A few years ago, I posted an article about a homeowner killing two burglars. I brought up some points, both good and bad, regarding the actions Mr. Smith took in self-defense. There were some heated comments and I remember receiving a bunch of nasty emails because some people didn’t appreciate the fact that I gave a nuanced opinion instead of picking a side in the pro-gun/anti-gun issue. We’re two years later now and Mr. Smith has been put on trial and has received his sentence:
Byron Smith has been found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder. His sentence is life without parole.
Take some time to watch this video to listen to some of his testimony and audio evidence from the trial. You can also listen to more of the audio evidence here, starting around 4min. WARNING: NSFW, nor for children:
I’ll refer to both of these in a bit. First, I’d like to make a few points:
- It’s not about morality. I tried to explain this in my original article but noticed a lot of people didn’t get my point; I’m not arguing a moral point. I believe you definitely have a right to defend yourself in your own home. My article was about the specifics, about how Mr. Smith did that; the things he did both right and wrong. The same applies for this article.
- It’s about the law and its consequences. For decades now, I’ve been teaching self-defense and I’ve met tons of people who have a very skewed perspective on it. They think the self-defense laws give them a blanket permission to use violence in whatever way they want. My point in this article (and in most others here on my blog) is that this is bullshit. That’s not how society works, not for self-defense and neither for most other laws. It isn’t what you think that matters, it’s how the legal system sees it. If you willingly ignore this aspect, then you’re not all that bright…
That said, let’s take a look at the trial.
There are a couple factors that I believe convinced the jury to give a guilty verdict:
- Audio recording: Smith apparently set up a recording device that captured audio of the incident. I have no idea how or why he did that. The only thing you can conclude is that it offered incriminating evidence for the trial. It wasn’t just how he talked to the two burglars (“You’re dead.”) but perhaps more importantly, how he kept on commenting long after they were dead (“I think of them as vermin.”) All of this was incredibly useful evidence for the prosecution.
- The police statements. Some of the statements he gave were damning in and of themselves as they speak to the mindset or intent Smith had during the incident. When you give testimony that you did a “good, clean finishing shot”, it makes it virtually impossible to claim you were acting in self-defense.
- Lack of remorse. Apparently, he showed little, if any, emotion during the trial. In general, it’s hard for juries to feel empathy for you if you remain stoic and uninterested while they hear gruesome details of what you did.
This trial is a perfect example of what I see is wrong with so many people’s mindsets when it comes to self-defense. So I can only repeat some of the things I said in the first article:
- Know the law. You need to know exactly what legal self-defense means in the place that you live. Not your opinion on it, but the actual laws and preferably also state and case law. Talk to police officers, lawyers, etc. to get that information. What you think of the law doesn’t matter, only what the law says and how the legal system interprets it. Mr. Smith seems to think his interpretation of the law was correct. This sentence shows you just how wrong he was. Don’t let that happen to you; make sure you know the law.
- Shut your mouth and get a lawyer. The audio evidence Mr. Smith gave was damning enough but his testimony during the interview with the police, rammed a few more nails in his coffin. I can’t imagine a lawyer advising his clients to say some of the things he did.
- End the threat, not the person. The one does not exclude the other, of course. However, your goal when using lethal force in self-defense is to end the threat to your life. If that means running away, then the law requires you to do so. If you can’t run away, then you are entitled to defend yourself, but a reasonable person (which is how the law measures your actions…) does so precisely to get away. A reasonable person doesn’t start shooting people in the face after they’re shot down (and don’t seem to be getting up…), then drags bodies around and then shoots the next person only to talk to a recording device for hours and then wait a day before getting the police involved. Very little of what Mr. Smith did that day was reasonable and he now pays the price for it.
If your first reaction to reading this is “Bullshit!” then I can only shake my head and offer this:
Mr. Smith probably agrees with you. That said, he is 65 years old and will probably die in jail, as I seriously doubt an appeal will change the verdict. Is your opinion worth that to you?
Marc says
Hi Wim, A dreadful waste of three lives! You’re right imo that Mr. Smith went over the top and in effect it was a kind of revenge carried out if anyone broke into his home to pay for previous burglaries. The first shots fired to the legs I believe can be justified but the rest of his actions deserve to be punished as they have been. Two silly teenagers (17 & 18 I believe) who probably did not understand their actions to the fullest possible extent: I was certainly very stupid at 15/16 in thinking I could violate people’s property (not breaking in but dares from friends in running through gardens and other silly stuff which I’m sure all of us have done to some extent or perhaps not!). Therefore, I am far more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt where possible in case I misunderstand the situation almost leaving it to the last possible moment to act (this could be a big mistake on my part but it does depend on the situation and what seems appropriate). I would like to think if someone broke into my house I would give them the chance to leave or defend myself appropriately through appropriate tactics. The generation above me that I speak to all want to teach burglars a lesson even if it means chasing after them and beating them up as well as performing a citizen’s arrest. This case caused a debate amongst some of the people I discussed this with. The business owner (seems a thoroughly decent chap looking at the video in the article) chased two thieves from his property giving one two broken legs and a broken arm with a fence post and then rugby tackling the second one and holding him till the police came. The way he tackled the second one was for me a perfect citizen’s arrest but the way he beat the first guy does seem a bit excessive (I would need to know more fully if he was beating the guy repeatedly on the ground and was no more of a threat while doing so) and indeed charges were brought against him for that but he was cleared. This is the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-25856722
Wim says
Hi Marc,
One thing I’d like to point out: Smith didn’t know they were “innocent” teenagers when they broke in. I believe it is a correct assumption to see any home invader/burglar as a potential lethal threat. That said, how he handled it, well, that’s another matter.
