Minnesota: A Man’s Home is His Castle. And an Execution Chamber, Too.
“She laughed at me.”
That was Byron David Smith’s explanation for why he kept shooting a wounded teen — one of two he killed in his Little Falls home on Thanksgiving Day. If a law passed by the Minnesota Legislature last year had not been vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton, Smith might not be in jail.
It probably doesn’t seem that the Thanksgiving Day killings of two teens in Little Falls, Minnesota, shot by a deranged but heavily armed home owner, could be any more horrible. But consider this possibility: If a gun law passed early this year by the Minnesota Legislature had not been vetoed by DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, the Little Falls killer would not be in jail.
Incredible, I know. But the “Stand Your Ground” bill — written by the National Rifle association, pushed by the Republican legislative majority and supported by many outstate DFLers — would probably mean that the 64-year-old man who shot the two teens in his basement, then left them there overnight because he didn’t want to disturb the cops on a national holiday, would be nearly immune to arrest or interrogation about the blood-curdling woundings-cum-executions he performed in his home.
Judging by the comments on some public forums, a lot of Minnesotans would be hailing him as a hero for his use of a high-powered Ruger Mini-14 military-style rifle to bring down his victims, and then finishing them off with a .22, fired into their chests, faces and under their chin into their heads.
“A good clean finishing shot,” the obviously demented homeowner, Byron David Smith told the cops in one of many bizarre touches that make the veracity of his story impossible for the public to assess.
One horrifying part of his story, as told to the authorities, led to murder charges: His clueless bragging about deliberately killing each of the teens, one by one, after they had been wounded. “The law doesn’t permit you to execute somebody after the threat is gone,” said the Morrison County Sheriff.
But it would have. If Dayton hadn’t vetoed the bill that was passed last spring.
UPDATE, Thursday: I have heard from a number of disgruntled gun owners, on Twitter and in the comments here, who seem embarrassed to have their number represented by the patently deluded Little Falls shooter. They defend the vetoed gun bill by arguing that the shooter would have been prosecuted even if the Stand Your Ground bill had been signed by the governor. Essentially, they are defending the terrible bill that was vetoed by citing the law as it stands, unamended. I agree that if the story told by the shooter after his arrest turns out to be true — a big if — Mr. Smith probably would, eventually, have been charged. But that’s not the point. The point is that if the law had not been vetoed, the cops would not have been allowed to take him into custody until after the investigation was complete. They wouldn’t have been able to interrogate him in depth; they would have had to take his word that he felt under threat of serious harm, and they would have had to act as if a guy with two dead teens on his basement floor was above suspicion. The fact that justice might eventually be served would be cold comfort to the families involved. The fact remains: It was a terrible law, cooked up by a gun lobby that won’t be happy until it is legal to shoot any one, any time. The shooting of Trayvon Martin has led to a soul-searching review of Florida gun laws. If this flawed Minnesota law had not been vetoed, we would find ourselves in Minnesota undergoing the same painful process.
Disclaimer for the Dull-witted: I am a licensed Minnesota gun owner and am not “anti-gun.” I am only against gun laws that are designed to make guns into gods.
Current state law allows a homeowner who fears for his life to use lethal force to defend himself. But it is up to a judge to determine whether that fear was “reasonable” or not. The bill passed last spring would have bypassed the judge and taken the shooter’s word as Gospel: “I was fearful, so I killed ‘em” would have been good enough.
More than that, the law put handcuffs on the cops, requiring them to presume the shooter was innocent and prohibiting them from making an arrest unless — and only if — they found probable cause after an investigation. If that law had taken effect Aug. 1, as it would have without the veto, the Little Falls shooter would not have been taken into custody, would not have been interrogated and might well still be sitting in his house, cradling his Mini 14 in his lap while Minnesotans scratched their heads. True, a forensic investigation would eventually have produced evidence that the teenage victims had been shot multiple times, and at close range while lying on the basement floor. But there is no telling what would or wouldn’t have happened after that. If Byron David Smith was still puttering around the house, keeping his mouth shut, he might never have been arrested.
