In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
This is what's wrong with America, everyone defending the criminals because they are young and white and an attractive chick. Would anyone care if it was two older black dudes? You defenders are all douchebags and this guy stood up for himself. Ps don't come to my house uninvited fuckbags.
where the fuck is anyone here defending the two people who broke into the house? Saying that killing an incapacitated individual execution style (finishing shot to the head, his words) is excessive is now defending breaking an entering? Quit being a dumbass.
Go Bears, Blackhawks, White Sox, and Pioneers.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand
Yeah, I'm from the burbs. Fuck B&E's, everyone has Brinks nowadays.
What is that, a Titleist? A hole in one...
Wow, is this board honestly this stupid?
A reasonable person would not stand over an unarmed, gunshot-wounded intruder and be in such fear for his life that he has to shoot the intruder in the face.
A reasonable person would not stand over an unarmed, gunshot-wounded intruder and be in such fear for his life that he has to shoot the intruder "more times than he needed to" in the chest. Then while she was gasping for air, a reasonable person would not have delivered a "good, clean finishing shot" through her head.
A reasonable person would bother authorities about two dead bodies in their basement.
I do not think that the family is relieved at all.
Now my turn.
Convince the jury that the 64 year old man should know that the person that had just broken into his house was unarmed, especially when he "feared they might have had a weapon." Convince the jury that the 64 year old man was standing over the first intruder when he shot him the 2nd time.
Convince the jury that the 64 year old man should know that the 2nd person that had just broken into his house was unarmed, especially when he "feared they might have had a weapon."
Convince the jury that an article which uses ridiculously chopped sentences such as "I want him dead" (when speaking about an already dead person) is the complete story.
Don't try to convince me of these things, I think the guy is a whack job, and should be put in prison or a mental facility (if appropriate), but when discussing the case, what the jury needs to be convinced of is an important point.
In order to convict this man, it has to be shown that it was unreasonable to feel threatened from his standpoint. You not acknowledging that his perspective needs to be understood shows that you do not understand the concept of the castle doctrine.
laconophilia is everywhere...
Who is defending the intruders?
The homeowner can protect his house and property and himself. No one here disputes that. People here have a problem with the way he executed unarmed, incapacitated human beings.
The old man didn't even think the break-in (or 5) was worth a call to the police, so how can he justify a break-in being worth two lives?
I've had my car broken into twice. If I catch someone doing it again I wouldn't shoot them. Drag them onto to a tarp, shoot them 'more times than I need to', then put a gun under their chin and shoot them again.
Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance
So he should go to jail for being a bad shot. Got it. Aim small miss small.
Yea cause getting your car broken into is the same as having two people break into your house for 7th time.
This post was edited by ColonelAngus 20 months ago
This is so disturbingly wrong, it's pathetic.
The prosecution has the burden of proof, especially when dealing with a case that falls under the castle doctrine.
My personal property had been invaded. I'm just curious where you draw the line for cold blooded murder as a retaliation on a person who you've already incapacitated. If I was in the car when they tried to rob it would it then be acceptable for me to shoot them drag them onto a tarp, shoot them more times than I need, then put a gun under their chin and shoot them again?
Oh man all your smug farts must smell so great. Fact is two dumb fucks were where they weren't supposed to be and got taken care of. We will ignore the rest of the details that only exonerate him more.
You assume that the intruders were incapacitated and that the man knew they were unarmed. Let's just do a quick little exercise.
Let's say that one of them did have a gun. Let's say the first intruder had one tucked inside his back waistband. After shooting the person below the waist and them having fallen down the stairs, it is likely they still could have pulled out their gun. Therefore, when speaking only about the first intruder, a plausible story could exist that would involve the homeowner believing that the intruder might have a usable weapon even after they had been shot.
You also assume that the defendant didn't think the "break-in was worth a call to the police", which assumes that the defendant couldn't have had an emotional reaction to what had just happened.
How about if when I'm leaving work in about 10 minutes someone tries to rob me. After I encap them can I drag em to a tarp, shoot them in the chest more times than I need to and then shoot them one more time under the chin? Breaking into my car equals no execution style murder, got that, curious if attempted robbery of me in person qualifies.
Man if you put those strippers in danger... I swear to Christ so help me god.
Not one person had defended the intruders in this thread. Rational humans just happen to frown upon executing someone who has been shot multiple times and is lying there gasping for air.
Lol. Not to worry. I'm shooting everyone for them. Can't have harm come to my meal tickets. That's fuckin with my emotions
Just to get my 2 cents in...
Concerning people here saying he should have given a verbal warning. This is a bad idea. If someone is breaking into my house and I have no idea if they are armed or not, no way am I going to give a verbal warning and let a possibly armed intruder know where his potential victim is located.
I think he was fine shooting them as they came down the basement stairs and possibly after they were at the bottom of the stairs. With an intruder possibly hyped up on drugs and armed, there's a benefit of the doubt whether they are still a danger or not. But the pistol to the chin and pulling the trigger crossed the line.
Bottom line. He'll probably go to jail or mental hospital for a long time.
Moral - Don't break into other people homes.
That's a plausible story, maybe even reasonable for the male. But he still pumped "more shots than he needed to" into the chest of the girl. Then put the barrel to her chin and squeezed the trigger. I don't think there is a way to defend that.
I don't know if there is or there isn't. Based on what we know to this point, I'd put him between 2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter for the girl, and probably innocent or voluntary manslaughter for the boy. But I think that this thread reached a verdict way too quickly, when clearly only a very biased article had been offered as 'evidence'. Now, again, I'm not saying that he article shouldn't have been biased, I'm simply stating that the article painted the picture in a very specific way, and therefore did not provide the entire picture.
I think we have a similar standpoint, I'm just playing devil's advocate, really, and am more hesitant to blame a 64 year old man who (presumably) did not ask nor want the invaders to enter his home.
When tragedies such as this occur, the natural reaction is, "this shouldn't have happened, what should have gone differently that would have prevented it?" While many seem to say that the defendant's inability to stop himself is what caused the deaths, I would lean more toward thinking that the invaders not having entered the home is ultimately what would have prevented any such scenario from occurring. Based on this, it is difficult for me to sympathize with them too much. I sometimes have a second thought about what streets I walk down, and these idiots didn't have the sensibility to think about which house they were breaking into? The neighbors had complained about the noise his guns made when he practiced with them in his yard (legally). Did the two invaders really not know who they were messing with?
Bonus moral - don't let other people break into your home, or at least let them take a good swing at you before you kill them.
Or just aim better and have a story ready.
I weep for the level of reading comprehension on this board.
It is obviously not too simple for a simpleton like you. You should change your moniker to Colonel Anger.
This snippet from the original article got my attention.
"Smith put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him to an office workshop."
Why would he move the body and then wait for the next intruder to come down the stairs? He's calm and collected enough to move the first intruder's body to his basement office (for whatever reason) and then hangs out to shoot the next person to come down the stairs?
I suspect he waited a day to notify the authorities because he was busy coming up with a plausible story to try to explain why two kids breaking and entering into his house resulted in death by multiple gunshots for both.
FTR - I don't have any problem with someone using deadly force to defend themselves in their homes, but this guy's story (as articulated in the OP) doesn't wash.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports