Do people lose their right to defend their house if they make it look like their house is uninhabited?

Question

What should Bryan Smith have done when two burglars came to his house?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2014/04/29/morrison-county-jury-discussing-byron-smith-case/8465609/

Two burglars came to his house. He shot them, and they died.

The prosecutor argued that by removing trucks from the premise he is "baiting" burglars.

1. Is it illegal to remove trucks from premises?
2. Now that the burglars are in his house, what should he have done?

I still do not understand the verdict. I mean, do you lose your right to defend yourself if you make it look like your house is uninhabited? Are you obligated to signal to would-be burglars that you will shoot them?

In the case of Bryan Smith case, has the prosecutor established that the removal of his truck is done solely for baiting burglars?

One controversy in the case is that after he shot a burglar, he finish the job.

I do not know how much of this got into a jury. However, I would have done the same if I were him. Soldiers in wars double tap because enemies they think are death (not just injured in legs), may actually still be alive and kill. There are cases of people stop beating up robbers thinking he won, only to have the robbers' friend stab him in the back.

For all Bryan Smith knows, those teenagers could be assassins sent by gangs to kill him. The boy and the girl may bring life grenade they can activate for suicide bombing. It may not be. But how does he knows?

The probability is small. May be 1%, or 2%. Still, why should a home owner risk his life for life of two worthless burglars? The safest thing to do is to just kill the burglars.

Why take unnecessary risks when your life is in danger by some people that's obviously up to no good?

Answer 1

If I remember the case correctly, he didn't make his home look uninhabited (that is nobody is living there) but as if the inhabitants had left (gone shopping etc.) to make it look attractive to burglars.

He then waited inside, armed with a gun, with the intent of shooting any burglars that might arrive. He shot the first burglar in the legs, and then proceeded to kill the unarmed and now defenseless burglar, who was lying injured on the ground and was in no position anymore to hurt him. He then did the same with a second burglar, shooting her in the legs, then shooting her multiple times, and when he found she was still alive, he shot her point blank in the face while she was lying on the ground.

You are asking the wrong questions. You are asking "is it illegal to remove a truck". It's not. What is illegal is to intentionally create a situation where you shoot people and try to claim "self defence". It can very well be argued that by luring burglars into your home with the intent to kill them, they are not actually illegal in that home, because you wanted them to be there. You can do many things that are each completely innocent but add up to a crime.

Actually, for everyone interested, I posted a question maybe last week or the week before whether you can be convicted for both first degree murder and second degree murder for killing a person, and it was exactly this case that inspired the question.

What should he have done? If he hadn't lured the burglars in, I believe the case would have still been a double murder, since he killed both unarmed teenagers when they were absolutely no threat. It might not have been first degree murder since it would not have been premeditated. But he intentionally lured them in, making it premeditated (first degree) murder.

If he had only injured them, the fact that he lured them in could very likely have made this an assault.

You asked: "Now that the burglars are in his house, what should he have done? " Well, he got himself into a dangerous situation. Remember, he was convicted for premeditated murder. So just before he shot the girl in the head, he should have instead put the gun away and called police and an ambulance. It would have been one murder instead of two. Just before he shot the boy, he should have put the gun away and called police and an ambulance. It would have been just attempted murder. When he heard the first person entering, he should have called the police and waited. When the burglar came in sight, he should not have shot and injured him.

It's a similar question to "if I try a bank robbery and there is an armed guard, what should I do". The only legal thing to do is to drop your weapon and wait to be arrested.

If an armed burglar had appeared instead of two unarmed teens, well, he would have put himself into a dangerous situation. Just as the burglar would have no right to shoot even if a home owner points a weapon at him, he had no right to shoot, no right to self defense, since he had intentionally created the situation. Tough shit. That's what you may get if you plan a murder.

Responding to some comments: @J.Chang Are you being serious? You are not allowed to make your house inviting to burglars, while waiting inside with the intent of killing them. Self defense only applies when a reasonable person would believe they are in danger. Reasonable persons don't think that a burglar comes in with the intent of blowing themselves up and taking the home owner with them. And no, you don't get to "assume the worst". Not when the worst is something no reasonable person would expect.

Thanks to Dale for pointing out that even for soldiers in a war situation, where different rules apply, deliberately killing a helpless enemy combatant is murder.

Answer 2

No, you can't lure people into your home with the intent of killing, shooting, whatever, them. For the seminal case on setting traps for people, see Katko v. Briney where a guy was found liable for battery when a trespasser set off a spring gun that had been set in an abandoned house to "catch" burglars and the trespasser was severely injured.

For a more recent version, where a man left his garage door open to tempt a person who he suspected had stolen from him, then was waiting and shot the kid when he came by, see the story of Markus Kaarma and his conviction for homicide.

Nothing about moving trucks is or random houses that simply "look abandoned" has any meaning here, further than the truck-moving thing actually tended to show that the homeowner took deliberate steps to falsely portray a situation in order to take his intended action against those who he expected to act as a result of that false portrayal.

Addendum:

Instead of the above being as relevant as I thought it was, that the case turned more on the premeditation fact of the shooter. The luring of the victims is important in that it tends to demonstrate the shooter's intent.

This is really about intent. So, Bryan Smith, just like the defendant in Katko v. Briney, which I cited above, was found liable because of his criminal intent - his plan to do what he did. See this passage from Katko:

On the other hand, where the intruder may pose a danger to the inhabitants of a dwelling, the privilege of using such a device to repel has been recognized by most authorities, and the mere setting thereof in the dwelling has not been held to create liability for an injury as a matter of law. In such cases intent and the reasonableness of the force would seem relevant to liability.

Although I am aware of the often-repeated statement that personal rights are more important than property rights, where the owner has stored his valuables representing his life's accumulations, his livelihood business, his tools and implements, and his treasured antiques as appears in the case at bar, and where the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the installation was intended only as a warning to ward off thieves and criminals, I can see no compelling reason why the use of such a device alone would create liability as a matter of law.

Answer 3

Under Minnesota law:

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

He was preventing a felony in his place of abode, and perhaps reasonably believed he was exposed to great bodily harm or death, when he shot them. But not when he shot them again.

You talk about a tiny chance, but the law requires a "reasonable" belief. It is not reasonable to believe that the burglars have grenades, or that they are assassins, if you know that they don't think you're home.

You talk about soldiers in war, but if you go around shooting incapacitated enemy wounded in a war, you're guilty of a war crime.

And I know this case was in Minnesota, but under Wisconsin law:

A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

I think it's clear by his actions that he intended to provoke a burglary so he could shoot the burglars. There's no other explanation for moving his truck and then lying in wait in the basement with two guns while rehearsing a request for a lawyer.