Byron Smith murder trial in US - wow

[Grumfutock]

FwdConvert said:

I remember being 17, quite immature when I look back even though I didn't think I was then.

I remember not burglarising old folks' homes, repeatedly. Or any other criminal activity for that matter.

I remember not running into an armed defender of his property, as I raided it.

I remember not being shot to death.

The gene pool is now saved the long term pollution of two recidivists.

Zero sympathy.

So can I cut one of your toes off next time you get a parking fine? Maybe take an eye next speeding ticket? God help you if your ever caught drink driving. I would have zero sympathy for you!

[Finlandia]

I think this is a case of "picked the wrong guy to fk with". If you break in on a regular basis, sooner or later you will either get caught by the law or break in somewhere you really shouldn't have.

[Vaud]

Art0ir said:

This is real life, not James Bond.

Trained marksmen in the police don't even "shoot them in the leg" because the chance of missing is high. Body shots are the only thing attempted. Same reason "head shots" are confined to Call of Duty or Snipers in Afghanistan who want a cool video to show their mates on their phone back home.

Now that definitely doesn't excuse the executions, but I just couldn't let the "why didn't he shoot to disable" post that inevitably comes out.

But they weren't armed. She was slowly walking down the stairs. He was static. He didn't even fire a warning shot. He didn't have to hit her to make his point.

I take your point, but he was not a marksmen, he was just trying to be an executioner.

[Rovinghawk]

Vaud said:

He didn't have to shoot to kill. If he was in fear of his life he could have shot them in the leg.

'Shoot-to-wound' is a fallacy. If you're not comfortable with the possibility of killing someone then don't even pick the weapon up.

A hit to the femoral artery will kill them, even with just a .22 in the leg.

He had a choice of shoot or lie down & let them do whatever they want to him/his property. He might be a nutter, but he didn't choose to have the fight- they did.

They will be no great loss.

[Vaud]

Rovinghawk said:

'Shoot-to-wound' is a fallacy. If you're not comfortable with the possibility of killing someone then don't even pick the weapon up.

A hit to the femoral artery will kill them, even with just a .22 in the leg.

He had a choice of shoot or lie down & let them do whatever they want to him/his property. He might be a nutter, but he didn't choose to have the fight- they did.

They will be no great loss.

No, he had several other choices, including firing a warning shot that might have achieved his goal - of not being robbed anymore.

He chose instead to be judge and executioner.

[LocoCoco]

Vaud said:

No, he had several other choices, including firing a warning shot that might have achieved his goal - of not being robbed anymore.

He chose instead to be judge and executioner.

Yup!

[Grumfutock]

LocoCoco said:

That's not what I'm saying if you could calm down a bit. I've already said I don't harm people. Death penalty = harming somebody.

I'm anti-death penalty, doesn't mean I can't believe that most people deserve to die. The problem with my logic is that if you do kill them, you end up with whoever killed them deserving to die too and also, the loved ones of the deceased might not deserve the loss.

Ideally for me, everybody would respect/be nice to each other.

OK perfectly calm.....

So you are anti death penalty? Why did you write: "Anybody who deliberately sets out to harm somebody else deserves to die imo".


Oh i see. It is perfectly fine for there to be a death penalty as long as you don't have to do the killing whilst we should all have a group hug, love the trees and be nice to each other.

I refer you to my previous comments.

[Art0ir]

Vaud said:

But they weren't armed. She was slowly walking down the stairs. He was static. He didn't even fire a warning shot. He didn't have to hit her to make his point.

I take your point, but he was not a marksmen, he was just trying to be an executioner.

I agree, it was simply the shoot-to-disable/wound point I was contesting.

[FwdConvert]

Grumfutock said:

So can I cut one of your toes off next time you get a parking fine? Maybe take an eye next speeding ticket? God help you if your ever caught drink driving. I would have zero sympathy for you!

Won't be getting a parking fine.

Don't speed - have you heard of GPS/SatNav tools with speed limit related beeps?

Won't be caught drink driving.

But, particularly, didn't say what he did was proportional, just that I have zero sympathy for repeat criminals (and of more deliberate crimes than those you pointlessly postulate).

I don't care how much sympathy you have for me. Nor, I suspect, would they have cared what I had for them - anymore than the sympathy they had for their victims. Two repeat criminals the world is spared from.

[Murph7355]

Dan_1981 said:

If he'd just shot them, then called an ambulance / police he'd probably have got away with it, and been celebrated as a heroic old bloke defending his home.

Dragging them off of his precious carpet, wrapping them in a camo tarp and finishing them off with "nice clean kill shots" probably wasn't his wisest decision.

Tend to agree with this.

What absolutely cannot be argued is that if the 17yr olds had not been creeping into his basement, they'd still be alive today. Irrespective of what happens to the old bloke, if that sinks into just one thick headed numbskull kid and prevents them ending up this way then something good will have come from it.

