Byron Smith murder trial in US - wow
Discussion
Disastrous said:
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?
I think it is a good indicator of a premeditated execution, and also pretty pyschopathic to leave bodies in your basement.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?
Having shot intruders (and putting the moral argument to one side) a normal reaction would be to call the police?
TheBear said:
"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.
Not really but thanks for your input. It's in a basement. Ricochet is a risk, but not hard to shoot into a sofa, etc. he was sitting and waiting, with two guns, it was not a sudden grab of his gun. And he was well accustomed to guns.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.
LocoCoco said:
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.
Please let me be clear on this, your saying you are anti death? Yes? And anyone that does a crime deserves to die? 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.
TheBear said:
"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.
He's sat waiting with two guns. He could either load the first chamber with a blank (or non-lethal) round or he could place a bucket of sand next to his chair.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.
He didn't do that because he wanted to kill them. Making him vastly worse than them.
wolves_wanderer said:
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."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.
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.I understand what I'm trying to say perfectly. Deliberately harm others and you don't deserve your life, I don't think it's that radical of a viewpoint.
Vaud said:
Disastrous said:
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?
I think it is a good indicator of a premeditated execution, and also pretty pyschopathic to leave bodies in your basement.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?
Having shot intruders (and putting the moral argument to one side) a normal reaction would be to call the police?
Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree...it just seems to me that the big decision here was the one to pull the trigger. Having crossed that line, is it then a big deal to leave the bodies in your basement? Maybe it took a while to sink in and he started to worry about the implications of calling the authorities? Maybe he was considering trying to 'get away with it'?
I would have thought it normal to go through a range of emotions after taking action like that, and wouldn't be surprised if one of the first reactions is to close the door, go upstairs and make a cup of coffee and ignore it for a while.
It just seems odd to get hung up on the fact that he didn't call someone straight away as evidence of anything. In fact, the more I think about it, the more plausible it seems to me that my immediate reaction would be to think "Jesus, what a day. I've had enough and can't deal with police tonight. I'll figure this out in the morning" or whatever.
Aside from that, it seems to me completely clear that he had planned to execute the people breaking into his house. What's unclear is whether that was motivated by fear, retribution, self-defence, anger or something else. I'm not sure the motivation matters tbh.
Grumfutock said:
LocoCoco said:
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.
Please let me be clear on this, your saying you are anti death? Yes? And anyone that does a crime deserves to die? 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.
I've not brought crime into this at all, you have. I've said that deliberately harming somebody else should negate your right to live. I believe this because I want to live in a world where everybody is nice to each other.
LocoCoco said:
I've said that deliberately harming somebody else should negate your right to live. I believe this because I want to live in a world where everybody is nice to each other.
Jus to help me understand - can you define "harming someone else"?With a spectrum of a joke made in someones direction that they took personally - through to verbal bullying through to a slap on the face through to physical, life changing assault. Where do you personally see the boundary that then negates the right to live?
The right to defend your home with deadly force is a very messy law and is open to huge interpretation. It came about from society feeling that criminals had more rights over the home owners themselves and whilst is written in law, always causes a huge debate whenever the law is used.
We live in the US now and it is a nice place, but you do have to think that some people are armed here and you must act accordingly, to prevent something like this happening.
The situation we have here is very sad, yes, we all agree. However if you decide that breaking into homes in the US is a good idea then you had better be prepared when in a red state such as Minnesota were the use of guns and civil rights are very prominent issues.
Chris
We live in the US now and it is a nice place, but you do have to think that some people are armed here and you must act accordingly, to prevent something like this happening.
The situation we have here is very sad, yes, we all agree. However if you decide that breaking into homes in the US is a good idea then you had better be prepared when in a red state such as Minnesota were the use of guns and civil rights are very prominent issues.
Chris
Disastrous said:
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?
You can't be fI 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?
king serious.hornetrider said:
Disastrous said:
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?
You can't be fI 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?
king serious.I'm more puzzled than anything else. I think it's perfectly clear the bloke is a lunatic, but doing nothing for a day seems the least monstrous part of it all so I was wondering why people were mentioning it specifically.
What a sad situation in which neither party are blameless. Normal teenagers don't commit repeated house break-ins. Normal OAP's don't execute people.
