How is it a “serious lesson” when they’re dead? I mean, they’re not learning from “the lesson” they were taught. Time in jail and rehab would’ve helped, but they weren’t violent criminals. I don’t even know why we’re calling them burglars.
That’s why I’m calling them burglars, I think they intended on stealing something. Time in jail and rehab (MAY) have helped. I’m one of those people who doesn’t believe the correctional system does it’s job very well. I don’t like the idea of coddling any criminals. I think that’s what will be the motivation for them to act right. These teens know they’re not supposed to steal or break in to other people’s homes and they’ve learned it all through previous “lessons” whether it be parents telling them them, or watching what happened to someone else in the news somewhere in life they’re learned not to do it, but they did it anyways. They won’t learn and the “serious lesson” is a lesson in the sense that this time they won’t do it again, for sure.
LOL
From the abc link you quoted “trying to burglarize a home”. So attempted burglars then?? They might’ve done that before-- which is idiotic. I said before that a casualty of burglarizing is losing your head from a shotgun. And I’ll agree that the correctional system doesn’t do its job very well either.
It is still not a “lesson” if someone is dead. A lesson is learned from. Making it a serious lesson would be 10-25 for trying it. And, no, before you go there-- breaking into a house with a well-armed maniac may be a possibility, but as Zeriel pointed out, in MN…
Two teens premeditating a burglary in an attempt to steal property/drugs/whatever it was, may have only taught them a lesson* if they were left alive. * And, like you said, there’s no chance of that now for them. However, the recommended minimum for the pre-meditated murder that Smith did is looking at a recommended 51 years.
A warning shot, or a, “Hey, get the fuck out of my house you freaks,” seems like it would’ve been enough, but we’re still not sure, I suppose. So far, the cousins weren’t armed, several minutes took place between the killings, which were both self-admitted to me killings. Not shoot to get away and call the authorities, especially since over a day went by before authorities were notified.
If there’s no evidence of an attempt of violence from the cousins, nor even any intoxication on both sides of this, Smith premeditated and carried out a dual murder. No, he didn’t plan it beforehand, it seems, but when the moment came, he went cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
Still, I’m not betting on the evidence report being that simple in this case.
Are warning shots legal?
In your own home with a registered weapon, I don’t see why not. Seems like some of the laws people have posted and most have agreed with. You break in to my place, I grab a registered firearm and shoot AND kill you, well, there better be no evidence I chased you around for an hour before doing so. But if I fired a couple rounds into my wall and you hightail it, hope they catch you so you can pay for my gunshot wall! 
And if I “get lucky” and bean you in the chest in a dark room, well, that could also be protecting myself, my family, etc.
And by the way, don’t worry, Steophan, I’m firearm free and I doubt you have my address, but that’s not an invitation, of course. And I’m pretty sure you’re no burglar. So, no worries about that really happening. I’d most likely scream like a banshee if anyone broke into my place and I saw it happening. :eek:
You can DEFEND your property, but not execute for it like Smith seems to have done, based on his own statement.
I think we can all agree the execution method of killing was uncalled for. I am just choosing one of the options the OP offered. So after that the argument is whether or not they deserved to die at all for what they did. What did they do is what everyone begins to split up on. Did these guys have a sign saying we’re here for your property we’re not trying to kill you so don’t try to kill us no need to take it that far sir. Even if they did I would only assume they’re willing to go as far as breaking in my house I’m going to assume they’re ready or simply willing to kill me and when it comes to someone being ready to take my life I am going to be the one to take theirs first.
I remember reading about a case where someone was convicted on the basis of recklessness for firing a warning shot, the reasoning being that, if one has time to fire a warning shot, one isn’t in imminent danger. The implication was that, if one is in danger, shooting and killing was legal, but a warning shot was evidence that they weren’t in immediate danger.
No cite, and no claim that I agree with the reasoning, but I’d like to know if there’s any truth to it, or if I’ve imagined it.
Uncalled for? How about criminal?
The OP presented a false dichotomy.
Deserve to die? Well, I’m not sure the argument is that someone actually deserves death. The argument, at least as far as the law looks to layman me, is that the burglars took a chance on entering a house, any house. The resident therein is permitted to use deadly force to protect himself from the presumed lethal danger that an unknown assailant presents. Once he’s rendered the assailant incapable, then there is no longer any danger. Nobody deserves to die because someone wants them dead.
Yeah, right. And criminals are known for being upright and honest.
There’s the rub. Are you going to take their life when you know for a fact that they cannot take yours? That is, in fact, what the old dude in the story at hand confessed to doing. In short, he admitted committing two murders. His confession also indicates that he did so intentionally and with thought beforehand.
The training I received as a deputy sheriff and at courses I took privately contraindicated the firing of warning shots. Basically, if you aren’t in enough danger to warrant the use of lethal force, you ought not to be firing the gun.
Now, see, you could have used the word “bird” in this context, and it would have been even better. But I’ll still give you points for that.
I disagree, because I ain’t some poncy Englishman.
In fact, I could make a case for premeditation.
Per Zeriel’s cite, Minnesota follows the rule that no time for reflection is required for premeditation. In the absence of public pressure, I would be surprised if the state doesn’t at least try for first degree.
It’s just that it’s more difficult, especially with a jury.
Second degree is a pretty safe bet, and for a 64 year old man like him, 25 years is essentially a Life Sentence.
I heard from a guy who knows a cop on the case who says that when they recovered the bodies they did not have a single drop of blood left in them!!!11!
:eek:
Vampires!
Everything I’ve ever heard or learned about firearms from any instructor or law officer backs this up.
Can any legal beagle explain to me how this
jibes with this
2nd degree murder is causing death with intent to kill, but no premeditation.
Premeditation can be simply the formation of intent to kill immediately prior to the act.
Am I wrong in thinking that this interpretation of premeditation means that any 2nd degree murder charge can be argued as 1st degree?
No shit, it was all over the pavement.
Basement of Blood!