Some cases make us take a hard look at what people do when they're scared or angry and push

us to question just how far someone should be able to go when they say they're defending

their home. And few cases bring that debate into sharper focus than what happened in

Littlefield's Minnesota on Thanksgiving Day in 2012. It began the way many rural crime stories do,

a homeowner on edge after a series of break-ins and two teenagers who made a dangerous life-altering

choice. Haley Kiefer and her cousin Nicholas Brady broke into the home of 64-year-old

Byron David Smith, likely expecting to grab what they

could and get out. But what they found instead was a man waiting, a man who would later say

he genuinely believed he had reached his breaking point. What unfolded in Byron's basement was

anything but simple. And it forces us to ask, in moments of extreme

fear, how do we truly judge whether someone's response is proportional or excessive?

Prosecutors argued that this wasn't a split-second act of self-defense. They pointed to audio

recordings Byron had set up inside his home recordings that captured footsteps,

the confrontation, and the gunshots. To them, the tapes revealed deliberate actions that went

far beyond what the law considers reasonable force. But many people see it differently. Could fear

alone justify decisions that, in hindsight, seem calculated? To this day, some argue that

Byron was a terrified homeowner who had been repeatedly targeted, someone who reacted after

feeling abandoned by the system. They believe he did what anyone might do in that moment of fear,

maybe even what they themselves would have done. And yet, the moral lines remain blurred.

When does fear become justification for lethal action?

Since the trial, the divide around this case is never really closed.

Supporters say Byron should be freed and that his actions were justified.

...