Byron Smith murder trial in US - wow
Discussion
Bill said:
Should they have been caught and punished? Yes. Could Smith have done more to prevent break ins? Yes. Was he within his rights to shoot to defend his property? Yes. Should they have broken in? No.
Thus far they're still alive...
Was he right to move his car so his house seem deserted and lie in wait with a book and a couple of guns? No. At that point he went from worried householder to vigilante.
And bear in mind he didn't just defend his property, he kept shooting until he thought they were dead and then shot again when he believed one wasn't.
Would they still be alive if they hadn't broken in?Thus far they're still alive...
Was he right to move his car so his house seem deserted and lie in wait with a book and a couple of guns? No. At that point he went from worried householder to vigilante.
And bear in mind he didn't just defend his property, he kept shooting until he thought they were dead and then shot again when he believed one wasn't.
Bill said:
WinstonWolf said:
Would they still be alive if they hadn't broken in?
Do you think he bears no responsibility for their death?Bill said:
Was he right to move his car so his house seem deserted and lie in wait with a book and a couple of guns? No. At that point he went from worried householder to vigilante.
I don't think that's right. It's not as if he advertised for a break-in by leaving the front door open with a pile of cash on display. The perps came of their own accord and broke into the house.The only question here, and bear in mind their law is very different from UK, is whether these intruders were killed in the course of lawfully defending himself and/or his property....
WinstonWolf said:
I think they bear the ultimate responsibility for their own demise. It boils down to one simple fact, if they hadn't broken in they would still be alive.
I disagree. If they hadn't broken in they wouldn't have been shot. Their deaths (particularly the girl's) is Smith's responsibility.Bill said:
WinstonWolf said:
I think they bear the ultimate responsibility for their own demise. It boils down to one simple fact, if they hadn't broken in they would still be alive.
I disagree. If they hadn't broken in they wouldn't have been shot. Their deaths (particularly the girl's) is Smith's responsibility.
ker.ofcorsa said:
I didn’t think that was the case. I thought you were also allowed to defend your property in America. I think it does depend on State. I’m sure an American could clear this up for us though.
It varies state by state, in Texas I believe it's legal to shoot someone in the back as they run away for your premises.If you go out to the more trailer trashy republican voting areas it's not uncommon to see signs with a picture of a gun and words like "we don't call 911" or "if you can read this you're in range". It's a cultural thing.
The thing that I found remarkable from the pictures is the guy waltzing into court in a suit and no handcuffs. Had he been a black youth accused of say shoplifting he's be in an orange jumpsuit and shackled hand and foot.
I would have no sympathy for a burglar in normal circumstances;the USA have stand your ground laws,and lots of guns,it is a risk they chose to take-thats American laws. However standing over the (possibly not) dieing body of the girl and callously shooting her in the head execution style is way beyond that,and he should go down.
They guy seem to have that many guns from the DM link that he wasnt sure some had been taken-imagine that happening with a gun licence holder in the UK
The wiki article earlier also shows that it is unclear on his duty to retreat from his house before opening fire,no idea if it is correct as Im not a yank lawyer
They guy seem to have that many guns from the DM link that he wasnt sure some had been taken-imagine that happening with a gun licence holder in the UK
The wiki article earlier also shows that it is unclear on his duty to retreat from his house before opening fire,no idea if it is correct as Im not a yank lawyer
Bill said:
We're going round in circles now and should probably agree to disagree.
She committed a crime in breaking in, he commited a crime in placing a pistol under her chin and pulling the trigger. I know what I consider both the greater crime and the act that directly resulted in her death.
We probably should She committed a crime in breaking in, he commited a crime in placing a pistol under her chin and pulling the trigger. I know what I consider both the greater crime and the act that directly resulted in her death.
But not quite yet 
For me it's not about the magnitude of the crime, it is who had the opportunity to avoid it. They could have avoided it at any time by simply not breaking in.
You wouldn't blame a lion if you broke into the enclosure and it ate you to death...
Bill said:
WinstonWolf said:
We probably should But not quite yet
For me it's not about the magnitude of the crime, it is who had the opportunity to avoid it. They could have avoided it at any time by simply not breaking in.
But not quite yet For me it's not about the magnitude of the crime, it is who had the opportunity to avoid it. They could have avoided it at any time by simply not breaking in.
Because Smith couldn't avoid putting the gun under her chin?
GoTo 10:
WinstonWolf said:
Bill said:
WinstonWolf said:
We probably should But not quite yet
For me it's not about the magnitude of the crime, it is who had the opportunity to avoid it. They could have avoided it at any time by simply not breaking in.
But not quite yet For me it's not about the magnitude of the crime, it is who had the opportunity to avoid it. They could have avoided it at any time by simply not breaking in.
Because Smith couldn't avoid putting the gun under her chin?
GoTo 10:
Should they have been there? No.
Did they deserve to be executed? No.
Alfa numeric said:
WinstonWolf said:
Bill said:
WinstonWolf said:
We probably should But not quite yet
For me it's not about the magnitude of the crime, it is who had the opportunity to avoid it. They could have avoided it at any time by simply not breaking in.
But not quite yet For me it's not about the magnitude of the crime, it is who had the opportunity to avoid it. They could have avoided it at any time by simply not breaking in.
Because Smith couldn't avoid putting the gun under her chin?
GoTo 10:
Should they have been there? No.
Did they deserve to be executed? No.
GoTo 10:
I wonder how many posters in this thread have experienced being in their own home and hearing / seeing intruders breaking in.
That must be a fairly terrifying experience, the effect of which I think is being underestimated by many on this thread. At least by those who seem to think that he was wrong to shoot them.
(note: I'm separating concept of shooting them with the concept of him finishing her off)
That must be a fairly terrifying experience, the effect of which I think is being underestimated by many on this thread. At least by those who seem to think that he was wrong to shoot them.
(note: I'm separating concept of shooting them with the concept of him finishing her off)
Edited by TheJimi on Thursday 24th April 13:27
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff