Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

You might argue that the man's partner enticed the burglar, but he sure didn't instigate or provoke it.
Mr Kaarma confronted a man who had illegally entered a part of his home. He was afraid for his safety and he fired into his garage. Had the young man NOT BEEN IN HIS GARAGE, he would not have been hit, now would he?

Nope, that would be physically impossible. Nobody disagrees with that.

Are we saying that this guy just regularly gets up during a TV commercial, bored, and strafes his own garage rather than simply closing the door -- just in case there's anybody in there, and this time there just happened to be a human?




Wrong on multiple levels.

Did the German kid brag to his hairdresser a week ahead that he was going to go garage hopping and dodge bullets? More to the point -- is there any reason in the world to expect that being in somebody else's garage would result in shotgun spray from the outside?

Exactly how is advancing to the adversary's only exit and opening fire from the outside (<< meaning, from the outside), in any way "defensive"? There are only two possible results from that scenario: depending on the intruder's position you either obliterate him or you drive him further into your property. Think about it.

If you're attacked at home by a knife-wielding maniac, is your objective to drive the maniac away, or to drive him further into your own house?



It does indeed, if his attorney plans to argue "self-defense". Clearly there's enough in the statements taken in the complaint to kick all the legs out from under that one.

Obviously Kaarma doesn't want to do the time and needs to come up with something in the way of defense. But trying to make "self-defense" out of this is making a mockery of the law.

Please! Accept, on behalf of the deceased, some responsibility for the events that transpired.

All evidence tells us the deceased IS guilty of illegal trespass. Again, that's not in question. Kaarma is guilty of something far more serious than trespassing. Trespassing does not cause death.

We're not saying that at all. He had a baby monitor and motion detectors in the garage and knew there was an intruder in his residence.
We have yet to establish just how dark it was in the garage. Was there a street light nearby? Obviously there was enough light to discern a figure moving around in the garage but likely not enough light to be certain the figure was not a threat. The homeowner responded legally and appropriately to that threat.

The amount of light is described in the criminal complaint -- it was too dark to see what was going on, and when the GF put the outside house light on it made it worse (putting the scene in more shadow). The shooter's action confirms this, as he sprayed laterally across the facing of the garage opening, obviously an attempt to cover everything. He even lied to the police about his own aiming, apparently trying to minimize his intent.

Again! If the kid had not entered the garage, he would be alive. He instigated his own demise.

What the kid "instigated" was illegal trespass, for which he could have been charged with a misdemeanor. That is, if he'd been given a chance for the law to run its course. That was circumvented by Kaarma. Who now has to deal with his own karma.

Again, still looking for that hamlet where illegal trespass is punishable by death. Not finding any.

This "self-defense" song and dance is rendered mute by Kaarma's actions and plans before the fact. You don't "defend" with offense. If you're legitimately in a position of self-defense, you don't know about it and predict it a week in advance.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't feel terribly threatened in either case. I was armed. In the case of the attempted robbery, I played with the guy. He angled across the street towards me with his right hand behind his back. He asked for a cigarrette, which is "crackhead" for I'm about to stick you and take your money.
I figured I would see his true intent and said "Sure, buddy."
I unzipped my leather jacket and reached for my pack of smokes that were partially hidden by the grips of my Smith and Wesson Model 629 6" .44 magnum revolver.
He apparently gave up smoking right about then and ran. I saw the serated blade steak knife in his hand as he turned away from me.

I didn't ask this man to rob me, nor did I entice the other man to attempt to break down my door to rape my wife, though she was a damned good looking woman at the time. BUT, in both cases I was prepared to protect myself, my family and my property.

And again, you did the right thing and in no way provoked anybody to attack you. That's why it isn't comparable.

The proper analogy would be: you shuffle down the street looking inept and disheveled, with $20 bills hanging out of your pockets, and the first person that reaches for your pocket, you suddenly come to life and blow his head off.

This kid entered a private residence in the middle of the night, without permission. The homeowner would be STUPID to assume that he wasn't in danger.

Midnight, actually. And my question is: how stupid is Kaarma (and his girlfriend) for setting up the trap in the first place? Does that not put them all -- including a ten-month-old child -- in potential danger?

And this wasn't something that spontaneously "just happened" -- it was baited and planned a week out. The man described exacty what he was going to do, and then did exactly that. Doesn't get much more "premeditated" than that.

Kaarma didn't put himself in danger by placing a purse in plain view. The kid placed himself in danger by entering the garage intending to steal it.

You can read a third party's mind from a news article?

 

[Pogo]

The castle lord who has fallen victim a couple times in the past and is reasonably in fear for his safety. The one who wants to put an end to the all too frequent invasions.
Tell me, possum? Do you or do you not shower before a date? Maybe a little cologne? Comb your hair? If you get "lucky", can your date charge you with rape because you put on some fancy cologne?

I trust this was a late-night post, because it makes no sense. Then again my castle lord analogy wasn't much better...

It wouldn't make sense to you, Pogo. You, apparently feel no responsibility to protect your family and property.

That's a scurrilous attack. Take it back.

I certainly wouldn't put my wife and child in danger by setting up criminal bait in my garage. You think that's responsible??? Fuck man, you just said an intruder (any intruder) could have come in armed and dangerous. WHY would any responsible man put his wife and child in danger like that?

And you dare to intimate that *I* feel no responsibility to protect, while you defend this shit? Frickin' goofball.

 

[Ernie S.]

You've been thoroughly thumped, Ernie. It's time to retreat with what little dignity you have left.

In YOUR mind, perhaps. I have yet to see you or Possum boy explain how he was "trapped". Did he not enter the garage under his own power? Had he simply walked on by Mr Kaarma's house that night, he would be alive. He, and he alone put himself into a situation where a homeowner had to respond.

Do I need to download some kind of program that would let me draw stick diagrams?

What part of "cutting off the only exit" and "taking a sniper position" and "shooting back into the house" isn't clear? Does the word "ambush" ring a bell?

Again -- it's all in the criminal complaint Ernie. It's the whole reason the charge of "deliberate homicide" was levied in the first place.

What part of entered a private garage is so difficult? I don't need stick figures to see that the young man put himself in a position to get shot. He broke the law.

 

[Katzndogz]

The question at the end is this:
This Kaarma guy practicing vigilante justice who complains the police don't protect his bhong and stash in the garage -- to what degree does that observation hold water, if it took his trap of open garage with purse sitting there a week to get a result?

Who took the bait? Probably thiis teenage German exchange student. We have to say "probably" because we can never know what he would have taken or done had he not been wiped out in a shotgun strafe. Possibly nothing.

When I was a kid (much younger than 17) there was an old abandoned house in the neighborhood that was the subject of many a boyhood excursion by us local tykes -- curiousity about the old place and imagining what went on there. The place still had some furnishings and there were rumors of some Playboy magazines. One day I was accosted by a couple of adults on the scene, who in retrospect probably were there to do a real estate assessment or something. They grilled me on what I was doing there, where I lived, etc, all of which was probably reasonable. I was suitably chastised --- even though I hadn't taken anything from the house, at that time or any other time-- and never went back there again.

What they didn't do is pull guns on me or ambush me from behind and obliterate me in a hail of bullets. Had they done that I would hope they'd be rotting in jail to this day.

Think about it.

You were investigating an abandoned house right? You said it was abandoned. Entering a house that is abandoned is the opposite of entering a home that is occupied.

Abandoned, in that nobody lived in it -- but clearly I didn't own the place. It belonged to somebody. And the adults who cornered me there may have had a legitimate ownership claim, or permission from the owner. They certainly acted like it. Whether they actually slept in the place at night is irrelevant.

The point is how they handled me, versus how Kaarma handled this.

Again, the last line: think about it.

There is no question that Kaarma lived in the house. Are you trying to say the house looked abandoned? I hope not. This kid was in the act of robbing him. No question or ambiguity about that either. The kid got shot during the commission of a robbery. He got exactly what he deserved.

 

[Ernie S.]

I trust this was a late-night post, because it makes no sense. Then again my castle lord analogy wasn't much better...

It wouldn't make sense to you, Pogo. You, apparently feel no responsibility to protect your family and property.

That's a scurrilous attack. Take it back.

I certainly wouldn't put my wife and child in danger by setting up criminal bait in my garage. You think that's responsible??? Fuck man, you just said an intruder (any intruder) could have come in armed and dangerous. WHY would any responsible man put his wife and child in danger like that?

And you dare to intimate that *I* feel no responsibility to protect, while you defend this shit? Frickin' goofball.

So people are free to enter your home at will? And I'm the goofball? back.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

It's a shame, it should be every modern Western country.

 

[Noomi]

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

It's a shame, it should be every modern Western country.

Kill an unarmed person here and you are up shit creek.

Case in point - several years ago a drunk teenager tried to break into an apartment - he was renting it - he scaled the drain pipe and broke the window, the landlord bashed him and killed him. He went to jail as the kid was unarmed and didn't pose a threat.

 

[auditor0007]

This is an old case. The German exchange student belonged to a gang that played a game called garage hopping. It was break into a garage and steal what you can. He had broken into this man's garage and stolen before.

He had it coming. This is a happy ending.

Exchange student killed 'garage hopping' in Montana - CNN.com Video

See, I'm inclined to somewhat agree with you that he had it coming. You don't break into people's homes and expect nothing to happen. That being said, you prove your idiocy to us all by saying this is a happy ending. I wonder if you would be saying it was a happy ending if it was your kid, regardless of how fucked up he might be.

 

[Kondor3]

This is an old case. The German exchange student belonged to a gang that played a game called garage hopping. It was break into a garage and steal what you can. He had broken into this man's garage and stolen before.

He had it coming. This is a happy ending.

Exchange student killed 'garage hopping' in Montana - CNN.com Video

See, I'm inclined to somewhat agree with you that he had it coming. You don't break into people's homes and expect nothing to happen. That being said, you prove your idiocy to us all by saying this is a happy ending. I wonder if you would be saying it was a happy ending if it was your kid, regardless of how fucked up he might be.

It's not a happy ending, but, on reflection, the use of that phrase was probably intended more as an expression of the sentiment "He paid with his life for his stupidity and criminality" than as an actual expression of emotion over the outcome.

He can speak for himself, of course, and may very well prefer that I stay off his side in this context, but that was the way I read it, first time around. Your mileage may vary.

 

[yidnar]

This is an old case. The German exchange student belonged to a gang that played a game called garage hopping. It was break into a garage and steal what you can. He had broken into this man's garage and stolen before.

He had it coming. This is a happy ending.

Exchange student killed 'garage hopping' in Montana - CNN.com Video

He didn't have it coming. In no other modern, industrialzed first world nation in the world does breaking into a garage warrant the death penalty, and not even in our country as far as breaking and entering laws are concerned.

You people delight in killing people.

you are a racist.

 

[Kondor3]

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

It's a shame, it should be every modern Western country.

Kill an unarmed person here and you are up shit creek.

Case in point - several years ago a drunk teenager tried to break into an apartment - he was renting it - he scaled the drain pipe and broke the window, the landlord bashed him and killed him. He went to jail as the kid was unarmed and didn't pose a threat.

Ya know... if the good People of Australia are content that this be so, then, so be it.

Here in the US, people are not content that this be so, and would consider the facts on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket default state of Unarmed or Armed.

Our own corpus juris contains many flaws, as well as positive elements.

That having been said...

It seems - to this amateur - that once a break-in is discovered in-progress, things begin to happen at the speed of light, and there is very little (if any) time to learn whether the perp(etrator) is 'packing' (carrying a gun), and that there is very little time (if any) in which to make a decision about appropriate-use-of-force.

The old common-wisdom maxim... "Shoot first, and ask questions later" ...may strike a great many of us as Neanderthal or cold-hearted or even cowardly in its real-world application, but, if we are honest with ourselves, we all know that it holds considerable merit, as well, and that this 'common wisdom' sprang from countless real-world incidents over the decades and centuries.

When a thief is discovered, typically, the thief moves to either (a) escape or (b) neutralize the defender, within a split-second or two, and, if the lighting is bad (as it so oftentimes is, at night, under such circumstances), and especially if there are other loved ones at-stake, then, very few of us will be inclined to review the Rules of Engagement prior to committing.

For such reasons, any Intruder must take his chances with the Gods or the Fates, once they enter the premises of another; regardless of whether that person is a German exchange student, an inner-city gang-banger-turned-second-story-man, or Mother Theresa, so to speak.

That is just the way that the Real World works - and, in this country, the way that it should work.

Tighter gun-control (transfers, licensing, training, etc.) may very well prove advisable, depending upon the details, but over-doing it on the Rules of Engagement, in connection with everyday citizens, when there is a break-in, is really pushing the envelope a bit further than practicality and common sense should be taking us.

Yes, have such 'Rules of Engagement', but reserve strict adherence for the most egregious and glaringly obvious departures from the spirit and letter of such Rules, and allow a generous and liberal enforcement of the Rules, otherwise, with the benefit-of-a-doubt going to the homeowner.

Or so it seems to me...

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

If someone breaks into my house, or even enters my garage because I have the door open, I am not going to take the time to determine if they mean me any harm. I am going to assume that they do, indeed, mean to harm me or mine.

If I take the time to question them as to their intentions, to give them the benefit of the doubt, that may give them the opportunity to hurt me.

I will not give them that opportunity. They should've stayed the fuck out of my home. It's really as simple as that.

