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

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

Even if guilty he will have plenty to appeal.

No he won't. He would quietly rot in prison, and no dangerous precedent would be set.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Jimmya

All I'm saying is nobody knows what psycho is in the house, or if the house is full of gang members..... Moral of the story is to not break into someone's house.

No shit.

I don't think you'll see any arguments in this thread stating that you should break into someone else's house or that it is acceptable. You just aren't allowed to become an unhinged psycho and "finish off" teenagers because they broke in.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by alnorth

No he won't. He would quietly rot in prison, and no dangerous precedent would be set.

You don't think for instance, the prosecution using cameras as an example showing premeditation could create too slippery slope for home owners with security systems to "catch" robbers?

I could see a robber's family suing home owners trying to show this as premeditation

It sounds ridiculous, so justice system says it's probable

[ghak99]

The longer I think about this the more I think I'm now ok with "anything goes" the minute an intruder enters a home. Leave any decisions made from that point forward up to the homeowner's discretion and be done with it.

He's obviously not the sharpest tool in the box, but I could not care lass about him in this case. The "intruders should expect death" message needs to be sent and I no longer care how it happens.

[Old Dog]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

His actions are over the top, but does anyone really want to set a precedent to something that surmounts to a home protection case?

There's the whole problem though. If he had stopped after putting a couple in each of their chests, not many (other than the "Guns = BAD" whackamoles) would have an issue with it.
It's the "finishing shots" that turned it from a home protection case to murder.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

You don't think for instance, the prosecution using cameras as an example showing premeditation could create too slippery slope for home owners with security systems to "catch" robbers?

I could see a robber's family suing home owners trying to show this as premeditation

It sounds ridiculous, so justice system says it's probable

No. That is not an issue whatsoever. There is no such thing as "hey its my camera so you don't get to use it against me" defense. Store owners get nailed by their own security cameras all the time. If you are going to do something illegal in front of your own camera you should probably turn it off first, but one of the very first things cops do when investigating a crime is to check if the place had security cameras, and if it does, they are going to grab it and use it, just like you'd be using your camera if it filmed something that would enhance your defense.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by ghak99

The "intruders should expect death" message needs to be sent and I no longer care how it happens.

Your goal is pointless. Robbers are already aware of guns and try to pick houses that are unoccupied. There is nothing you can do to make them even more afraid and more reluctant to break into a home.

All you are doing is allowing people who are down to be executed in cold blood for no good reason.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by alnorth

No. That is not an issue whatsoever. There is no such thing as "hey its my camera so you don't get to use it against me" defense. Store owners get nailed by their own security cameras all the time. If you are going to do something illegal in front of your own camera you should probably turn it off first, but one of the very first things cops do when investigating a crime is to check if the place had security cameras, and if it does, they are going to grab it and use it, just like you'd be using your camera if it filmed something that would enhance your defense.

Oh I agree with you on this.

But as I took it, the prosecution was listing his actions as showing premeditation. They listed specifically a video camera, audio devise, taking out light bulbs ahead of time, and sitting "in wait", to show premeditation.

You know they have to list what is their reasoning for premeditation. That reasoning can then be used for another case.

There are people who have security traps for intruders who don't belong on that property; the prosecutor listing these examples of premeditation could make them nervous.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by notorious

It's Okay to execute a person now?

That's how it's been for most of human history.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

Oh I agree with you on this.

But as I took it, the prosecution was listing his actions as showing premeditation. They listed specifically a video camera, audio devise, taking out light bulbs ahead of time, and sitting "in wait", to show premeditation.

You know they have to list what is their reasoning for premeditation. That reasoning can then be used for another case.

There are people who have security traps for intruders who don't belong on that property; the prosecutor listing these examples of premeditation could make them nervous.

I don't think they are listing the existence of security as premeditation, but rather his words and actions recorded by security before and after the shooting.

[Jimmya]

Joe Horn, 61, spotted two burglars breaking into his next-door neighbor's home in Pasadena, Texas. He called 911 to summon police to the scene. While on the phone with emergency dispatch, Horn stated that he had the right to use deadly force to defend property, referring to a law (Texas Penal Code §§ 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43) which justified the use of deadly force to protect Horn's home. Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more.

This man was cleared in Texas by a grand jury. These dudes weren't even on his property.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Jimmya

Joe Horn, 61, spotted two burglars breaking into his next-door neighbor's home in Pasadena, Texas. He called 911 to summon police to the scene. While on the phone with emergency dispatch, Horn stated that he had the right to use deadly force to defend property, referring to a law (Texas Penal Code §§ 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43) which justified the use of deadly force to protect Horn's home. Horn exited his home with his shotgun, while the 911 operator tried to dissuade him from that action. On the 911 tape, he is heard confronting the suspects, saying, "Move, and you're dead",[3] immediately followed by the sound of a shotgun blast, followed by two more.

This man was cleared in Texas by a grand jury. These dudes weren't even on his property.

He was wrong, but it's too bad this isn't what happens to all thieves...

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

This. But I think it is such a slippery slope.

It depends where the premeditation is. A reasonable person has security cameras, or even nervously has to "wait for another" break in cause cops/laws didn't get them.

His actions are over the top, but does anyone really want to set a precedent to something that surmounts to a home protection case?

Even if guilty he will have plenty to appeal.

Precedents aren't set by any jury. Judges make rulings on the law's interpretation and that sets precedent.

The standards established for criminal law is meeting all the elements of the crime accused; often including the mens rea - intent.

These have changed very very little in 100s of year's from criminal acts- last codified in the 2nd restatement.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by ghak99

The longer I think about this the more I think I'm now ok with "anything goes" the minute an intruder enters a home. Leave any decisions made from that point forward up to the homeowner's discretion and be done with it.

He's obviously not the sharpest tool in the box, but I could not care lass about him in this case. The "intruders should expect death" message needs to be sent and I no longer care how it happens.

Really? You'd be cool with the homeowner tying someone up, sexually assaulting them, and/or torturing them over a long period of time?

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

Precedents aren't set by any jury. Judges make rulings on the law's interpretation and that sets precedent.

The standards established for criminal law is meeting all the elements of the crime accused; often including the mens rea - intent.

These have changed very very little in 100s of year's from criminal acts- last codified in the 2nd restatement.

Assistant Morrison County Attorney Todd Kosovich has said the killings were an “ambush” and that Smith removed light bulbs from sockets and sat by a tall bookcase so the teens couldn’t see him as they came downstairs.

He has also listed parking truck down the street, having reading material, energy bars and water, "hiding behind bookshelves" etc. as reasons for premeditation.

If prosecutors are successful, it will more than likely be presented again.