Byron Smith murder trial in US - wow
Discussion
The killing of the bloke sounds like it could be justified. He shot an intruder and he died.
The killing of the girl sounds like an execution. He shot her ans she fell down the stairs. He shot her again. He then dragged her across a room, place a gun under her chin, and finished her off.
When someone has been shot 3 times, fallen down a flight of stairs, and has to be dragged across a room. You can be pretty sure they are not much of a threat. Thats the point you call the police and an ambulance. You don't find a soft spot on the head so you can ensure a kill. Thats an execution.
The killing of the girl sounds like an execution. He shot her ans she fell down the stairs. He shot her again. He then dragged her across a room, place a gun under her chin, and finished her off.
When someone has been shot 3 times, fallen down a flight of stairs, and has to be dragged across a room. You can be pretty sure they are not much of a threat. Thats the point you call the police and an ambulance. You don't find a soft spot on the head so you can ensure a kill. Thats an execution.
98elise said:
The killing of the bloke sounds like it could be justified. He shot an intruder and he died.
The killing of the girl sounds like an execution. He shot her ans she fell down the stairs. He shot her again. He then dragged her across a room, place a gun under her chin, and finished her off.
When someone has been shot 3 times, fallen down a flight of stairs, and has to be dragged across a room. You can be pretty sure they are not much of a threat. Thats the point you call the police and an ambulance. You don't find a soft spot on the head so you can ensure a kill. Thats an execution.
I agree completely.The killing of the girl sounds like an execution. He shot her ans she fell down the stairs. He shot her again. He then dragged her across a room, place a gun under her chin, and finished her off.
When someone has been shot 3 times, fallen down a flight of stairs, and has to be dragged across a room. You can be pretty sure they are not much of a threat. Thats the point you call the police and an ambulance. You don't find a soft spot on the head so you can ensure a kill. Thats an execution.
Pommygranite said:
If it wasn't two good looking white teenagers but two ugly black men no one would care sadly.
While I understand why you say that, but it only made one paper here, and its not even big news in the states. When a Marine in afganistan killed an injured insurgent there was a similar debate, it was all over the news, and had at least one documentary about it.
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 24th April 07:44
Interesting case, and I have no sympathy for the violent thugs who have been put down in this strange affair. It's hard to view this case through European eyes, a view so often enfeebled by our lack of rights to self defence.
If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
Baryonyx said:
Interesting case, and I have no sympathy for the violent thugs who have been put down in this strange affair. It's hard to view this case through European eyes, a view so often enfeebled by our lack of rights to self defence.
If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
They were violent?If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
We have rights to self-defence in the UK, but they are limited to actual self-defence.
Baryonyx said:
If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
Yup, if he had used suitable rounds he could have killed them with the first shots, no need for the final head shot and no need to see the inside of a police cell.Baryonyx said:
Interesting case, and I have no sympathy for the violent thugs who have been put down in this strange affair. It's hard to view this case through European eyes, a view so often enfeebled by our lack of rights to self defence.
If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
This case is exactly why we have our laws on "self defense", which frankly are better - because we don't give idiots who can't tell self defense from executing a human being the chance to perform the latter. Two people being unnecessarily killed is reason enough to deny someone the right to defend themselves with firearms.If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
They broke in on at least 3 occasions. It's fair to say the state had enough chances to intervene and the kids had enough chances to learn from their mistakes.
Whatever the legal system was playing at, it wasn't working.
The home owner has no reason to assume the intruders are unarmed or non-violent.
Shooting them until the threat abates seems reasonable.
Break into my home, where my family sleep, and you or I will probably die in the ensuing battle. I'll be doing my best to ensure it isn't me.
The legal system having failed the homeowner, it's a bit unseemly for it now to be getting its panties in a twist.
Rather than prosecute him, the system should learn from its mistakes, such that a homeowner doesn't need to gear up to prevent a 3rd or 4th robbery. If it's not willing to do so then it isn't fit for purpose, and the law of the jungle will prevail.
Whatever the legal system was playing at, it wasn't working.
The home owner has no reason to assume the intruders are unarmed or non-violent.
Shooting them until the threat abates seems reasonable.
Break into my home, where my family sleep, and you or I will probably die in the ensuing battle. I'll be doing my best to ensure it isn't me.
The legal system having failed the homeowner, it's a bit unseemly for it now to be getting its panties in a twist.
Rather than prosecute him, the system should learn from its mistakes, such that a homeowner doesn't need to gear up to prevent a 3rd or 4th robbery. If it's not willing to do so then it isn't fit for purpose, and the law of the jungle will prevail.
Vaud said:
GavinPearson said:
In America they can kill you if you enter their property. So if you perhaps thought it was worth the risk to enter property in the UK because the penalty was a severe dressing down and a day of picking up litter, you might not think it was worth the penalty in USA because you would lose your life.
It doesn't mean it's the law I would choose in either place, but it's just the way it is there, and outsiders we just have to accept it until people there decide to change the law to something more reasonable.
And if we think a place has stupid laws we can avoid it too.
