Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

No. Sorry, it's may be the prosecutor's choice, but all choices assume the act was unlawful.

Well, no they don't. That's why I posted these definitions.
Involuntary manslaughter: "recklessness or criminal negligence": the guy shot into the dark, apparently knowing only that a motion sensor had registered something.

It could have been a child. Maybe even his own. Do you shoot at things you can't see?


Murder 2: "1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life." -- certainly "dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life" apply.

Voluntary Manslaughter: "The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed" -- the guy shot into the dark. That sounds "emotionally or mentally disturbed" to me.

Obviously when I say "prosecutor's choice" I'm saying that any of the above may be applied, from what we know here.

Montana law says a homeowner can use deadly force against an unlawful intruder if he believes himself or others to be in danger. The onus is on the state to prove he was NOT in fear for his life and well being. They can go ahead with the case, if they like, but #1, it will be nearly impossible to find a jury in Montana willing to convict and #2, any conviction is 100% sure to be overturned on appeal. The law is quite plain. The homeowner was within his rights to protect his self and family.

Once again, as already stated, in order to "self-defend" you must have something to self-defend against. If you're shooting into a dark garage and you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then you're not gonna be able to make a case that you believe anybody to be in danger.

You can't have it both ways; either there's a known threat or an unknown unknown. For a known danger, you defend; but for an unknown there's only one defense, and that's to determine what you're dealing with. That's what this guy failed to do. The man SHOT INTO THE DARK. Literally. Therefore what he was shooting at was his own imagination. Rotsa ruck making a case for self-defense against one's own imagination.

If you know there is a person in your darkened garage, you have to assume he is armed because if you don't and you are wrong, YOU are the victim. I refuse to be a willing victim.
I have to question just how dark WAS the garage? The home owner had enough light to hit the perp twice. It was likely light enough to see a person clearly enough to aim.

"If you assume and you are wrong" isn't an argument. You need evidence that whoever/whatever was in there posed a threat. Imagination and fear of the dark isn't evidence.

 

[Pogo]

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, pleads not guilty in shooting death of German exchange student - CBS News

Suspect in German exchange student killing pleads not guilty.

Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

American is the only modern Western country where unarmed burglary seems to warrant a death sentence.

Come into my house or garage and you will eat lead. Don't like it? Quit stealing.

Yeah yeah, talk is cheap. I doubt a one of youse would go blasting artillery into invisible spaces. Just playing the role of Internet Tough Guy. If you did act that out you'd be in the same position the guy in this story is.

I suspect the difference between those of us on the side of human life and the rest of y'all is that we're more honest.

 

[Pogo]

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

He wasn't in the house, he was in the garage. He never attempted to enter the house. All the rest of your rant is just that: a mindless rant.

Bottom line here lefties- Tell your kids to quit disrespecting the peoples property and to stay on the street. Don't walk into peoples personal property. If the lefties start to home train their kids then maybe there would be less Daddy's in prison

-Geaux

This has zilch to do with "lefties". He's not "our" kid; he's an exchange student from Germany. You haven't even touched the topic with this vacuous post.

 

[Kondor3]

This has zilch to do with "lefties". He's not "our" kid; he's an exchange student from Germany. You haven't even touched the topic with this vacuous post.

They have laws against breaking-and-entering, theft, vandalizing, and trespass, in Germany, as well.

 

[Kondor3]

If it was a shotgun, I apologize. It's been a while since I read the article.

Depending on the distance, some aiming might be necessary, at least enough light to detect a person would be needed to choose a direction to fire. Now, if there is just enough light to point a shotgun in the general direction, there is likely not enough light to be sure the intruder is unarmed.

I'm shooting. I don't want to die tonight.

Yep.

When in doubt, the intruder loses-out.

Nature has de-selected him.

 

[Pogo]

Liberals really believe that there is a right to take someone else's property. Underneath all their complaints and protests, this is the foundation.

Yup that's the bottom line. Work hard, pay your own way, and the government will take a portion of your wealth to support the layabouts. Hell! The government does it.... Robbery is more efficient. It removes the middleman.

No it isn't the bottom line; it's the usual crock from the reactionary resident shoot-potheads-in-the-face loser. An exchange student from Germany has nothing to do with "Liberals", "property", "government" or anything else in that crock of bullshit. This is a story on the ethics of excessive force.

Dragging inane demagoguery into it is the kind of insipid swill I expect from Katz; I expect a bit higher from you Ernie. Perhaps I overestimated.

 

[Pogo]

This has zilch to do with "lefties". He's not "our" kid; he's an exchange student from Germany. You haven't even touched the topic with this vacuous post.

They have laws against breaking-and-entering, theft, vandalizing, and trespass, in Germany, as well.

Of course they do, and they're equally irrelevant, and the repeated attempts to expand walking into an open garage into a "breaking and entering" are once again noted and given the veracity they deserve (once again, note which side here engages in dishonesty...)

There isn't a question of trespassing. Nobody disagrees on that. The entire story is about the act of the shooter, not that of the victim.

 

[Pogo]

Agreed.


Unless the guy with the hoodie is snacking on skittles and iced tea.


If it's pitch-dark, you really don't know. And, if there's no cover to hunker-down behind, and you're out in the open, awaiting whatever comes out of that pitch-dark void, then it may make sense to pull the trigger. I dunno.


Of course I see how that works.

I would like to think that I would have called the cops (or yelled over my shoulder to have the wife call the cops as I headed outside), and hunkered-down in the driveway, cocked-and-locked, before deciding to (a) wait it out or (b) issue a voice-challenge.

But we don't know whether the guy was out-in-the-open or hunkered-down behind cover, we don't know what vague shapes and motions he might have seen or sensed from the pitch-dark void of the open garage door, we don't know what he heard (if anything) in the moment(s) before pulling the trigger, etc. It's also possible that the guy was scared out of his wits and was in Neanderthal-Defensive-Mode and eliminated the potential threat before it could manifest; not entirely in possession of his own faculties at the moment of truth.

Exactly, a salient point which relates directly to the voluntary manslaughter definition above. That is in fact why I posted it.

Nolo contendere.

If true, then I don't believe that would fall under the category of 'voluntary'; more like temporary insanity or similar temporary mental impairment. A perfect loophole, if he can get away it.

Indeed that's what the legal system is for. Just pointing out what fits.

It wasn't you doing the suggesting, insofar as I am aware, but the Gun Grabbers come out in force on threads like this.

It wasn't anyone else either, so I don't have to tell you how fallacious a strawman that is.

The unarmed teenager deliberately put himself into harm's way in an unlit area, through the commission of a breaking-and-entering crime (above-and-beyond simple trespassing, even if there was no 'breaking' inherent in the situation). And, you're right, there is DOUBT about whether shooting into the dark under such circumstances constitutes recklessness or lack of concern for human life. DOUBT.

REASONABLE doubt.

There it is again. Without "breaking", as an open door needs no "break", it's not "breaking and entering" but "illegal trespass" -- a misdemeanor for what it's worth.

As for the doubt, yes again this is what the legal system determines. I'm not a lawyer but it seems clear to me that any of the three degrees of definition I posted could be applied by a prosecutor.

And again, if you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then it's impossible to make the case that you feared for your safety. Lethal force in self defense against a legitimately equally lethal threat is legally protected, but as far as I know lethal force against simply being afraid of the dark is not.

Disagree. The guy could very well have grabbed his gun, gone into the driveway, heard the commotion in the garage, then shit his pants at the thought of a looming confrontation, before pulling the trigger. I dunno. Neither do you. Impasse.

Sure; we're not the jury, nor have we had all the details presented to us. Again, let the legal system run its course. But what you describe here takes us right back to the state of mind aspect of "voluntary manslaughter" -- which is where we started.

Again -- what if it had been a younger child in there? Even his own child? Nobody seems to want to touch that question.

Then the child would be dead.

Question touched.

