I think you’re being too literal. They probably mean that many people understand that armed psychos are something that anyone in this country has a very small percentage chance of coming across. Many people in Arizona probably had the same reaction after the Jared Loughner shooting, even though those people aren’t all congressmen.
Doing something stupid and getting killed in an insane over-reaction. I’m sure you did stupid things as a teenager.
Also, I may have missed it, but are you still adamant about the “cordite” nonsense or that the report of a gun in the basement must have been obviously gunshots to a person who was upstairs elsewhere in the house?
Nope. Never engaged in any behavior that could forseeably result in getting myself shot to death. Don’t recall any other teen I knew doing so either.
Here’s another one: Little Falls killings: ‘A lot of lives have been destroyed by this’ – Twin Cities
Even the town’s mayor is spouting off this bizarre attitude that this could happen to anyone. Here is her quote:
“In a small town, everyone knows everyone. This puts a sense of fear into people; you wonder if it could happen to you,” VanRisseghem said.
You “wonder if it could happen to you”??? Um, no. Unless of course you make it a habit to break into other people’s home to steal. :rolleyes:
I would contend that to the teens in question, breaking into a home unarmed to boost pills from an elderly guy who they thought wasn’t present, isn’t something that they thought could get them shot either. Like taking a joyride or sneaking onto a farm to push over cows. Or any number of juvenile pranks/crimes.
Given your wild and innacurate imaginings in this thread, perhaps your assessment of your level of personal danger was a bit off. 
Uh, the innocent victims in the Jared Loughner shootings were not engaged in a criminal activity that could forseeably get one shot dead.
What part of “you are being too literal” is not getting through to you?
Your previous post made an assumption that the teens were shot by a “psycho”. Where is your evidence that the homeowner was a psycho and not just a frightened and traumatized homeowner?
Hmmm…
Question:
If someone invades our country with no only the intent to steal, but is armed and going to kill, should we kill them after they have been incapacitated?
If so, then does that mean, all Americans that invaded Germany in WW2 should have been killed rather than put in prison camps?
The cold-blooded murder of two incapacitated people?
This is what it comes down to–the old guy has no legs to stand on in this case whatsoever.
Byron Smith was convicted of murder.
Another news report said he moved his car to make it look like he was not home and went to the basement with water and snacks and hid in a corner with a tarp ready for the bodies to wait for robbers. There is a creepy audio recording that backs up the ‘handy tarp’ part.
Premeditation doesn’t require a long period of thought before committing the crime. In many jurisdictions, premeditation can occur seconds before the crime; all he has to do is demonstrate contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime. Placing the gun under the girls chin demonstrates this, though I don’t know if this is the law in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.
It’s very unfortunate that our legal system does this.
Why? The teens’ actions from weeks or months before has no bearing on whether the shootings were lawful or not. They could be Bonnie and Clyde, and it doesn’t change the circumstances under which the use of deadly force are justified.
Why? What is the relevance of the victims’ character here? Did Smith know who they were when he shot them?
The jury should have all the facts.
czarcasm higher up in this page on the thread suggested that perhaps the teens were lured into the house, rather than breaking in.
Maybe that’s what someone on the jury suspected, too. Giving them the facts: That these kids had broken into multiple houses, including this one previously would have dispelled this notion.
It also puts the homeowner in a more sympathetic light that his house had been broken into multiple times before.
Which only makes it more likely that the murders were premeditated.
Only the relevant facts.
Better still: answer the question of whether the teens broke into this particular house using the evidence for or against it. That they broke into another house isn’t, by itself, evidence that they broke into this one.
Making the defendent more or less sympathetic isn’t the job of the rules of evidence. He’s accused of specific criminal acts, his guilt or innocence is what the jury’s charged with determining. Therefore, evidence should be confined to what’s relevant to those acts.