“Most sane people shut up,” said Tom Weyandt, a retired St. Paul city prosecutor who wrote an excellent analysis of the flaws in the gun bill for MinnPost last spring. “That law would, in effect, have proved criminal immunity in cases where a defendant claims self-defense. It was such a poorly worded statute, with such strange things in it, that it would’ve taken decades to straighten out. It was a stupid bill.”
Fortunately, it did not become law, because the governor killed it on his desk, with the urging of most law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in the state, who uniformly opposed it. And, now that the GOP majority in the Legislature has disappeared, the bill is not likely to come back.
Let’s be grateful that it didn’t happen. Minnesota, just barely, escaped becoming Florida North.
–30–
Given the same initial confrontation, three clicks on the phone (911) would have been my initial reaction, followed by absenting the premises. A human life is much more precious than any property.
I have a MN gun permit. If someone broke into my house, the first thing I’d shoot is the floor. While dialing 9-1-1.
Good to know Nick
Thank you for your reasonable comment.
This guy is nutty as squirrel turd and society is better off with him in jail. I don’t at all condone his brutal and hideous response to a break in. That said, regardless of the gun law, the only way for these young kids to be 100% guaranteed to be alive would have been for them not to be committing a crime. Very sad story.
You are right, of course, that the kids should not have been in the house. That’s not a capital crime, however. And we don’t know for sure how they got there. For all we know, Squirrel Turd took them at gunpoint outside and marched them down to their doom.
I think it is important to preface any argument with the declaration that almost everyone agrees that we should have a right to protect our property and ourselves from harm, by lethal means if necessary; assuming there is a reasonable threat. The current self defense laws basically state precisely that. Smith didn’t act like a person who was fearful, he acted like a textbook case for why “stand your ground” laws have the potential to protect creepy and dangerous people, unfit to live in a civilized society. If someone were to enter my home my first instinct would be to call the cops while arming myself, once that call was placed I suspect I would announce that I had called the police and threaten the intruder in hopes of scaring them off. Smith casually and quietly waited for them to come downstairs then picked them off one by one, and to top it off, while the young woman clung for life he took it upon himself to “end her suffering” as if she were a deer on the side of the highway. He didn’t call for an ambulance, nope… just put one under her chin. Disgusting human being.
Thank you, Mr. Coleman, for your great article and comments. The Shoot First bill would have made this an entirely different case. As a Board member of Protect Minnesota, I worked to oppose the law and thank Governor Dayton for vetoing the bill.
Thanks, Joan. The gun lobby called it The Stand Your Ground Bill. But I like the label opponents gave the bill: The Shoot First Law.
If you honestly believe that the stand your ground law would have protected this man you may be as crazy as he is…
Thanks for your oh-so thoughtful comment. But maybe you should read Tom Weyandt’s MinnPost piece I linked to in my post. And you also should read the MN Gun Owners’ Civil Rights Alliance description of the law: http://www.gocra-mn.org/news/2012/03/
Here’s an interesting part of the bill, which says, in part:
Subd. 5. Criminal investigation; immunity from prosecution. (a) An individual
5.34who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
5.35by law in defense of the individual, the individual’s dwelling, or another individual is
5.36justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution for that act.
6.1(b) A law enforcement agency may arrest an individual using force under
6.2circumstances described in this section only after considering any claims or circumstances
6.3supporting self-defense or lawful defense of another individual.
6.4 Subd. 6. Justifiable use of force; burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when there
6.5is any evidence of justifiable use of force under this section or section 609.06, the state
6.6has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s actions were
6.7not justifiable.
“6.1(b) A law enforcement agency may arrest an individual using force under
6.2circumstances described in this section only after considering any claims or circumstances
6.3supporting self-defense or lawful defense of another individual.
”
Right there Nick – EVEN WITH Stand Your Ground in place – law enforcement may arrest an individual if the story smells funny. Little Falls nutjob would not have been able to use ANY of its provisions for his defense.
On reading the above sections it seems clear to me that the user is only immune from prosecution if the state cannot clear the hurdle of proof. In other words, if the state can satisy 6.6 & 6.7, then the accused cannot rely on 5.34 – 5.36.
If that is the case, then it sits fairly with the law on such issues in other jurisdictions.
Correct, the key word being “justified”. Any jury or judge would easily see that what he did was not justifiable…in any way. After shooting them and stopping them his claim of defense ends. Continuing to kill them took it into the realm if unreasonable force and he would have been convicted.