Question winked at and run away from. As Monty Python would put it, "very well not played; beautifully not done anything about".

So leave us flesh out: take exactly the same scenario; after shots are fired, it turns out the noise he heard was a neighbor's child that wandered into the open garage, exploring the unknown. You guys still selling the "self-defense" canard?

 

[Pogo]

Correct.

It was probably stupid to even charge the guy.

When in doubt, err on the side of the homeowner.

Nature has de-selected the idiot teenager.

"Stupid"?

So shooting into dark rooms when nobody knows who's in there should be immune from the law?

Yes.

It was probably stupid to charge the guy.

Because it will probably be very easy for him to wiggle out of this.

Making this a waste of taxpayer money.

Sorry, protecting the safety of the public isn't a waste of taxpayer money. If it's OK to just randomly shoot into dark spaces without knowing what's in there and all you have to do is claim fear, then there is no such thing as public safety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And again, if you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then it's impossible to make the case that you feared for your safety.

Why do you coontinue to refuse to accept the fact that the state has to make the case here, not the defendant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. Case not proven.
In order to "self-defend" you must have something to defend against. In order to have that the latter must acually exist. Imagination doesn't quiiiiiiite meet that criterion. Nor do ghoulies and ghosties and long leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night. This guy according to the story shot into "the dark".

Not according to the law.
According to th law, he acted in self-defense until proven otherwise.
It doesn't matter how much -you- disagree, and YOUR opinion on the legitimacy of the shoot is meaningless.

"Self defense" is in your own desperation. It's not part of the story.

This is a lie -- the story clearly states that the defendant claims self-defense.
The story also clearly states MT law that forces the state to prove to a jury that the defendant had no reasonable cause to fear for this safety.
Why do you choose to be wrong about these things?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In this case it is.

Not according to the law, which assumes the shoot was legitimate until proven otherwise.

Bullshit.

I cited the text of the law. I am 100% correct.
Why do you choose to be wrong abnout this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whether or not this case has been tried in court, morally and ethically it is murder

So is abortion.


Murder is the unlawfull killing of another person; the law assumes that the homeowner acted legitimately until the state proves othewise.

So, your claims of murder are not only unfounded, but bigoted.

Number one, the law "assumes" no such thing.

I cited the text of the law. I am 100% correct.
Why do you choose to be wrong about this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Prosecutor's choice here.

The prosecutor must also prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear for his life, for the law presumes he did.
He doesn't need to prove this to you, he needs to prove this to 12 unbased people from the same county as the accused.
So... YOUR opinion on the matter could not possibly mean any less.

Again, bullshit.

I cited the text of the law. I am 100% correct.
Why do you choose to be wrong about this?

 

[Pogo]

Apparently what the homeowner was doing was setting a trap. That's not going to mix well with a "self-defense" defense:

>> Kaarma, 29, is charged with deliberate homicide in the slaying of Dede, who is from Hamburg. Prosecutors allege Kaarma and his live-in girlfriend set up sensors and a video monitor, then left their garage door open the night of the shooting.

Kaarma had been burgled twice before, and he told his hairdresser that he had stayed up for three nights waiting to shoot some kid, prosecutors said.
<< (link)

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently what the homeowner was doing was setting a trap. That's not going to mix well with a "self-defense" defense:

>> Kaarma, 29, is charged with deliberate homicide in the slaying of Dede, who is from Hamburg. Prosecutors allege Kaarma and his live-in girlfriend set up sensors and a video monitor, then left their garage door open the night of the shooting.

Kaarma had been burgled twice before, and he told his hairdresser that he had stayed up for three nights waiting to shoot some kid, prosecutors said.
<< (link)

The homeowner claimed self-defense.
According to MT law, the state has to prove that the homeowner did NOT have a reasonable fear for his safety.
If the state cannot do this to the satisfaction of 12 jurors, he will not be convicted.

 

[Pogo]

And again, if you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then it's impossible to make the case that you feared for your safety.

Why do you coontinue to refuse to accept the fact that the state has to make the case here, not the defendant?

