students are found murdered in man's basement

[+ouija ouija]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610531/Court-hears-audio-recording-homeowner-Byron-Smith-shooting-dead-two-teens-broke-basement.html

Most recent update.

[Jilliman]

The recording sounds really disturbing but in m honest opinion I feel no sympathy for the teenagers. You break into someone's home, you risk your life. I know that sounds really cold but it's ridiculous how many break ins occur all over this country these days. People are going to start acting nutty.

I think this guy snapped after having people break in several times before hand hence the disturbing way he killed them. I think he was overcome with terror turned rage which is why he did what he did. I'm not condoning him for his actions but people to horrific things when they're scared and being scared can turn into being angry very quick.

[+OverSword]

The recording sounds really disturbing but in m honest opinion I feel no sympathy for the teenagers. You break into someone's home, you risk your life. I know that sounds really cold but it's ridiculous how many break ins occur all over this country these days. People are going to start acting nutty.

I think this guy snapped after having people break in several times before hand hence the disturbing way he killed them. I think he was overcome with terror turned rage which is why he did what he did. I'm not condoning him for his actions but people to horrific things when they're scared and being scared can turn into being angry very quick.

But to come up close to a person you've already shot and finish them off? No way. This guy should not be around decent people. Personally I own no material posession I would kill some body over. I would fight and likely kill to protect my own life but I won't kill a person over a television set.

[libstaK]

But to come up close to a person you've already shot and finish them off? No way. This guy should not be around decent people. Personally I own no material posession I would kill some body over. I would fight and likely kill to protect my own life but I won't kill a person over a television set.

I agree, to shoot once is understable if you feel threatened. After that all you need to do is hold them at bay by having a gun aimed at them. His intention was clearly to shoot to kill and he lay in wait to do just that even having the presence of mind to move the bodies so they don't damage his carpet. He is cold and callous, not a terrified victim. It was murder and he admitted as much by taking a "kill shot" to ensure they were dead when they were already clearly badly injured and incapacitated.

[docyabut2]

In my opinion he had ever right to shoot them, just like that one guy that accidently left his garage open and two kids came in stabbed him twenty times and burn the bed he was in and robbed him, lucky he survived.No one know what intruders will do.However he should have call the police right after but was properly afraid they persecute him.Kids or no kids if perps are going in to a home to robbed, there`s the chance their going to be hurt or killed.

[Jilliman]

I still think he just snapped. I'm not condoning the behavior but I think he got so scared and paranoid he decided to take no chances and kill them both.

I really feel no sympathy for the teens. I know someone who used to rob houses as a teen (he was a bad teen lol great adult now) and he said that you must know the risks going into it and that if he were caught the owners had every right to kill him.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Jilliman

[libstaK]

I still think he just snapped. I'm not condoning the behavior but I think he got so scared and paranoid he decided to take no chances and kill them both.

I really feel no sympathy for the teens. I know someone who used to rob houses as a teen (he was a bad teen lol great adult now) and he said that you must know the risks going into it and that if he were caught the owners had every right to kill him.

Yes, it is possible he snapped out of sheer fear. People can work themselves into some really extreme states aka: believing the devil is in their child is not unheard of and the results can be truly horrible. His state of mind must be a subject of deep psychological analysis and may play a part in his defense - of course, the pattern of behavior would have to exist prior to this event, there would have to be witness evidence of his fear being unreasonable or extreme fear being exhibited in the period leading up to this event. Otherwise, it is an extreme leap from experiencing fear to acting by killing someone - these mindsets take time to build in people who are respectful of right to life on even a general level. Killing someone is not easy, imagining that we want to kill someone (because they are terrifying us as an example) is not that hard but never with the belief that we would act on that imagination in reality. If it were not so, there would be a heck of a lot more killing going on for some pretty inane and lame reasons.

