Except there’s no proof that there were multiple break-ins. One of them was reported. In the first article linked, the man’s brother says there were 6 break-ins. Now in the second one linked, the brother is saying 8. And still only one was reported.
I’m not terribly inclined to give Old Man Triggerfinger the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Still looks like premeditation to me, Chimera. It’s not like he just fired wildly around the neighborhood for the fun of it and hit some passersby. This loon intended to kill two people who no longer posed a threat to him and he knew full well they did not pose a threat to him. He intended to kill them, he made a volitional act, and that act caused their deaths. How is that not premeditation?
ETA: [speculation]Of course he waited 24 hours to call the coppers. Destroying evidence of all of your other crimes isn’t something you just do on a whim. It takes planning and precision execution (pun intended).[/speculation]
He didn’t plan ahead, they were just victims of circumstance. “Hell, I shot them, and they didn’t die. Time to finish the job.”
I’m not either.
I do believed he is guilty of murder. But I also think he may have been provoked by prior, repeated break-ins by these criminals. Then he went overboard due to rage or revenge. Just my .02
It is an interesting case, from both a moral and legal viewpoint.
It’s starting to come out that these two cousins may have had broken into this man’s house several times in the past, possibly as recently as a month beforehand. Both parties apparently knew each other - not surprising in a rural town with a population of only 8,000.
My wild-ass speculation is that the homeowner guessed that they’d be back again, and this time he was ready to teach them a lesson. Not sure I blame him for the initial shots, but the execution (if that is the way it actually happened), um. no. 
“It’s starting to come out”-from who? Only one previous was reported, and what evidence is there that those two had anything to do with it? Do you have anything solid to give us that doesn’t involve stories from the murderer and his relative?
i’m unclear on the language of law–
can it be “premeditated” as in “a bug fell into my web?”
i’m not even meaning like he just REALLY wanted someone to break in because it should would be nice to shoot someone!
more like the MOMENT he realized there were home invaders, he decided he was going make sure they died.
usually i hear premeditated and think “he’d been planning this for a while. he wanted that specific person specifically dead.” but it could be they were alive, he decided he was going to kill them, then followed through. premeditated from the 10 minutes before.
…or does that not count, legally, as premeditation?
we’ve all established it stopped being self-defense after the first shot on each person. where does premeditation start?
In Minnesota, it’s pretty rough, so far as I understand the case law (but IANAL):
[QUOTE=STATE of Minnesota v. MARSYLA]
The question of intent and premeditation is stated well in 9 McCarr, Minnesota Practice, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 1521, p. 187:
"All the time needed for premeditation or deliberation is that required to form the intent to kill. Thus, the following instruction was sustained in State v. Prolow [98 Minn. 459, 461, 108 N.W. 873, 874 (1906)]:
"The `premeditation may be formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing. Premeditation means thought of beforehand for any length of time, no matter how short. There need be no appreciable space of time between the intention of killing and the act of killing. They may be as instantaneous as the successive thoughts of the mind.’
[/QUOTE]
From here. Hereis a federal court decision citing it as a binding precedent in another case.
"And that’s the news from Lake Wobegon,
where the women are strong
the men are good-looking
and the children are pill poppers who get shot dead breaking into a deranged old man’s house"
Here is the first official news report: http://www.startribune.com/local/east/181119611.html The local kids have been talking up a storm on social media.
Your report talks about other robberies 6 miles away that may have been committed by the teens earlier. It says NOTHING about the shooter being broken into multiple times. The shooter reported one previous robbery. The other “robberies” at his house are most likely made up.
And forgive me, but “local kids talking up a storm on social media” means precisely doodley squat, naada, nothing, less than zero.
What I said was that the info about them being known for break-ins (especially at Mr Smith’s house) was starting to come out. The sources are the various social media that people in the community are posting on. My link was for the first official broadcast of this info.
AKA rumors and gossip.
No.
Social media? Finally a source of information less reliable than the web.
Sorry, but you are just wrong. Social media IS the way that an incredible amount of information is shared now.
Both the vapid and trivial and the honest and useful. 
I’m betting the “laugh” was really a gurgle, or last breath. Probably this guy’s first human.
It also could have been the absurdity of it. I can picture getting shot by an old dude in his bathrobe with zero warning and chortling in disbelief. In that first second I’m sure it doesn’t seem real.
Even Picard laughed when a Nausicaan shived him in the heart.
I can’t wait for a full investigation on this. Byron’s story has more holes than a sieve. I just can’t buy the girl coming downstairs several minutes later. And why would they hit the basement in the first place? Is this a popular burglary place in a household? I won’t be surprised if we find a blood trail outside the window, through the front door, down the stairs and ending next to a meat freezer just too small for two bodies.
If I had to choose either or I’d choose criminals who got what they deserved. I can understand what this guy may have wanted to do which is teach these lowlifes a serious lesson and I mean a lesson they will learn. Not like 3 weeks in jail and some probation so they’re back at it again in no time. I think it’s the right think to do. Does it suck yeah but life sucks. These two are screwed that’s the bottom line I suppose there are people who want to babysit petty criminals even until their career criminals simply because they’re teenagers and I understand the compassion they have. If I could choose to have those kids break into other peoples homes, especially those who think they should be alive I’d say hell let em live. I think it’s fair to leave a message in plain view in my front yard reading “some people are sympathetic to burglars and looters, I am not one of those people and I will attempt to end your life if you try to break in my house, try a different house or try your luck here the choice is yours”. But even then the petty criminals would be the good guys to some people.