Murder. Somewhat mitigated because of the break-in, and it is ludicrous that the prosecutors try to paint him as a vigilante, but he kept firing long after there was no threat to him.

I don't buy any argument he makes about his emotional state. If you choose to own a gun, you accept the consequences for what you do with it. Also, why did the girl go downstairs after she heard gunshots? Idiot.

Girl went downstairs to hide becuase she was terrified and in flight mode. Dude kept shooting because two dudes broke into his home and he was terrified.

It's all well and good to say, "If you own a gun you should...". Here's a better idea: It's all well and good that if you break into someone's home and they own a gun, you should **expect** to be pumped full of lead and die as the person protects their home.

"No threat to him..." Bullshit. He didn't know this. He was acting on instinct at this point. This idiotic notion that a person under attack is supposed to act with the 100% accurate hindsite of YJ is foolish. You know, *trained* combat soldiers can't even keep their composure under fire - some fire their weapons, some are too terrified, others do stupid/foolish things because of the heat of the moment and the fear of death. To expect perfection from an armed citizen who's home has been broken into is the height of stupidity. Sorry YJ.

And no...this doesn't mean that the home owner shouldn't own a gun...it means *asholes shouldn't break into homes*!

What the fuck is wrong with the people of WebDip that have such a hard-on for protecting known violent criminals??? What the fuck is wrong with you all? I wish all of you to have your homes broken in to and violence threatened upon you so that you can pull your heads from the deep, deep hole in your asses.

Oh dear, one of the few moments I agree with krellin...

If you break in to someone's house, what do you think is going to happen? The owner is going to take measures to protect themselves and their property.
Admittedly, he did go too far, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. Had the intruders been armed (as he feared) it would appear a fairly logical course of action

" This idiotic notion that a person under attack is supposed to act with the 100% accurate hindsite of YJ is foolish."

hmm, maybe krellin. But isn't it also indicative that because we KNOW we can't act with 100% accuracy, maybe we shouldn't keep little death machines close by at all times? I'm asking, not telling. Keep in mind I own a gun as I make this post, so I'm not the libtard you may be looking for.

So, on many things I consider myself very liberal, not I am an extremely strong supporter of the Castle Law. If you break into someone's house, they have every right to kill you.

*but, not "not"

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/22/jurors-hear-audio-of-teens-fatal-shootings/

A 14-minute audio recording from Smith’s home surveillance system starts with the sounds of a broken window, then Brady’s footsteps descending the basement stairs.

After two quick rifle shots, the teenager is heard groaning. That’s when jurors heard a third gunshot as Smith fired into Brady’s face, saying “you’re dead.”

Smith is then heard breathing heavily while reloading his Ruger mini-14 rifle with more cartridges.

About 10 minutes after Brady was shot, the recording picks up Kifer’s voice as she whispers for her cousin.

Again, a shot rings out, and she too tumbles down the stairs.

In a mocking voice, Smith is heard saying, “Oh, sorry about that.”

Kifer screams, “Oh my God, oh.”

At that point, Smith tells her “you’re dying.”

Using his .22-caliber revolver (his rifle jammed), Smith is heard shooting Kifer’s body repeatedly, saying “bitch.”

Jurors then heard what sounded like someone dragging a body on a tarp across the floor and into a basement workshop.

Prosecutors stopped playback of the recording after jurors heard what was presumably Smith putting one final shot into Kifer’s head. After the loud bang, they once again heard him say “bitch.”

Here's an idea: don't break into someone's house.

Sounds like a swell guy.

"When the female stopped moving, he dragged her by her clothes and into the workshop, too. There, he said, he noticed she was still gasping and didn’t believe she should suffer, so he gave her “a good clean finishing shot,” he said. “She gave out the death twitch.”"

Dude straight-up admits murdering her. As Yellowjacket notes above, mitigating circumstances I guess, so a plea deal that gets this guy several years in prison and some much-needed professional help would probably be best.

Lethal force in self-defense can only be used in life-threatening situations. It's one thing if this case was some borderline situation, like an intruder ran up with a pellet gun that looked like a real firearm, but that is not the case here.

Let's just agree that both the teenagers and the man screwed up royally. Obviously the teenagers shouldn't have been in his house, but judging by the audio tape I'd say that it was murder. This is one of those cases where there is no clear right answer...

You commit felony B&E, you deserve to die at the inhabitants hands. It's quite simple. I don't care if he filled them so full of head they were unrecognizable. He has a right to defend his home with deadly force.