Obviously as in any case the prosecution makes its case, and the defense makes its defense. What you were saying is that the burden is on the state to prove the negative of the defense. It isn't; it's the defense's burden to construct its defense. If their approach is going to be "self-defense", it ain't got much behind it.

Even more so if it's established that he was setting a trap (see most recent post).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously as in any case the prosecution makes its case, and the defense makes its defense. What you were saying is that the burden is on the state to prove the negative of the defense. It isn't; it's the defense's burden to construct its defense.

You. Are. Wrong.

The state, under MT law MUST prove that the defendant, in claiming self-defense, his actions were not justified.

I cited the law. I will cite it again.

Section 9. Justifiable use of force -- burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when the defendant has
offered evidence of justifiable use of force, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justified.

Why do you chose to be wrong?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obviously as in any case the prosecution makes its case, and the defense makes its defense. What you were saying is that the burden is on the state to prove the negative of the defense. It isn't; it's the defense's burden to construct its defense.

You. Are. Wrong.

The state, under MT law MUST prove that the defendant, in claiming self-defense, his actions were not justified.

I cited the law. I will cite it again.

Section 9. Justifiable use of force -- burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when the defendant has
offered evidence of justifiable use of force, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justified.

Why do you chose to be wrong?

One could argue that setting a trap negates the claim of self defense. The defense must provide evidence of justifiable use of force.

In presenting that evidence the prosecution will rebut with the fact the homeowner set up a system to catch and kill the criminal. If the Hairdresser testifies to what she or he claimed to hear that will put holes in the defenses claim of justification for the use of force.

 

[Pogo]

>> "We know with no question the individual entered garage. Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed," Ryan said. <<
​

"Ryan" refers to Paul Ryan, the defendant's attorney. So the defendant himself admits he didn't know who was in there or whether he was armed. That makes "self defense" an empty claim.


The degree of entrapment:

>> The night of the shooting, Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, left their garage door open. Pflager left her purse in the garage "so that they would take it," she told a police officer. She also set up a video baby monitor and installed motion sensors, prosecutors said.

, walked out the front door and to the driveway.

He told investigators he heard metal on metal and without speaking fired four times &#8212; sweeping the garage with three low shots and a high fourth shot. Dede was hit in the head and the arm. << (link)​

>> The [court] documents also show that a hair stylist told police Kaarma had mentioned days earlier that he was staying up most nights hoping to catch the suspects who burglarized his home, stealing cellphones and credit cards.

&#8220;I&#8217;m just waiting to shoot some f--king kid,&#8221; he allegedly told the stylist during a visit to the local salon.

&#8220;(She) reported that the defendant was being extremely vulgar and belligerent,&#8221; the affidavit states, according to the Missoulian. &#8220;She asked the defendant to quit swearing and he said he could say 'whatever the f--k' he wanted.&#8221;

Pflager told investigators that she had placed a purse in the garage the night before the shooting so that it could be seen with the door rolled open. She placed a baby monitor in the garage and had motion sensors installed outside, court documents obtained by the paper show.

... Kaarma jumped up from the couch and grabbed the shotgun he placed near the dining room before marching out the front door so he could approach the suspects from the outside.

One of the bandits managed to dart out of the way before Kaarma trapped Dede inside and opened fire on the unarmed teen. << -- "I'm Just Waiting to Shoot Some Fucking Kid"...​

This expanded story explains why the previous article mentioned that Pflager was not charged and answers the question of why that would be pointed out.

From the article linked above:

>> The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Prosecutors and police see no such defense for Sunday morning&#8217;s shooting.

&#8220;The state doesn&#8217;t believe that Kaarma identified Dede as a threat to commit a forcible felony in the garage,&#8221; prosecutor Andrew Paul said in a telephone interview after the hearing. He did not speak to the boy, or even see him, before firing four times, Paul said.

&#8220;He actually sought Dede out by essentially trapping him in the garage,&#8221; Paul said, adding that every gun instructor tells students to identify the target before firing. <<​