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22081144/little-falls-authorities-find-precription-drugs-other-items Edited December 5, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm not sure how much traction this story is receiving outside of Minneosta. Basically two teens (17 and 18 I believe) broke into this guy's house on Thanksgiving. He shot and killed the first one. Then the girl came down, he shot and wounded her - tried taking another shot, but the gun jammed. She laughed at him, so he grabbed a pistol and killed her too. He called the police the next day (because he didn't want to bother them on Thanksgiving........). At first the media was portraying him as a monster and the kids as saints. Look for their pictures in various stories and you'll see something similar to the Trayvon Martin case, where they made Martin look innocent. But now news has been leaking out that the kids are probably responsible for numerous break-ins (cops found $10k worth of guns/drugs in their car from what I read). The girl (maybe both of them) were in and out of rehab. Definitely not good eggs. So the question remains -- murder, self-defense, or somewhere in the middle? Here's a story: http://kstp.com/news...903.shtml?cat=1 And another: http://www.startribu.../181772751.html The first story says that the neighbor called the police, which is technically true, but from other accounts, the "murderer/victim" asked the neighbor to call the police after asking for a lawyer reference. I think that it's an interesting case. After falling more vitim to a rush of judgment in the TM case I'm not going to speculate to much on this at this point. But here's what I think so far. I don't think you can fault him at all in shooting the kid when he heard him walking down the stairs. He hears a person breaking in and doesn't have time to call the police. He also at that point doesn't know if the person is armed or not. So I don't think he can be charged with anything in the first shooting. Now, as far as the girl is concerned. What the !@#$ is wrong with him here. Her laughing at him after she'd been shot sounds really strange. I have a feeling she made some other noise he took to be a laugh. But that's just speculation on my part at this point. The second shot to the face was not necessary. And the third shot was classic overkill in the psychological sense. There was no reason to shoot her a third time but for his own anger/mental state. However, we can't forget that they did break into his home. So I don't think he should get off scott free on the case since he went way overboard to the point of executing the girl. I just don't know what you could charge him with in this case. Manslaughter with depraved indifference maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 And to think, he was a long-term federal employee. LoL... Son of Sam was a postal worker and learned his technique in the military... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 LoL... Son of Sam was a postal worker and learned his technique in the military... You have to worry about those federal workers. Especially the long term ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Here's the thing about that: a plan to "hunt some humans" would likely include a plan to dispose of the bodies, and avoid detection; or would have been much more prompt and much less sketchy in regards to the reporting of police. In other words, it would have entirely avoided police involvement or would have involved them in a way that lent itself to castle docrtine defense. This story involves neither of those things. I wasn't thinking "hunt humans" so much as something other than a burglary was going on & for whatever reason he ends up killing them, whether pre-meditated or otherwise. I'm not trying to Trayvon the incident and declare what happened. all I know is what the article said. But this fact pattern sounds fishy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) You have to worry about those federal workers. Especially the long term ones. Na... We're too institutionalized... OR at least SHOULD BE! Edited December 6, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Something about this whole story isn't adding up. If the girl was unarmed, why would she come down the stairs after hearing gunshots, when it would be assumed that she would know the guy she was with was also unarmed....? Plus the whole "moving of one body onto a tarp..." makes me feel uneasy. Like this was premeditated.... Part of me thinks the whole burglarly thing might have been his excuse to hunt some humans. Maybe she was outside, didn't hear the shots and came looking for her cousin? Unless his defense can prove that he snapped, he will be convicted for shooting them after they were wounded and no longer a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I wasn't thinking "hunt humans" so much as something other than a burglary was going on & for whatever reason he ends up killing them, whether pre-meditated or otherwise. I'm not trying to Trayvon the incident and declare what happened. all I know is what the article said. But this fact pattern sounds fishy. The more I've thought about this, the more likely this seems to be an attempt to solicit a Craigslist prostitute gone terribly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 The more I've thought about this, the more likely this seems to be an attempt to solicit a Craigslist prostitute gone terribly wrong. Why bring Ducky into the conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Why bring Ducky into the conversation? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Why bring Ducky into the conversation? Even I have to admit this it pretty funny. Well played my friend, well played! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Maybe she was outside, didn't hear the shots and came looking for her cousin? Unless his defense can prove that he snapped, he will be convicted for shooting them after they were wounded and no longer a threat. I don't think you can conclude "no longer a threat". At what point is someone no longer a threat? Would he have to lave the room to call police ad take his eyes off of the intruder? I think many would define "no longer a threat" as confirmed dead. No doubt the homeowner's behavior is strange but I think many faced with an intruder would not stop inflicting force until the intruder is motionless. If the law allows deadly force then I can't see him being convicted or even charged unless the intruder story is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) I don't think you can conclude "no longer a threat". At what point is someone no longer a threat? Would he have to lave the room to call police ad take his eyes off of the intruder? I think many would define "no longer a threat" as confirmed dead. No doubt the homeowner's behavior is strange but I think many faced with an intruder would not stop inflicting force until the intruder is motionless. If the law allows deadly force then I can't see him being convicted or even charged unless the intruder story is not true. Or at least unconscious. How could anyone conclude that an intruder who is lying on the ground and may be armed is 'no longer a threat'? Edited December 9, 2012 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Waiting to call the police is odd. But the kids have extensive records, were found with stolen money and drugs, the guy doesn't have any past criminal history, they were in his home, and they're not alive to give their story. Self defense. And I've been told that if you injure someone in your home, make sure they're dead because dead men (or women) tell no tales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Waiting to call the police is odd. But the kids have extensive records, were found with stolen money and drugs, the guy doesn't have any past criminal history, they were in his home, and they're not alive to give their story. Self defense. And I've been told that if you injure someone in your home, make sure they're dead because dead men (or women) tell no tales. The story that Smith gave is what will have him in trouble. He admitted executing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Self defense or murder? Is this is a thread where we can justify shooting Chan Gailey for inflicting so much torture on us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Is this is a thread where we can justify shooting Chan Gailey for inflicting so much torture on us? I'm not an expert on that, ask that fan out in San Diego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 The story that Smith gave is what will have him in trouble. He admitted executing them. Yeah, pretty dumb on his part, but he can recant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 At what point is someone no longer a threat? When you can hold a handgun under her chin and pull the trigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 When you can hold a handgun under her chin and pull the trigger? That's where he lost me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts