Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 140 Posts

·
Through Knowledge, Peace
Joined
·
4,971 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
THE CHAMPION®
Joined
·
630 Posts
I'm having a hard time trying to have sympathy for thieves :(
Man, did you listen to the same recording I did? That was some cold-blooded ****. Continuing to shoot someone that is clearly no longer a threat and pleading?

If someone is a threat, you shoot them and then they die, so be it. But to shoot someone pleading with you that clearly isn't one while telling them they are dying, no sir.
 

·
I'll have the Molotov...
Joined
·
248 Posts
Man, did you listen to the same recording I did? That was some cold-blooded ****. Continuing to shoot someone that is clearly no longer a threat and pleading?

If someone is a threat, you shoot them and then they die, so be it. But to shoot someone pleading with you that clearly isn't one while telling them they are dying, no sir.
^ THIS.

In researching the event, it seems that the audio lines up with the facts I understand as follows:

-Two teens broke into his home
-They were nearly instantly incapacitated by being shot by Mr. Smith
-Then, he goes on to stop, reload, inspect his handiwork
-Mr. Smith then proceeds to execute two individuals who are already no longer a threat or unknown quantity
-He then spends the next few minutes in his home rambling/justifying his actions (presumably because he knows he is recording it)

I can't say that his language in the audio does him any favors, as he goes on to call the intruders "vermin" and the like, but insulting burglars isn't the issue. Deciding to execute someone who was breaking/broke the law, but is no longer a threat to you is unethical in my eyes (and it would seem, in the eyes of some juries). The event is over in the first ~40 seconds of the audio, then he spends the next few minutes seemingly justifying his actions, most likely because he knew he was recording the event, and to try and make it okay to do what he did.

In a legal and not ethical view, I think this audio definitely hurt him more than helping him, and I would wonder what his legal council thought about it when they heard it originally.

It's my opinion that this guy was one of the people in this world who was looking for a reason to kill someone and just waiting for the opportunity to present itself. Do I know this guy's life story? No. Do I know every fact surrounding the event that could've led to his actions? No. But from what I have in front of me and the reports I have read from his conviction on guilty verdicts of both first and second degree murder... He was not protecting himself. This man started within the law in stopping a threat, then he went well outside the law when he started performing executions.

Gun ownership and use is a responsibility. If you don't think you'll be able to control yourself when a situation arises wherein you may have to decide when enough force has already been used... I'd sell your guns. Or you may end up like this guy.
 

·
Maximus
Joined
·
12,320 Posts
Additional facts not in evidence because it was thrown out... these two thieves robbed this house before. Meds were found in their car that were stolen from another household that day.

They were on a shopping spree apparently of neighborhood houses.

These facts were tossed because they were "prior acts" were not admissible.

I don't like Byron Smith. I think he went too far also. But he is not fully wrong either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
I don't know about the laws in that state or the culpable mental state required for it to no longer be justified to kill a burglar . If he had no duty to retreat and the castle laws don't require him to be in fear of his life to kill a burglar then the verdict is wrong. I think he just lost out to political correctness and was convicted of being a unpleasant jerk
 

·
THE CHAMPION®
Joined
·
630 Posts
Once you step into someones home for the purpose of robbery murder etc. there are no rules. You lost all of your rights the second you broke into THEIR world. Good riddance. How many citizens will they victimize in the future? Zero. Not your family or mine.
You have the right to stop the threat. If they die as a result of you stopping them then oh well. Now to stop the threat and then go out of your way to make sure they die while you tell them you are killing them... that's a whole 'nother thing that takes a special kind of evil. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that die in the commission of a crime but straight up executions will never sit well with me. What kind of person are you that you are fine with this? Seriously.
 

·
THE CHAMPION®
Joined
·
630 Posts
I don't know about the laws in that state or the culpable mental state required for it to no longer be justified to kill a burglar . If he had no duty to retreat and the castle laws don't require him to be in fear of his life to kill a burglar then the verdict is wrong. I think he just lost out to political correctness and was convicted of being a unpleasant jerk
The devil is in the details. There is a difference between defending yourself and murdering someone. Defense requiring lethal force where someone dies is different than some incapacitated teenager begging you when you walk up and finish them. All they determine at these trials is whether it was really self defense. This is why you can't empty a whole magazine into a guy. No one is going to believe you had to shoot somebody 17 times to put them down. At that point its clear you weren't trying to stop a threat anymore you were trying to make sure they died.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
904 Posts
Criminal scum breaking into one's castle should be prepared for the consequences. But listening the shooter was just creepy as he rambles along his defense. Then there's the waiting before reporting the incident. Classic case of what not to do. :xeye:
 
1 - 20 of 140 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top