For me the warning shot comments don't stack up. Did he know at that point they weren't armed? A warning shot could give an armed burglar just the time needed to return fire.
It appears (rightly or wrongly) the fact he shot/killed them isn't the breaking the law bit, the manner in which (he appears to openly admit) he did it is the subject of the trial.
For me the warning shot comments don't stack up. Did he know at that point they weren't armed? A warning shot could give an armed burglar just the time needed to return fire.
It appears (rightly or wrongly) the fact he shot/killed them isn't the breaking the law bit, the manner in which (he appears to openly admit) he did it is the subject of the trial.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
There's this well known phrase about doors, and banging on arses, on ways out... you might take it as advice. To protect your sensitivities from your %£@%^.king time I come here.It's like it's a competition about who can be the biggest
on the internet.22s said:
Thank Christ, someone here to agree with.
The messages I have read here range from disgusting to comical. "Live by the sword, die by the sword", "they brought death upon themselves" - give me a fking break. They were 17 year-old kids who were being little sts - executing both of them is not proportional and anyone spouting such rubbish needs to take a step back and understand these are two kids who have been killed. Do any of you sad acts even remember what it was like being 17? You're a kid; an immature kid in the transition to adulthood. You don't always think about the consequences of your actions - but in years to come you look back and cringe/feel remorseful about what they have done. Unfortunately, they won't get that chance.
These threads and the comments under the article make me wonder what the people who say these things online are like in real life - no doubt sad individuals with no social skills or common sense who will end up living like Smith. Utterly depressing.
Well said!The messages I have read here range from disgusting to comical. "Live by the sword, die by the sword", "they brought death upon themselves" - give me a f
king break. They were 17 year-old kids who were being little sts - executing both of them is not proportional and anyone spouting such rubbish needs to take a step back and understand these are two kids who have been killed. Do any of you sad acts even remember what it was like being 17? You're a kid; an immature kid in the transition to adulthood. You don't always think about the consequences of your actions - but in years to come you look back and cringe/feel remorseful about what they have done. Unfortunately, they won't get that chance. These threads and the comments under the article make me wonder what the people who say these things online are like in real life - no doubt sad individuals with no social skills or common sense who will end up living like Smith. Utterly depressing.
Vaud said:
Jus to help me understand - can you define "harming someone else"?
With a spectrum of a joke made in someones direction that they took personally - through to verbal bullying through to a slap on the face through to physical, life changing assault. Where do you personally see the boundary that then negates the right to live?
Me personally, depends on my mood. The joke took personally could easilly be the line.With a spectrum of a joke made in someones direction that they took personally - through to verbal bullying through to a slap on the face through to physical, life changing assault. Where do you personally see the boundary that then negates the right to live?
I know my opinion is abnormal, I realise that anybody else could have similar warped views. I'll be nice to everybody just in case.
Remember, my opinion on who deserves what doesn't matter, i don't go round dishing out punishments.
Forgive me for skipping a few pages, but these things always go the same way.
You'll get some people calling 'murder', and some calling 'no sympathy'
The ones calling 'no sympathy' are, in my mind, either too stupid to picture exactly what happened (that is, two young people, likely having terrible personal problems, having their heads torn apart by bullets - we're talking blood, brain matter, shattered skulls etc) or out and out psychopaths themselves.
Can't say I agree with breaking and entering, but a killing of that nature is inhuman.
You'll get some people calling 'murder', and some calling 'no sympathy'
The ones calling 'no sympathy' are, in my mind, either too stupid to picture exactly what happened (that is, two young people, likely having terrible personal problems, having their heads torn apart by bullets - we're talking blood, brain matter, shattered skulls etc) or out and out psychopaths themselves.
Can't say I agree with breaking and entering, but a killing of that nature is inhuman.
grumbledoak said:
Rovinghawk said:
True, but bear in mind that he just wanted to stay at home & not bother anyone who wasn't bothering him.
Why pay for his bed and board if he is only a danger to burglars? (Assuming that the courts judge him to be so.)FwdConvert said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
There's this well known phrase about doors, and banging on arses, on ways out... you might take it as advice. To protect your sensitivities from your %£@%^.king time I come here.It's like it's a competition about who can be the biggest
on the internet.No cars listed - Check
Pointlessly agressive comment - Check
Case proven.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff