Byron Smith Found Guilty of Murdering Little Falls Teens

[TorchTheWitch]

62. no, he passed it by executing them after rendering them harmless

You have every right by law to lie in wait in your own home in order to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property. What makes him guilty of murder is that after he rendered them subdued and no longer a threat he executed them. Self-defense only covers the amount of force necessary to subdue a person. He went beyond that as he executed them once they were subdued by his initial shots.

Frankly, had these kids not been breaking into his home in the first place they wouldn't be dead. Had he shot them both dead initially when they appeared in his basement where he was holed up, and called the police within a reasonable time frame afterward he would have committed no crime... lethal force against an intruder in one's home is legal. It's the fact that he executed them after his initial shots subdued them but didn't kill them that made his killing of them a crime.

I have no sympathy for these kids breaking into his home and the homes of others. I do have sympathy for them that they were executed once his initial shots subdued them though there is no guarantee those initial shots wouldn't have eventually killed them or could have and would expect that following recovery they'd be put in jail for breaking into peoples' homes and burglarizing them. They were no innocents. Had his initial shots killed them I wouldn't sympathize at all. Anyone that breaks into someone's home should know they run the risk of being killed for it by someone in the home, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so. Again, they would not be either dead or injured had they not broken into his home.

I also do feel sympathy for the man that he felt so angry that his home was violated by these two people and that he was afraid because of previous break ins as well as this one. But I don't sympathize with him for acting on that anger and cold bloodedly executing the intruders once he had subdued them and not calling police within a reasonable amount of time afterward. For what he did AFTER he subdued the intruders he was rightfully convicted. For what he did BEFORE he executed the intruders he should not have been convicted, but I have no belief that what he did before he executed the intruders ever came into question by the jury and that they convicted him (rightfully) solely for what he did AFTER he subdued the intruders. Again, what he did BEFORE he subdued them with his initial shoots was both legal and even understandable. What he did AFTER he subdued them was not.