I can easily imagine how frightened older people could be if they've been burgled previously. Expecting them to aim for limbs or wait until they're 100% certain they're going to come to harm before acting is unrealistic. But this chap seemingly went to far.

[anonymous-user]

I have no problem with shooting someone if in fear for your life - if that person turns out to be a kid who later dies of their wounds then it's sad, but that's the risk you take. What's not acceptable is to execute someone after they're clearly no longer a threat to you.

[wolves_wanderer]

LocoCoco said:

wolves_wanderer said:

f everyone thought like you then we would all be dead due to constant escalations from small issues and grotesque over-reaction.

"I was forced to smash his face in because he looked at my bird" is not an excuse, it is an over-reaction by an agressive, dangerous moron. Shooting an injured teenage girl in the face and then leaving her corpse in your cellar for a day because people have been nicking your stuff is worse by an order of magnitude.

FFS, I know that it is generally a competition on here to come up with the most strident and over the top punishments to infringements large or small but come on guys.

In your example, how has the person that looked at the other guy's bird deliberately set out to harm somebody else? I don't think you understand what I'm saying here.

Well, having read this

LocoCoco said:

I'm anti-death penalty, doesn't mean I can't believe that most people deserve to die. The problem with my logic is that if you do kill them, you end up with whoever killed them deserving to die too and also, the loved ones of the deceased might not deserve the loss.

I'm not sure I do.

[Vaud]

Art0ir said:

I agree, it was simply the shoot-to-disable/wound point I was contesting.

OK. I don't agree but respect your point.

[Rovinghawk]

Vaud said:

He chose instead to be judge and executioner.

They chose to be burglars.

Their death is no big loss.

[wolves_wanderer]

Rovinghawk said:

Vaud said:

He chose instead to be judge and executioner.

They chose to be burglars.

Their death is no big loss.

About the same level of loss as having this nutcase locked up for the next 40 years

[bitchstewie]

I don't know if it's just as I get a little older but I swear this place gets worse and worse every fking time I come here.

It's like it's a competition about who can be the biggest on the internet.

[Disastrous]

A few posters have mentioned the time taken to call the authorities and described it as 'not on'.

I completely agree that the bloke sounds like a lunatic and went way over to the top (sounds like he enjoyed it!) but what's the significance of him taking a day to call it in?

I'm assuming they weren't going to get any more dead so having killed them, taking a day to notify the authorities seems like a fairly irrelevant point to get hung up on, unless I'm missing something?

[LocoCoco]

Grumfutock said:

LocoCoco said:

That's not what I'm saying if you could calm down a bit. I've already said I don't harm people. Death penalty = harming somebody.

I'm anti-death penalty, doesn't mean I can't believe that most people deserve to die. The problem with my logic is that if you do kill them, you end up with whoever killed them deserving to die too and also, the loved ones of the deceased might not deserve the loss.

Ideally for me, everybody would respect/be nice to each other.

OK perfectly calm.....

So you are anti death penalty? Why did you write: "Anybody who deliberately sets out to harm somebody else deserves to die imo".


Oh i see. It is perfectly fine for there to be a death penalty as long as you don't have to do the killing whilst we should all have a group hug, love the trees and be nice to each other.

I refer you to my previous comments.

The post you've quoted explains it all.

I wrote "anybody who deliberately......" because that's what I believe.

I dunno how you reached "Its perfectly fine for there to be a death penalty" after I told you I'm anti death-penalty.

I might think that you deserve to drive a Zonda, doesn't mean anything. Everybody has an opinion and nobody's is more important/right than the next person.

Do you disagree that everybody should respect/be nice to each other? I doubt it. You're just less strict and more forgiving than me. Which I respect.

[Grumfutock]

FwdConvert said:

I don't care how much sympathy you have for me. Nor, I suspect, would they have cared what I had for them - anymore than the sympathy they had for their victims. Two repeat criminals the world is spared from.

Oh how quick you are to assume and judge. I haven't seen anything that s say's she had committed any previous crimes?

Guilty but association?

[TheBear]

"A warning shot" is just as silly a suggestion as shooting to wound.

Where is the bullet going to go? Where are you going to stand? If you don't want to put a hole through your wall/into a passer-by/into god knows what in the air(where's the bullet going to land eventually) then you need to fire a blank for effect. Do you need another gun with blanks in? In the heat of the moment can you be sure you've picked up a blank?

Daft.

The prosecution case seems to hinge around the pre-arming which could show an intent to kill/seriously injure no matter what the threat was and then once the threat had been stopped then the apparent execution.

I'm unsure as to the ins and outs of the right to defend your home with deadly force as to whether you need to establish that the person is armed/poses a direct physical threat to your life or whether you can simply shoot on sight.

Edited by TheBear on Wednesday 23 April 12:57