You do something stupid as a teenager, you deserve to be punished. Shooting them was probably appropriate. Repeatedly shooting them would have been justified had they had weapons.

Generally I agree that people should have a right to defend their property, but I feel like this guy took it too far.

I don't believe there is a "took it too far" when someone has invaded your home. If they are still moving, keep pulling the trigger until you feel confident they are dead or you run out of ammo.

Look I'm all for allowing firearm defense of one's home, but this guy went beyond any reasonable use of force. He had a freaking workIng cell phone jammer in his house! Either he's a geezer who really has a thing against modern technology, or he didn't want them calling for help...

Again, it doesn't matter. He could have had an automated home security system set on kill. They committed felony B&E. He killed them as was his legal right. End of story.

The killing of the girl isn't defensible imo, too many shots taken well after she was clearly no longer a threat.

Not sure about the boy, I'm inclined to think that was maybe defensible

I'll have to read the article from.my computer at home tonight and better inform myself before forming a more solid opinion on the girl as all I've really got to go on is what you all have posted thus far.

*Stop doing illegal shit!*

All of you little kiddies out there, spread the word, eh?

As Tolstoy describes, he was no longer defending anything. I think if the boy had died from the first barrage, I would be a lot more sympathetic towards the homeowner, but he straight up executed him, and then did the same to the girl. He stood his ground, and then he went the extra mile. Contrary to what Draugnar would have you believe, we are not sovereigns in our homes, not enough to take the life of a helpless human being.

You have a right to defend yourself, of course. If someone breaks into your home, you can put a bullet in him/her. If the person doesn't go down, you can reasonably remain in a state of fear and put more bullets in him/her.

When that person is on your floor dying then, but still alive, the right and lawful thing to do is to call for medical help. If you put more bullets in the person to "take him out of his misery", that's second degree murder in my mind. This guy is definitely not fully innocent based on what I've read. He murdered the girl.

OK, so I read the story sitting on the can. I believe the fact that he had experienced previous thefts of his guns made it perfectly reasonable ot fear for his life and that shooting the male and then shooting him again was justified. He had no way of knowing the male was wounded beyond the point of returning fire.

The female, however, is more of a gray area. I don't believe it is premeditated as the prosecutor is laying out, but I don't believe it was self defense either. I would put his "mercy kill" in the category of 2nd degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. The prosecutor's job is to male him look guilty in the worst possible way, but I don't believe he tricked them into breaking into his home or that he lay in wait before and after. I have a 24 hour security system recording the outside of my house. Does that make me guilty of laying in wait for someone to try and rob me? No, it makes me smart enough to gather evidence should someone try it whether I am home or not.

I also believe he was justified in *not* trying to leave his basement and hiding out for hours in case a third perpetrator was present. But I also believe he is negligent in not calling the police at the first opportunity.

So there you have Draug's totally uneducated opinion. Just my opinion though, as I'm not a lawyer.

So as a collective webdiplomacy jury, can we safely conclude that the man is guilty of *at least* one count of voluntary manslaughter? (at the minimum)

I reread it. I'd say 2x manslaughter. The guy clearly executed both teens. Obviously was not premeditated (no 1st degree) and I think krellin's right to point out that the guy was probably acting more on instinct than anything else, which would (to my layman's eyes) seem more like manslaughter than 2nd degree murder.

Had he not done anything after the initial shots that injured both teens I would support not charging him with anything FWIW. I'm a pretty strong supporter of castle doctrine as well. But there's a difference between shooting uninjured burglars in defense of a home and executing incapacitated burglars; they pose no reasonable threat in the latter case. Once he incapacitated them he lost any legal or moral standing to kill them IMO.

I mainly have two problems with his story (besides the fact that he killed two kids)... how could they have ganged up on him if he had killed the first guy? Also, what kind of person keeps two guns nearby when they are reading their favorite paperback.

I bet gunfighter always has several at the ready in case one jams.

Jury says guilty:

http://www.startribune.com/local/257169671.html?page=all&prepage=3

I must say I'm shocked by the life sentence. Where reasonable people can disagree about whether or not a crime was actually committed, surely some moderation in sentencing is called for.

And I can't help but wonder if he would've been tried at all if the dead burglars had been two young black men instead of two pretty white teenagers.

Good for the jury. It was cold-blooded murder.

A life sentence does at first seem harsh, but at his age any significant sentencing would have been a life sentence anyway. Justice well served IMO...