They can shoot you, if in fear for their lives, etc, but it is not a carte blanche to kill someone.It doesn't mean it's the law I would choose in either place, but it's just the way it is there, and outsiders we just have to accept it until people there decide to change the law to something more reasonable.
And if we think a place has stupid laws we can avoid it too.
TopOnePercent said:
Break into my home, where my family sleep, and you or I will probably die in the ensuing battle. I'll be doing my best to ensure it isn't me.
Internet Hard Man Of The Month Award. Points deducted for not settling the matter with a roundhouse kick, but then not everyone can be Chuck Norris.TopOnePercent said:
They broke in on at least 3 occasions. It's fair to say the state had enough chances to intervene and the kids had enough chances to learn from their mistakes.
Whatever the legal system was playing at, it wasn't working.
The home owner has no reason to assume the intruders are unarmed or non-violent.
Shooting them until the threat abates seems reasonable.
Break into my home, where my family sleep, and you or I will probably die in the ensuing battle. I'll be doing my best to ensure it isn't me.
The legal system having failed the homeowner, it's a bit unseemly for it now to be getting its panties in a twist.
Rather than prosecute him, the system should learn from its mistakes, such that a homeowner doesn't need to gear up to prevent a 3rd or 4th robbery. If it's not willing to do so then it isn't fit for purpose, and the law of the jungle will prevail.
Really? Do we know the girl had broken in before? Don't think so.Whatever the legal system was playing at, it wasn't working.
The home owner has no reason to assume the intruders are unarmed or non-violent.
Shooting them until the threat abates seems reasonable.
Break into my home, where my family sleep, and you or I will probably die in the ensuing battle. I'll be doing my best to ensure it isn't me.
The legal system having failed the homeowner, it's a bit unseemly for it now to be getting its panties in a twist.
Rather than prosecute him, the system should learn from its mistakes, such that a homeowner doesn't need to gear up to prevent a 3rd or 4th robbery. If it's not willing to do so then it isn't fit for purpose, and the law of the jungle will prevail.
The home owner has EVERY reason to assume they are unarmed and non-violent. Was violence used in the 3 previous breakins?
Nobody is rejecting his right to self defence, rather his right to wound and then EXECUTE 2 kids. Oh and he wasn't sleeping he was waiting in ambush, having moved his car to make people think the house was empty.
ofcorsa said:
Vaud said:
GavinPearson said:
In America they can kill you if you enter their property. So if you perhaps thought it was worth the risk to enter property in the UK because the penalty was a severe dressing down and a day of picking up litter, you might not think it was worth the penalty in USA because you would lose your life.
It doesn't mean it's the law I would choose in either place, but it's just the way it is there, and outsiders we just have to accept it until people there decide to change the law to something more reasonable.
And if we think a place has stupid laws we can avoid it too.
They can shoot you, if in fear for their lives, etc, but it is not a carte blanche to kill someone.It doesn't mean it's the law I would choose in either place, but it's just the way it is there, and outsiders we just have to accept it until people there decide to change the law to something more reasonable.
And if we think a place has stupid laws we can avoid it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
WinstonWolf said:
Bill said:
If my house got broken into repeatedly I'd look at improving security. Better locks maybe, and an alarm.
But then I'm not a psychopath.
If they'd been put inside for any of the other three times they broke into his house they wouldn't be dead now.But then I'm not a psychopath.
Grumfutock said:
WinstonWolf said:
Bill said:
If my house got broken into repeatedly I'd look at improving security. Better locks maybe, and an alarm.
But then I'm not a psychopath.
If they'd been put inside for any of the other three times they broke into his house they wouldn't be dead now.But then I'm not a psychopath.
Here's the thing, in America people will shoot you if you break into their house. Darwin says don't break into peoples houses.
WinstonWolf said:
First time you've asked me
Here's the thing, in America people will shoot you if you break into their house. Darwin says don't break into peoples houses.
Yea i know it is the 1st time but everyone keeps saying they and 3 times. I keep pointing out it was only him and it was twice. Sorry.Here's the thing, in America people will shoot you if you break into their house. Darwin says don't break into peoples houses.
Grumfutock said:
WinstonWolf said:
First time you've asked me
Here's the thing, in America people will shoot you if you break into their house. Darwin says don't break into peoples houses.
Yea i know it is the 1st time but everyone keeps saying they and 3 times. I keep pointing out it was only him and it was twice. Sorry.Here's the thing, in America people will shoot you if you break into their house. Darwin says don't break into peoples houses.
Baryonyx said:
Interesting case, and I have no sympathy for the violent thugs who have been put down in this strange affair. It's hard to view this case through European eyes, a view so often enfeebled by our lack of rights to self defence.
If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
He didn't have to 'make the finishing shots'. That's not his call. If I accidentally knocked someone down in my car I wouldn't get out and bash their head in with a rock to 'finish them off' using the excuse "Well they were dead anyway.. probably"If anything, the shooter in this case should have used a more suitable round rather than a Raccoon-killer .22. Even a 9mm would have saved him having to make the 'finishing shots'.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff