Minnesota's Verdict

[Silver]

I thought that one was able to defend himself and his home against intruders.

Supposedly, he was convicted due to excessive force to which they are referring as premeditated.

Do you think he should have been convicted? Is this another example of an imperfect justice system whereby an innocent man is wrongfully accused?

A Minnesota homeowner who shot and killed two unarmed teenagers during a break-in was quickly convicted of premeditated murder Tuesday, with a jury taking about three hours to reject his claim of self-defense.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prose...l-23517042

[Autumnlicious]

Top three comments from Reddit addressing precisely the shit you're saying:

For those who didn't read the article:

*“Prosecutors argued that Smith waited in his basement and intended to kill the teens, with a setup so elaborate that lead prosecutor Pete Orput compared it to a deer stand — with the teens as the deer. Their key evidence was an audiotape recording that captured the killings in chilling detail, including his taunts as they died."*


Also:


*“Prosecutors said Smith's plan was set in motion on the morning of the killings, after Smith saw a neighbor whom he believed responsible for prior burglaries drive by. Prosecutors say Smith moved his truck to make it look like no one was home, and then settled into a chair in his basement with a book, energy bars, a bottle of water and two guns."*


*“Smith also set up a hand-held recorder on a bookshelf, which captured audio of the shootings, and had installed a surveillance system that recorded images of Brady trying to enter the house."*


*“The audio, which was played several times in court, captured the sound of glass shattering, Brady descending the basement stairs and Smith shooting Brady three times. Smith can be heard saying, "You're dead." Prosecutors said Smith put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him into another room, then sat down, reloaded his weapon and waited."*


*“About 10 minutes later, Kifer came downstairs. More shots are heard on the recording, then Kifer's screams, with Smith saying, "You're dying." It's followed soon after by another gunshot, which investigators said Smith described as "a good, clean finishing shot."*


*“The tape continued to run, and Smith was heard referring to the teens as "vermin." Smith waited a full day before asking a neighbor to call police."*

> It's followed soon after by another gunshot, which investigators said Smith described as "a good, clean finishing shot."

Yeaah...that's murder.

And

It's unfortunate that most people just seem to read the headlines and go all **I THOUGHT THIS WAS 'MURICA!?**

This trial was incredibly quick because the man is an obvious lunatic. He showed zero emotion during the trial and the defense didn't even want him to testify. The charges are absolutely just and raises no legit questions about protecting your home from intruders, despite how hard people seem to be trying to make it into that.

Ref: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/24...ns_during/

Because reading comprehension is rare around here when it comes to gun crime, let's reiterate what self-defense means.

You shoot to kill. You empty the whole clip as you're shooting to kill. If they are down on the ground and pose no threat, executing them or denying them medical care is a crime.

Then he waited for well over a day. Which completely ensures hundred percent fatality. He had tarps laid out – this shows a lot of forethought into it. The prosecutor was right that he prepared it like a deer blind with the intent not of defense, but of murder.

[Jackalope]

Given the circumstances of the case, the verdict is just.

[popeyespappy]

In the US the law allows the use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. What constitutes an imminent threat is debatable, but what is not debatable is once the imminent threat has passed deadly force is no longer allowable.

Delivering a coup de grâce to an intruder after they are no longer a threat is murder.

[Silver]

Because reading comprehension is rare around

True, I could not be bothered to read the entire article or other articles in relation to the story. I do that often, and I will not apogize for it or attempt to change who I am by fully reading future articles.

However, thank you for explaining the reason behind the jury's verdict to me.

It just seems weird that the man would have deliberately waited to be robbed. How could he know that he would be robbed at all? Lunacy perhaps plays a part, but certainly he is not prophetic. I suppose it is just dumb luck that the kids chose his house over any other that night.

[Minimalist]

How could he know that he would be robbed at all?

Who knows how many nights he sat there waiting? Just another nut with guns.

Guilty as charged.