Minnesota Man Accused of Murdering Teens Who Entered His Home



Prosecutors say Smith was sitting in his basement when he heard a window breaking upstairs. When Brady started walking down the basement stairs, Smith shot him twice.

Then, according to court documents, Smith shot Brady a third time in the face, allegedly telling investigators, “I want him dead.”

LOVE! :heart:


He went way above and beyond “defending his home” or even himself. He shot the teens multiple times over a span of time. He dragged the teenage girl after shooting her to another location, listened to her “gurgle” for “some time” before going back and shooting her at point blank range. He did not call the police until the next day because he didn’t want to “disturb” them.

This is not self defense.

The children were absolutely wrong in breaking in to this man’s house, no question. But I imagine this will not be a long trial. Anybody with a brain can see how far overboard he went.


I fully support civil and criminal immunity from unlawful intruders, but yeah, this guy pretty obviously had murder in mind if true.


There’s a bit of history here that doesn’t excuse his actions can help to explain them. He’d had several break-ins at his house and felt under siege. He’s a retired person unable to defend himself except with a weapon. He got tired of being a target for burglars with no real help from the authorities. If only the police would have set up a sting operation this tragedy could have been avoided. And while he had no right to murder these two teens, they weren’t innocent babies, either. They were criminals who knew what they were doing. Apparently they pushed this man too far too many times and paid the price. Now, sadly, he too will pay the price. Crime against the elderly is on the rise because young thugs see them as easy targets. Well, this guy was tired of being such a target, and the young people lost their lives. Truly a terrible event all around.


He had the right to shoot the intruders, but not to execute them. As far as his “lying in wait,” that could be true of any homeowner who keeps a loaded weapon at hand, anticipating a home invasion. In this case, thieves had stolen firearm(s) from his home in previous break-in, so he had reasonable cause to assume that the intruders were armed.

I imagine he will plead guilty to a lesser charge than murder one.

As far as the comment by someone who knew the two home invaders that they were “great people…” yeah, right.:rolleyes: One of the relatives of the dead girl admitted she was a drug addict. Then he said something to the effect that the proper course is to shoot the intruder in the shoulder and call the cops. Sorry, that is not the proper course. You shoot to kill, not disable. If the perpetrator is not dead from the first shot or shots but is obviously completely disabled, then and only then is it prudent to stop firing.


A very sad story. We had a case in England some years ago where a man living alone in an isolated farmhouse (where he kept an unlicensed and illegal shotgun), shot and killed a young teenage burglar as he tried to run from the house. He had been burgled before.

He went to prison, initially for murder, later reduced to a manslaughter charge based on his mental health - served a few years, that’s all.


Sad but true, this man had been broken into 3/4 times and he was sent to Jail for protecting his property by shooting the Burglar , of course English Justice is in favour of the thief, burglar, the non law abider, quite puzzling really, and he got the charge reduced to manslaughter only because of the Public outcry about the case. Best place to be a law breaker - England, you wont get much in the way of a sentence. But the person who has been put through all this will get hell rained down upon him/her.
Good people become ruled by evil when silence is all they offer.


I don’t know if I buy into all the capriciousness of this.

One commentator on this told me that when his home was invaded, he only “managed” to wound the perp. Because the perp was a minor and didn’t hurt anyone or do THAT much damage, he got off easy. He came back to the home later with his friends, slashed the guys tires, put sugar in his gas tank and killed his dog. He came home at a later to find that his house had burned down. Definitely intentional, but could never conclusively prove who did it.

I’m not saying what he did was right, but I’d be more careful with stuff like this. There’s always two sides to the equation.

I also have a very dim view on certain Minnesota policepersons. I’ve heard things from people that suggest a lot of folks in that state are nothing short of negligent in their duty.


If you invade a home or other premises in the USA, you are unquestionably risking your life.


Maybe. But he didn’t seek them out. Remember, they came into his house.


Irrelevant. Neither case law nor common law in any state allow for an execution style killing of an intruder.

Don’t get me wrong, he may walk due to a jury nullification or a few mistrials, but his charges are 100% warranted.

In any event…always keep your mouth shut and have a lawyer on speed-dial. :smiley:


There certainly are two sides to every story, that is true. But there is nothing I have stated in my post that has not been openly discussed on the local news and in this man’s case. This is my stomping ground, these are my neighbors. There is a lot of gossip going around, but what I have stated is simply what is on the news, what the man has confessed to and what has already been brought up in trial.



So those ready to lock him up and throw out the key need to explain what he SHOULD have done. Was he over the top? Yes. Was he pushed there by prior experience, desperation and impotence of the local police? Yes.

How many times does the guy have to submit to robbery with impunity before he’s allowed to put a stop to it? I vote house arrest. And he gets to keep the gun. There’s no evidence that the public at large is in any danger from this man. Isn’t that what the penal system is really about?


Well, I guess that’s why I didn’t comment on Travyvon Martin.:shrug:


That’s why we don’t try cases in the court of public opinion.


:stuck_out_tongue: Well you know what they say about opinions. We’ve all got 'em.


That guy needs to be in jail.

It reminds me of the Bernie Goetz case.


Um, not shoot them after it was clear that they were no longer a threat maybe? Big difference between shooting a guy to death to stop him and shooting a guy and therefore stopping him, then “finishing him off.” His statement to the police about wanting them dead makes it rather clear his intent wasn’t self-defense but murder.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.