Minnesota man who killed teens in break-in charged with murder

[NIUhuskies]

wow, this sounds pretty messed up... Cant tell if his guy is nuts or if these kids were on drugs

By NBC News staff and wire services

A 64-year-old Minnesota man was charged Monday with murder for killing two teenagers who he said broke into his Little Falls home, shooting them in the head, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.

AP file

Byron David Smith was arrested after he told police he shot and killed two teenagers who he said were breaking into his home on Thanksgiving Day.

"If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again," Byron David Smith of Little Falls told investigators, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.

Smith was charged with two counts of second-degree murder in the deaths of Haile Kifer, 18, and her cousin, Nicholas Brady, 17, both of Little Falls. The teens were shot on Thanksgiving Day, but their deaths weren't reported until Friday.
Advertise | AdChoices

Brady has also used the name Schaeffel, which is his mother’s maiden name, at times for family reasons, according to the sheriff's office.

In the criminal complaint, Smith said he was in the basement of his remote home about 10 miles southwest of Little Falls when he heard a window breaking upstairs, followed by footsteps that eventually approached the basement stairwell. Fearful after several break-ins, according to the complaint, Smith said he fired when Brady came into view from the waist down.

After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor.

"I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith telling an investigator.

Smith said he dragged Brady's body into his basement workshop, then sat back down on his chair, and after a few minutes Kifer began coming down the stairs. He said he shot her as soon as her hips appeared, and she fell down the steps.

Smith said he tried to shoot her again with his Mini 14 rifle, but that the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him.

"Smith stated that it was not a very long laugh because she was already hurting," according to the complaint.

Smith said he then shot Kifer in the chest several times with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to Brady, and with her still gasping for air, fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium."

"Smith described it as 'a good clean finishing shot,'" according to the compliant, but also that he acknowledged he had fired "more shots than (he) needed to."

The following day he asked a neighbor to recommend a good lawyer, according to the complaint. He later asked his neighbor to call the police.

A prosecutor called Smith's reaction "appalling."

"Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense," Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said after Smith appeared at Morrison County District Court on Monday morning. Bail was set at $2 million.

Follow @NBCNewsUS

Minnesota law allows a homeowner to use deadly force on an intruder if a reasonable person would fear they're in danger of harm. Smith told investigators he was afraid the intruders might have a weapon.

Smith's actions "sound like an execution" rather than legitimate self-defense, said David Pecchia, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. Pecchia said his statements to investigators suggest he had eliminated any threat to his safety by wounding the cousins.

Smith's brother, Bruce Smith, told the Star Tribune of Minneapolis that the incident was the eighth burglary at Byron Smith's home in recent years.

The only report the Morrison County sheriff's office has for a break-in at the home was for one on Oct. 27. It shows Byron Smith reported losing cash and gold coins worth $9,200, plus two guns worth $200 each, photo equipment worth more than $3,000 and a ring worth $300.

Little Falls is about 100 miles northwest of Minneapolis.

Brady's sister, Crystal Schaeffel, told the Star Tribune that Kifer had broken into her home before. Little Falls police records show Crystal Schaeffel reported a theft Aug. 28, but the department said the report was not public because that investigation was continuing and because it named juveniles.

Tessa Ruth, an aunt of Brady, attended Smith's hearing. She told the Star Tribune she wished the man had fired a warning shot or alerted the police instead of shooting the teens.

"It wasn't right for them to be there and, yes, he had a right to defend himself. But to execute them like that..."

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...th-murder?lite

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by scott free

Time hasn't changed my opinion on this, the man crossed the line from legitimately fearful homeowner to cold blooded murderer with his actions... if any of you who think he got a bum deal could walk up to someone laying on the ground, coughing up blood, clearly dying and absolutely no threat to you and "finish them nice and clean" face to face?

Then you need serious help, get off the internet and call a therapist, stat.

"Clearly diying" to "finishing shot" is where we disagree. Have you ever killed an animal? Hunting? Thought about ending the suffering? That's not the terms I'd use to discribe "cold blooded murder".

But let's say you're right, and the actions of farmer brown are deplorable. I still do not want to give legal precedence that allows safe haven, in the laws eyes, to those that break into somebody's home. If we are going to error on one side of this issue I'd rather error on the side of "**** you do not enter a house you don't belong in to commit a crime". End of story.

[TimBone]

Originally Posted by chiefsfan987

NBC did a dateline story on this a couple weeks ago. I was surprised when no one bumped the thread after it aired. Here it is if anyone wants to watch.

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/full...street-n107981

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

"Clearly diying" to "finishing shot" is where we disagree. Have you ever killed an animal? Hunting? Thought about ending the suffering? That's not the terms I'd use to discribe "cold blooded murder".

But let's say you're right, and the actions of farmer brown are deplorable. I still do not want to give legal precedence that allows safe haven, in the laws eyes, to those that break into somebody's home. If we are going to error on one side of this issue I'd rather error on the side of "**** you do not enter a house you don't belong in to commit a crime". End of story.

It's funny that you compared this situation to ending the suffering of a hunted animal, because that's exactly what he did. He set up his hunting ground, baited the animal in, and shot it down. When the first shot didn't kill it, he "ended it's suffering."

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by Flybone McTimmerson

It's funny that you compared this situation to ending the suffering of a hunted animal, because that's exactly what he did. He set up his hunting ground, baited the animal in, and shot it down. When the first shot didn't kill it, he "ended it's suffering."

I'm fully aware the comparison is a slippery slope, as long as your aware it's a two way street. Allowing the analogy of hunter vs prey, you suggest, not only, does the homeowner hunter have issues but so did/does the hunted "animals" that just can't help but take the bait.

Instead I'm suggesting that I'm tired of excuses for criminals.

I know you'll say the shooter was a criminal that turned off his lights and parked his car down the street, waiting for the two kids. And I'm willing to concede this is the behavior of a mentally ill, if you're wiling to concede it's not illegal.

However, entering another home, empty or occupied, "lured" or not, with intent to commit a crime; is behavior of a criminal, and illegal in every state.

Can we focus on that behavior first? Can we make it harder to break into a home than to protect it?

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Flybone McTimmerson

It's funny that you compared this situation to ending the suffering of a hunted animal, because that's exactly what he did. He set up his hunting ground, baited the animal in, and shot it down. When the first shot didn't kill it, he "ended it's suffering."

So hypothetical situation......

You live in a rougher neighborhood and your house has been repeatedly broken into multiple times when you aren't home. I'm talking more than 5 times and it's not like you're leaving shit unprotected or leaving your door unlocked. After the 5th time of having to replace all of your shit.....you decide that you've had enough. What is the correct course of action? Call the cops who won't do anything because they can't? Try and sell your house and move....possibly taking a huge loss on the value of your house? Or take matters into your own hands?

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

"Clearly diying" to "finishing shot" is where we disagree. Have you ever killed an animal? Hunting? Thought about ending the suffering? That's not the terms I'd use to discribe "cold blooded murder".

But let's say you're right, and the actions of farmer brown are deplorable. I still do not want to give legal precedence that allows safe haven, in the laws eyes, to those that break into somebody's home. If we are going to error on one side of this issue I'd rather error on the side of "**** you do not enter a house you don't belong in to commit a crime". End of story.

This decision does not do that AT ALL.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

So hypothetical situation......

You live in a rougher neighborhood and your house has been repeatedly broken into multiple times when you aren't home. I'm talking more than 5 times and it's not like you're leaving shit unprotected or leaving your door unlocked. After the 5th time of having to replace all of your shit.....you decide that you've had enough. What is the correct course of action? Call the cops who won't do anything because they can't? Try and sell your house and move....possibly taking a huge loss on the value of your house? Or take matters into your own hands?

A security system would be a proactive option. GPS tracker on some select valuable items would help catch the thieves. If they break in when you're not home, I don't know what matters you could take into your own hands. If you're home, this case would in no way deter you from protecting yourself or your belongings.

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

So hypothetical situation......

You live in a rougher neighborhood and your house has been repeatedly broken into multiple times when you aren't home. I'm talking more than 5 times and it's not like you're leaving shit unprotected or leaving your door unlocked. After the 5th time of having to replace all of your shit.....you decide that you've had enough. What is the correct course of action? Call the cops who won't do anything because they can't? Try and sell your house and move....possibly taking a huge loss on the value of your house? Or take matters into your own hands?