For the above reasons, while those that break into homes SHOULD have a real and genuine fear of being killed if caught by the homeowner if they have a gun or are armed in some other definitive way, most simply do not think it would be any easier for someone to kill them than they would be capable of killing someone themselves - which, most likely and commonly, may be not at all. It is a generalization to imagine that every burglar or trespasser is conscious of the full range of risks they face - and even if they are, the weight they give those risks are based on their personal view of the world and having nothing at all to do with what a random stranger is actually capable of doing when faced with an intruder.

What I see is this though: If he did act out of unreasonable fear, then that fear was fed by an increasingly radical perception of what people deserve if they trespass and what people in general are capable of when faced with a gun pointing at them - most reasonable people would see the power lies with them if they are holding someone at bay with a gun and be quite safe in that belief, especially if they have already incapacitated them in a way that prevents any sudden moves. That level of radical misconception of reality as it is actually playing out - requires a response from society, he needs to be locked up for the safety of society and even of himself to some degree because he is capable of that misconception again and tragedy of a myriad of sorts is capable because of him to others - his fear has set a precedent and how we judge that fear also sets a precedent for what happens next in his life and those who are exposed to him when/if another extreme emotion overcomes him.

Also society needs to understand what is reasonable and what is not - those who are forming perceptions of acceptable reality can see a precedent here that favours them becoming radicalized in their views. The law educates us on what is acceptable social behaviour, it will in the final outcome have to do this in relation to how it judges this case aka: the behaviour is not acceptable, regardless of fear or any other misguided notion he is operating under and therefore it needs to be punished and in such a manner as to deter others from emulating/copying the behaviour.

[+ouija ouija]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616183/Minnesota-intruder-trial-jury-DIDNT-hear-Homeowner-befriended-teen-burglars-shot-dead-basement-gang-drove-crazy-year-treating-estate-like-candy-store.html

The homeowner has been convicted of premeditated murder and given two life sentences with no chance of parole. I still feel very sorry for him. Turns out he employed the teens(and some others), over the summer holidays and they took advantage of that and stole from him many times during that summer. They stole items of great sentimental value. In the end he was driven mad.

[Jilliman]

I feel bad for him.

I don't feel bad for the teens. There's the old saying, "If you play with fire, you're going to get burned." They were old enough to know right and wrong. They were old enough to know a homeowner has a right to defend their property.

I will never understand why so harsh a punishment for protecting your home.

Yeah, I get that he could have held them at gunpoint. I get that he could have called the cops. I get that their lives were taken when alternate solutions could have been taken.

Those teens weren't good people. I'm not saying all criminals need to die. I just don't feel sympathy for them. We live in such a frightening world these days. Seems like crimes like this are on the rise. Maybe drastic action should be taken to scare other potential burglars.

Or maybe parents need to teach their kids morals and enforce them more.

[+ouija ouija]

I listened to the tape and the part after he has shot them is interesting. I feel so sad for him because he seems to have led a decent life, helping youths quite a bit, and he wasn't appreciated by the youngsters he gave summer work to and he wasn't given help by the police when he needed it .

[CapitalistDecay]

I feel bad for him.

I don't feel bad for the teens. There's the old saying, "If you play with fire, you're going to get burned." They were old enough to know right and wrong. They were old enough to know a homeowner has a right to defend their property.

I will never understand why so harsh a punishment for protecting your home.

Yeah, I get that he could have held them at gunpoint. I get that he could have called the cops. I get that their lives were taken when alternate solutions could have been taken.

Those teens weren't good people. I'm not saying all criminals need to die. I just don't feel sympathy for them. We live in such a frightening world these days. Seems like crimes like this are on the rise. Maybe drastic action should be taken to scare other potential burglars.

Or maybe parents need to teach their kids morals and enforce them more.

Have you heard of something in law called the Principle of Proportionality?

From wiki, "In self-defense cases, the amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against non-deadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor (death or serious bodily harm) will be greater than the harm avoided (less than serious bodily harm). Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary."