John W. Zimmer says
Oh my gosh – I cannot believe he recorded himself murdering those kids. That was hard to listen to because anyone with half a brain can see this was not about self-defense.
Self defense is when you have no other reasonable alternative to prevent imminent bodily harm to yourself or a loved one at a minimum.
If you have time to make noise in a house – maybe yelling out I have a gun and I’ve called the police… or anything like that… That would be reasonable.
To lie in wait and shoot them if they had a weapon might be reasonable assuming they continued after realizing someone was in the house and armed.
But to shoot them (if they were a threat) and then to murder them makes me wish the death penalty was invoked (I know that is not so popular in Europe).
Sorry Wim but I really hated hearing about this monster. I wish there were not any like him around.
Wim says
Yes, the recording doesn’t make much sense to me either. Why give the prosecution a rope to hang you with?
Maija says
I think many who advocate understanding the law and using it as a basis for making good self defense decisions come under fire because folks do not understand that there are actually 2 different reasons to act that do not necessarily serve the same purpose.
I think making this distinction might save a great deal of pointless name calling and argument … maybe LOL!
On the one hand, one can accept the laws as they are and act accordingly, which would be smart … OR one can try to change cultural norms by behaving in a way one would personally like society to move towards (which is why gun and rape are such hot buttons issues)
This second reason has little to do with personal safety and would be more like a POLITICAL statement – dressing and behaving exactly as one wishes, or protecting one’s possessions with lethal force – and on some level I can understand why folks might want to behave, possibly in their own worst interests, but potentially for the greater long term good AS THEY SEE IT.
Nothing changes if people don’t question and push the envelope … yet often these actions are NOT good self defense. (They are often also misguided, selfish and not done for the good of all of course but the MOTIVATION is the same I think)
In the end, however, one needs to accept that one is purposefully putting oneself in danger … and the law, however much one may disagree with it, is still real, actual and part of the society in which we live by choice. Still, the choice remains.
Wim says
I agree about the two choices. IME, a lot of people don’t understand they are making a choice by the way they act. And there are consequences that come with it. The law is one of those. I think it’s hypocritical to pick and choose the laws you obey, unless you are fine with everybody else doing that too, even when that makes you their victim. All of a sudden, when that happens, those same people want to pick up their marbles and go play elsewhere…
Old Bull Lee says
Excellent post Wim, although I feel the need to add a caveat: it’s not always a good idea to rely on police officers for knowledge of the law.
Wim says
Gotta disagree with you there. They typically have more training in the law than the average citizen. On top of that, they know how the system works from their end. All valuable info.
mechanoid says
I think its important to note that at least in the US, LEOs are under no legal obligation to tell the truth and often deliberately mislead citizens during the course of their work or investigations. There are also many LEOs that take a dim view of an armed citizenry. Unless you have a personal relationship with an officer, I argue that your other recommendation – asking a lawyer (particularly one who specializes in self-defense law) – is a superior one.
Wim says
That may be true but, every now and then, lawyers have been known to lie too… :-)
nunh says
Sick but, I cannot say I feel sorry for them. The man does sound like a loony and he definitely took the law in his own hands.
Johnson says
Interesting, gives a clear view of how strange some people are.
A scary thought that in the USA so many (disturbed) people have acces to firearms.
Verry weird that they still have not banned heavy firearms.
Especially since the amount of deaths by firearms is this high in the USA.
It seems these so called laws for selfdefense and rights to carry weapons only increase the amount of kills, compared to other country,s.
Shame that people can be so delusional that they keep arming themselves, and thereby maintaining/increasing the problem they actually want to avoid.
Wim says
https://www.wimsblog.com/2013/02/why-gun-control-is-not-a-solution/
Johnson says
Verry well written article.
However from my perspective it seems some points are a little overlooked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1bEkSiFlko
Knife attack VS attack wit firerarm.
Here are some links to back up my opinion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
At least the possession of automatic/semiautomatic weapons (that can carry a large amount of bullets should be forbidden.
This (military) weapon has no place in society and seems to have little to no use in legal self defense.
Wim says
Remember what I wrote: the article focuses on a narrow aspect of the debate. If you want to add the complexities to that debate instead of arguing the points I made there, that’s fine. But then you need to acknowledge that you do so and are opening up the discussion to other areas.
If you do want to go there, I suggest you start here and go read the CDC report. Specifically, go dig for the raw numbers for cities like Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, etc. The US is a big country and the use of firearms in crimes is not the same all over. There are reasons for that and they are important to the debate, even if they don’t fit the narrative you want to believe.
As an aside: the plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Johnson says
I am curious.
The reason civilians are allowed to carry these so called assault rifles (automatic/semi-automatic weapons wit large clips of ammo) is to legally defend themselves.
However it seems that while a handgun can be used for legal self defense in a large variety of situations, these so called heavy (military) weapons are unpractical for this task.
They are however verry damaging in firefights (by gangs) or when used for so called spree killings.
Like we noticed in the video is that the amount of damage inflicted by a single attacker can improve significantly when he is armed wit a (semi) automatic weapon opposed to a edged weapon or handgun.
So what logical argument is there that civilians should still be allowed to posses them if they do not fit for the task of legal self defense?
Wim says
I’m curious too. :-) Are you a LEO or military? Are you a certified instructor in firearms and tactics? Are you trained in firearms use? Do you own firearms?