Breaking
Down the Little Falls Thanksgiving Shooting
By: Keith Carlson
This article was written to help people understand the unique relationship between a perceived threat and the use of legal force.
According to the Brainerd Dispatch, on Thanksgiving Day 2012, Haile Kifer and Nicholas Brady decided to break a window and unlawfully enter the home owned by Byron Smith. Brady and Kifer decided to take on an element of risk by entering the home illegally. The intruders broke a window to facilitate the illegal entry. Smith, the homeowner, was in his basement and heard the window break. According to the reports, Smith retrieved a Mini 14 rifle and a .22 caliber revolver for home defense. While in the basement, Smith heard sounds of walking upstairs and knew that someone was in his home unlawfully.
Let’s stop for a second, how can someone justifiably take another person’s life? To justifiably take a life, Smith would have to reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. If Smith perceived his immediate situation as such, he could justify protecting himself by stopping the threat. As this home defense situation unfolded, the intruder (Brady) walked down the stairs to where Smith was located in the basement. What was Smith’s threat level as the threat approached? I would presume that the threat level was very HIGH. Also, did Smith believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death? Apparently Yes, Smith responded to the threat with a Mini 14 rifle shot. At this point, I believe the initial shot was justified.
After Brady was shot, the reports indicated that he tumbled to the bottom of the stairs. Was there still a threat? If so, Smith could justifiably meet the threat with additional force. If the threat had stopped, due to Brady lying motionless at the bottom of the stairs, then Smith’s force must stop.
As for Kifer, did she still present a threat to Smith? Did Smith believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death? This is very subjective; however, if Smith still perceived a life threatening threat then he could justifiably meet the threat with deadly force. Kifer proceeded to walk down the stairs to where Brady was shot. At this point, Smith perceived a threat and shot Kifer.
After Kifer was shot, the reports stated that she went down. Did Kifer continue to be a threat at this point? I do NOT believe so, according to Smith’s own statements Kifer was not an immediate threat to commit great bodily harm or pose a threat to kill him. Kifer just laughed at Smith after Smith’s rifle jammed. Smith failed to lower his force response. Unfortunately, Smith proceeded to shoot both Brady & Kifer numerous times until they died.
It’s my opinion that Smith should’ve called “911” before the shooting, if possible, and definitely after the shooting, due to the lower threat level posed by the incapacitated intruders. Smith should’ve requested both police and medical services to the scene.
I hope this short article helps clarify some of the questions you may have about home defense and the relation between perceived threats and the legal use of force. Furthermore, it wouldn’t surprise me to see this case defended as a mental health/illness matter.
Additional Thoughts:
I believe the liberal media has attempted to attack the Castle Doctrine, the Second Amendment and gun owners’ rights, by exploiting this tragedy in Little Falls. I feel that the Castle Doctrine should be expanded as proposed by both the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota State Senate. The Little Fall’s incident brings to the surface the fluidity of a home defense threat as well as the proper response of force used to mitigate the threat. Force must meet the immediate threat level accordingly and the proper force must end when the threat has been adequately stopped.
Keith Carlson
26 years Law Enforcement / Permit to Carry Instructor
http://tacticsusa.com
612-245-9898
By: Keith Carlson
This article was written to help people understand the unique relationship between a perceived threat and the use of legal force.
According to the Brainerd Dispatch, on Thanksgiving Day 2012, Haile Kifer and Nicholas Brady decided to break a window and unlawfully enter the home owned by Byron Smith. Brady and Kifer decided to take on an element of risk by entering the home illegally. The intruders broke a window to facilitate the illegal entry. Smith, the homeowner, was in his basement and heard the window break. According to the reports, Smith retrieved a Mini 14 rifle and a .22 caliber revolver for home defense. While in the basement, Smith heard sounds of walking upstairs and knew that someone was in his home unlawfully.
Let’s stop for a second, how can someone justifiably take another person’s life? To justifiably take a life, Smith would have to reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. If Smith perceived his immediate situation as such, he could justify protecting himself by stopping the threat. As this home defense situation unfolded, the intruder (Brady) walked down the stairs to where Smith was located in the basement. What was Smith’s threat level as the threat approached? I would presume that the threat level was very HIGH. Also, did Smith believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death? Apparently Yes, Smith responded to the threat with a Mini 14 rifle shot. At this point, I believe the initial shot was justified.
After Brady was shot, the reports indicated that he tumbled to the bottom of the stairs. Was there still a threat? If so, Smith could justifiably meet the threat with additional force. If the threat had stopped, due to Brady lying motionless at the bottom of the stairs, then Smith’s force must stop.
As for Kifer, did she still present a threat to Smith? Did Smith believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death? This is very subjective; however, if Smith still perceived a life threatening threat then he could justifiably meet the threat with deadly force. Kifer proceeded to walk down the stairs to where Brady was shot. At this point, Smith perceived a threat and shot Kifer.
After Kifer was shot, the reports stated that she went down. Did Kifer continue to be a threat at this point? I do NOT believe so, according to Smith’s own statements Kifer was not an immediate threat to commit great bodily harm or pose a threat to kill him. Kifer just laughed at Smith after Smith’s rifle jammed. Smith failed to lower his force response. Unfortunately, Smith proceeded to shoot both Brady & Kifer numerous times until they died.
It’s my opinion that Smith should’ve called “911” before the shooting, if possible, and definitely after the shooting, due to the lower threat level posed by the incapacitated intruders. Smith should’ve requested both police and medical services to the scene.
I hope this short article helps clarify some of the questions you may have about home defense and the relation between perceived threats and the legal use of force. Furthermore, it wouldn’t surprise me to see this case defended as a mental health/illness matter.
Additional Thoughts:
I believe the liberal media has attempted to attack the Castle Doctrine, the Second Amendment and gun owners’ rights, by exploiting this tragedy in Little Falls. I feel that the Castle Doctrine should be expanded as proposed by both the Minnesota House of Representatives and the Minnesota State Senate. The Little Fall’s incident brings to the surface the fluidity of a home defense threat as well as the proper response of force used to mitigate the threat. Force must meet the immediate threat level accordingly and the proper force must end when the threat has been adequately stopped.
Keith Carlson
26 years Law Enforcement / Permit to Carry Instructor
http://tacticsusa.com
612-245-9898
________________________________________
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
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.
Great bodily
harm.
“Great bodily
harm" means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or
which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or
protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or
other serious bodily harm.
Subdivision 1.Burglary
in the first degree.
Whoever enters a building without consent
and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and
commits a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice,
commits burglary in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not
more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both,
if:
(a) the building is a dwelling and another
person, not an accomplice, is present in it when the burglar enters or at any
time while the burglar is in the building;
(b) the burglar possesses, when entering or
at any time while in the building, any of the following: a dangerous weapon,
any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the victim to reasonably
believe it to be a dangerous weapon, or an explosive; or
(c) the burglar assaults a person within
the building or on the building's appurtenant property