For me, the last sentence is most important. Clearly in this case the homeowner's use of force wasn't necessary, therefore he violated the law and should be removed from society. We can't really have people running around willing to kill when they are angry. Even if he was scared the fact is, particularly after he had shot them once, he used disproportionate force when he killed them and it was clearly not necessary.

Funnily enough, I had a run-in with the law where I was essentially in the homeowner's position, albeit to a much lesser extent. A roommate of mine was leaving the house but on the night before the new tenant was moving in the roommate hadn't moved all his stuff out. So that night I took the time to move some boxes and chairs of his into the garage. I woke up the next morning at 6am with the roommate standing over my bed and screaming in my face to never touch his stuff without his permission and to move it back into his old room right then. He stormed out and I sat there blinking in shock, trying to shake out the cobwebs. He came back a few minutes later and when he saw me still sitting in bed trying to gather my thoughts and calm my emotions he stomped over to me in a very intimidating manner, demanding that I move his stuff back. I jumped out of bed and grabbed a pair of scissors sitting on my desk and screamed at him to stay the eff back and get the eff out of my room. I didn't like him trying to physically intimidate me(he was a big guy) and I didn't respond positively to his behaviour and I let him know in no uncertain terms that I wasn't going to take it. He was so shocked he called the cops on me and the cops initiated restraining order proceedings against me because, according to them, I had threatened him with the scissors and that wasn't proportionate force because he had no weapon and the fact that he was approaching me in a threatening manner wasn't relevant. He eventually came to his senses and dropped the charges but as you can see if proportionality applied to my little altercation, it most certainly would also against a guy who shoots incapacitated people to death even if they are intruders in his home.

I'm going to the Little Rock Film Festival this month and one of the documentaries there, "Man Shot Dead" deals with this pretty intimately. It's about a guy who trespasses when blind drunk(unarmed) and is shot to death by the homeowner. It's pretty conflicting and shows how such things just aren't cut and dried. If you happen to be in Arkansas this month, check it out Anyways, just my two cents.

Edited May 3, 2014 by CapitalistDecay

[Jilliman]

Never head of Principle of Proportionality. Thanks for bringing it up! That does make sense to an extent. I really feel as though he acted out of fear. It's a shame everything happened the way it did.

I guess all I can really say on the matter is that this was just a sad situation because it could have been prevented. Starting with the parents of said teens. Teaching their children respect towards others and strictly enforcing those values could have went a long way. Could have saved their lives. Could have saved that man a world of terror.

I do see from the law's point of view why he is guilty though. Just a shame. :/

[supervike]

I know the guy has a right to defend himself and his home, but after listening to that audio and thinking what really just happened, it turns my stomach.

These were 18 year kids, not angels by any means, and most likely stupid, greedy, little snots. They deserved to be thrown in jail and have arrest records, not baited and mercilessly killed.

I find it VERY hard to find a defense for this man that doesn't include some sort of mental illness.

[No Censorship]

I know the guy has a right to defend himself and his home, but after listening to that audio and thinking what really just happened, it turns my stomach.

These were 18 year kids, not angels by any means, and most likely stupid, greedy, little snots. They deserved to be thrown in jail and have arrest records, not baited and mercilessly killed.

I find it VERY hard to find a defense for this man that doesn't include some sort of mental illness.

That tape was chilling and nauseating, and it revealed the fact that he used the lesser crime as an excuse to commit a greater crime. He had a right to defend himself. He didn't have the right to murder two kids. They were no threat when he executed them. They should have been punished if they would have been caught. They were burglars and thieves. They weren't murderers, though. That label should be reserved for their executioner.

[lisaloveslilia]

I don't think this guy was either fearful or worried about possesions. He waited in the BASEMENT for these kids. What if they just stole a bunch of stuff in his house and completely ignored the basement???

Nope I think he had every intention of killing those teenagers in cold blood but I think he was slightly apprehensive and stayed in the basement convincing himself that if they did infact come down there, then it would be their destiny to die.

He's gonna rot in jail! Sick psycho!