I think I'd take the jump towards surveillance, a security system, or a big fluffy Rottweiler. A valuable house doesn't do you much good if you can't put stuff in it.

Even if you make the logical jump to owning a gun and defending your property. You can't be there all the time. It's going to take you catching someone at the right time and killing them in the right manner.

You're supposed to go home and relax. Run around naked. Not strap an M16 to your back and dig out a fox hole.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Omaha

A security system would be a proactive option. GPS tracker on some select valuable items would help catch the thieves. If they break in when you're not home, I don't know what matters you could take into your own hands. If you're home, this case would in no way deter you from protecting yourself or your belongings.

By "taking matters into your own hands" I mean sitting in your dark house and waiting for them.

[Omaha]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

By "taking matters into your own hands" I mean sitting in your dark house and waiting for them.

That's essentially what happens when you go to sleep with a gun near your bed, right? If they enter & you shoot them, you've successfully protected yourself and you have no problem. If you incapacitate them and then go back & finish them off, you probably have a problem.

[TimBone]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

So hypothetical situation......

You live in a rougher neighborhood and your house has been repeatedly broken into multiple times when you aren't home. I'm talking more than 5 times and it's not like you're leaving shit unprotected or leaving your door unlocked. After the 5th time of having to replace all of your shit.....you decide that you've had enough. What is the correct course of action? Call the cops who won't do anything because they can't? Try and sell your house and move....possibly taking a huge loss on the value of your house? Or take matters into your own hands?

Would you handle it the way he did?

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by Omaha

This decision does not do that AT ALL.

I disagree, it's setting equal value on human life despite an unequal situation. It's saying to homeowners "be extra careful how you protect yourself, because people who weren't there, second guessing your actions are going to be critical of them. And the law will make shooting someone in defense of yourself or your home the same as shooting someone in he street", and it's not, nor should it be in my opinion.

This will give more protection to home invaders breaking in to your house. A sense of it to them when deciding to commit the act, it's fluffy feel good shit and **** them for breaking in to the old mans house even if he had a ****ing sign on his door, "come take my shit, I'm not home". When the first shot rang out, the second little criminal should've left.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by Flybone McTimmerson

Would you handle it the way he did?

The exact way? Probably not. I could understand where he was coming from up until the first shot. The whole dragging them away on tarps and finishing shots thing I can't get behind. Shoot them once and then call the cops.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

I disagree, it's setting equal value on human life despite an unequal situation. It's saying to homeowners "be extra careful how you protect yourself, because people who weren't there, second guessing your actions are going to be critical of them. And the law will make shooting someone in defense of yourself or your home the same as shooting someone in he street", and it's not, nor should it be in my opinion.

This will give more protection to home invaders breaking in to your house. A sense of it to them when deciding to commit the act, it's fluffy feel good shit and **** them for breaking in to the old mans house even if he had a ****ing sign on his door, "come take my shit, I'm not home". When the first shot rang out, the second little criminal should've left.

No, it's not. That's ridiculous. The only reason this dumbshit was prosecuted at all is because he turned a home defense situation into an execution. Without the unnecessary "Finishing shots", we likely would have never heard of this story.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by Omaha

That's essentially what happens when you go to sleep with a gun near your bed, right? If they enter & you shoot them, you've successfully protected yourself and you have no problem. If you incapacitate them and then go back & finish them off, you probably have a problem.

Originally Posted by Flybone McTimmerson

Would you handle it the way he did?

Now were on a different topic, I'm not saying it's right or I'd do it the same way. I understand the verdict is more about the "finished them" than the protection of the house.

But some on here said it was premeditated murder because he parked his truck down the street and sat in a dark house. He was charged with murder, like he walked into a store, business, or school; and opened fire on two kids.

I just don't see how this is the same, it shouldn't be judged the same way, valued he same way, because bottom line, the kids would be alive if they didn't break in to the house and commit a crime.

So there needs to be another charge the lawyers can levy on this man besides murder. One were it sets a proper tone about taking matters too far and he can get help for.

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

So there needs to be another charge the lawyers can levy on this man besides murder. One were it sets a proper tone about taking matters too far and he can get help for.

Voluntary manslaughter