Oh, yeah...and according to our laws (in Alaska, anyway), it does NOT matter if the intruder is armed or not. What matters is that they MIGHT be armed, and the homeowner thinks their life is threatened. Period.

Kondor3 explained it very well!

 

[Meathead]

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

It's a shame, it should be every modern Western country.

Kill an unarmed person here and you are up shit creek.

Case in point - several years ago a drunk teenager tried to break into an apartment - he was renting it - he scaled the drain pipe and broke the window, the landlord bashed him and killed him. He went to jail as the kid was unarmed and didn't pose a threat.

No one said OZ was perfect.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

He should not have broken into someone else's home.

Good on the homeowner.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

If someone breaks into my house, or even enters my garage because I have the door open, I am not going to take the time to determine if they mean me any harm. I am going to assume that they do, indeed, mean to harm me or mine.

If I take the time to question them as to their intentions, to give them the benefit of the doubt, that may give them the opportunity to hurt me.

I will not give them that opportunity. They should've stayed the fuck out of my home. It's really as simple as that.

Oh, yeah...and according to our laws (in Alaska, anyway), it does NOT matter if the intruder is armed or not. What matters is that they MIGHT be armed, and the homeowner thinks their life is threatened. Period.

Kondor3 explained it very well!

You're very first notion should not be to pop off on some stranger in your home. What if this person was invited over by another family member unbeknownst to you?

Asses the situation - if there is danger, protect your family and property.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is an old case. The German exchange student belonged to a gang that played a game called garage hopping. It was break into a garage and steal what you can. He had broken into this man's garage and stolen before.

He had it coming. This is a happy ending.

Exchange student killed 'garage hopping' in Montana - CNN.com Video

See, I'm inclined to somewhat agree with you that he had it coming. You don't break into people's homes and expect nothing to happen. That being said, you prove your idiocy to us all by saying this is a happy ending. I wonder if you would be saying it was a happy ending if it was your kid, regardless of how fucked up he might be.

If it was my kid, I would question where I had gone so terribly wrong as to raise a thief. The prisons are full of criminals with parents. Every serial killer had parents. Those parents raised their children to be criminals. Something went terribly wrong.

Why it is a happy ending? A thief will steal no more. Those who knew him might give up depriving others of their property as a form of entertainment. Who knows how many victims that saves? It's a win win.

 

[Pogo]

You were investigating an abandoned house right? You said it was abandoned. Entering a house that is abandoned is the opposite of entering a home that is occupied.

Abandoned, in that nobody lived in it -- but clearly I didn't own the place. It belonged to somebody. And the adults who cornered me there may have had a legitimate ownership claim, or permission from the owner. They certainly acted like it. Whether they actually slept in the place at night is irrelevant.

The point is how they handled me, versus how Kaarma handled this.

Again, the last line: think about it.

There is no question that Kaarma lived in the house. Are you trying to say the house looked abandoned? I hope not. This kid was in the act of robbing him. No question or ambiguity about that either. The kid got shot during the commission of a robbery. He got exactly what he deserved.

"Abandonded" or not is irrelevant; the house was clearly not mine, and I knew that. And yet I wasn't executed on the spot. The point is, think about what if I was. Would you Internet Tough Guys be singing the same tune? What if it was your child? In other words, have you no shame, at long last, have you no sense of decency?

 

[Pogo]

It wouldn't make sense to you, Pogo. You, apparently feel no responsibility to protect your family and property.

That's a scurrilous attack. Take it back.

I certainly wouldn't put my wife and child in danger by setting up criminal bait in my garage. You think that's responsible??? Fuck man, you just said an intruder (any intruder) could have come in armed and dangerous. WHY would any responsible man put his wife and child in danger like that?

And you dare to intimate that *I* feel no responsibility to protect, while you defend this shit? Frickin' goofball.

So people are free to enter your home at will? And I'm the goofball? back.

I sure as fuck don't set traps to entice criminals to come in while I have a girlfriend and ten-month-old child in the house, hell the fuck no. Go ahead, continue to attack me, as if this story is somehow about me, so you can dance around what it actually is about. Cheap shot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

He didn't have it coming. In no other modern, industrialzed first world nation in the world does breaking into a garage warrant the death penalty, and not even in our country as far as breaking and entering laws are concerned.

You people delight in killing people.

If someone enters your home uninvited then that person is a threat to you. Period.

No, they're in your home uninvited. Period.

You don't walk into a persons home without permission with good intentions.

If you don't want to get hurt then you don't enter a person's home unless you are invited.

It really is that simple.