Stand Your Ground also left the “Reasonable Person” standard intact.
All actions must be those of a reasonable person — reasonable people generally avoid conflicts resulting in death, and certainly don’t murder now defenseless individuals.
He would have been convicted on the evidence as not supporting a valid claim of self-defense.
“Person may use all means, including deadly force, that the person believes in good faith is required. Superior force is allowed and defensive action may be continued until the danger has ended. (5.11- 5.16) Production of a weapon is reasonable force and not deadly force if the objective is to stop the aggression of another. (4.11- 4.14)”
“Defensive action may continue until the danger has ended”
Once he shot and disabled the intruders his plea for self defense ended. I’d also like to mention that if the girl did in fact laugh at him after being shot, there is clearly more to her story. I’d imagine drugs were involved. No one laughs after being shot. Again, this is if she did in fact laugh at him. There are too many unknown variables in this story to really determine anything. But to shoot a person to point of disabling them and then approaching that person to ‘finish them off’ is clearly, I repeat, clearly not justifiable.
Thank you Jared,
For pointing out the obvious truth here. People are so reactionary. Even if it did delay his arrest while the incident is investigated (and I am not sure it would have), there is nothing to prevent arrest and prosecution once reasonableness has been proven to be excessive.
Some one is in my house, I am armed I have a vantage point that allows me too see the intruder/s I am already on my phone with 911. I do not open fire until/if there is a viable life threatening situation. I rack the slide on my shotgun and tell the intruder to lay on the floor or be shot. Law Enforcement is now at my front door which is open. I id myself and advise the intruder is on the floor. This happened 1983 in St Paul my Stepfather had the firearm. We lived in the midway area. I have my Permit to carry. I have a security system. If the situation were to arise again I would handle it the same way I am fortunate for my neighbors that work for 2 Police departments. I have a Schutzhund trained dog. My entire point/opinion he killed to get revenge on past issues, he had no fear he could have deescalated the entire issue instead he coldly killed. I base my opinion on what info is currently available. My masters is in Forensic Psychology. My clinicals were done in 2005 at St Peter Hospital.
Good approach. Plus, anyone named Declan is alright with me.
All good and well Declan, if you are sane, calm, collected and have that mindset.
As you say, your Masters is in Forensic Psychology, my Degree is in Law from Edinburgh University,(I spent my third year as an exchange student at UT so was exposed to an certain amount of USA law) so we are both aware that not everyone who commits crime is 100% mentally capable.
My question to you and others is how would you have acted in your own scenario above if you had mental health issues, been drinking heavily, taken drugs, been under stress, freaked out etc.
I’m sure that as part of your masters you factored in such things as age, gender, upbringing, enviro9nment etc.
I was born and brought up in Switzerland, so I’m not anti-gun carrying or owning. My point is that perhaps a more rigorous form of testing should be put in place before allowing gun ownership.
I agree that guns DO NOT remove the violence in an exchange and the gentleman’s response was not appropriate. I agree with gun control laws as we need to follow a law of kindergartners of using our words. However, I fear the lack of attention to the kids behavior. Given the additional report that these kids were linked to other burglaries which included prescription drugs, I do not think these kids were saints and they had significant mental issues. The community is not recognizing the public family policy issues that allow them to see these kids as good kids.
Craig had best comment so far. Thanks, Nick. And, thanks Gov Dayton. (What would Pawlenty have done? or the guy who was running against Dayton? We are a killing nation, as per the wars we perpetrate. One thing, tho, maybe we should start looking for other words to use instead of such aggressive words, like Gov. Dayton “killed” the bill. What other word could you have used? He stopped the bill. He squashed the bill. He rejected the bill outright. Plenty of others to get into our language and stop using blatant attack words. Someone (Brigid McDonald even says to start saying, Feed 2 birds w/one seed, instead of Killed 2 birds w/one stone. Enuf!
“he starved the bill until it was small enough to drag into the bathtub and drown it.” not much better, much longer, and doesn’t deal as directly in the language as “he killed the bill.” that hamburger in your freezer didn’t get there because a cow jumped into a grinder, and two others picked out the hard parts. there was a kill floor and an air-hammer gun involved.