Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

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.

If you know anything about Katzndogz' posting history, no, she meant it in the most vile possible way. This is a poster who openly called for shooting pot smokers in the face (though to be fair she did later clarify that it would not have to be in the face).

-- which kind of puts her in a dilemma here since Kaarma (the shooter here) reportedly used his garage for smoking pot, had complained that some cannabis and paraphernalia had been taken previously (the prior burglaries) and was tested for drug content by police in connection with this crime. One logically presumes then that while Katz defends what the shooter did here, she must also think he (the shooter) should himself be shot in the face. Or elsewhere.

I put that question to her yesterday; she has yet to come to a conclusion. Still waiting on that ...

 

[Pogo]

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.

That wasn't the point. The point was, and it's still printed above, that a person being in one's home uninvited is not automatically a "threat" unless and until they define themselves to be one. They may be an intruder, but intruder doesn't mean "threat". An oaf who crashes a party he wasn't invited to is an "intruder" -- not a threat. If that oaf becomes belligerent and starts threatening people, THEN he's a threat. The poster made a leap without a bridge; I'm simply observing that his point is at the bottom of the gorge with its neck broken.

To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, this thread has a whole lotta deflectin' goin' on.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

That wasn't the point. The point was, and it's still printed above, that a person being in one's home uninvited is not automatically a "threat" unless and until they define themselves to be one.

To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, this thread has a whole lotta deflectin' goin' on.

Not in my opinion.

Why should a homeowner have to wait to be assaulted by an uninvited intruder?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Irrelevant here, as there was no "break-in". The trapper stopped just short of hanging a sign saying "Free Stuff Here". He announced what he was doing and kept at it for a week. And when he finally got a nibble he methodically took an offensive, not defensive position.

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.

No, it's born of a fear of the unknown. Which is irrational and deadly.

This is what that fear brings:

Watch Twilight Zone Online - The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street | Hulu

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.

Sure. But that doesn't mean you set traps and then mow people down. People you can't even see. What if the guy says he hears something rustling on his lawn and opens fire from his window -- and it turns out to be a neighbor's child? Or his own child? Or somebody's pet? In each case his property was "intruded" upon -- is that a reasonable reaction? Hardly. Esmeralda cited some cases yesterday that were apparently dismissed as inconvenient, such as the Japanese student killed for no reason -- no reason except fear.

What you're advocating by giving any credence whatsoever to the myth of "shoot first, ask questions later" is a world of paranoid fear where everybody shoots everybody else. A world of knuckledragger ignorance. SFAQL means you're so ignorant you can't be bothered to even comprehend what's going on, you just blow it away and then excuse it by calling yourself a slave to your own fears. This egocentric Self-über-alles attitude is the most regressively backward element of our culture; it has wiped out flora and fauna, given us dangerous drugs, lead paint, polluted air and water, and, as in this case, it kills people directly.

Several springs ago I observed a wasp building a nest over my back door, the one I use most often. Thinking along this self-über-alles mentality, I planned out my attack with a garden hose over here, and then I would run over there... then I stopped and thought, she's just building a home for her family, same as I am. She's not a threat. So I dropped the hose plan and let her continue. Her home thrived, and so did mine, and nobody got in anybody's way. And they rebuild every year.

Threat is all too often in the imagination of the beholder. We've got to get over this egocentric bullshit that incites us to flip out when some imaginary line is crossed. React, fine, but this guy flipped the fuck out. Admit it.

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...

Yeah, I heartily agree or disagree, depending on what that means...

 

[Pogo]

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!

Then why would you go out of your way to create the conditions to attract the intruder in the first place?

 

[Pogo]

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

Good on the homeowner.

He didn't.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The crucial condition ^^ -- the step that some wags here want to skip as inconvenient. Apparently either from blood lust or just the urge to play Internet Tough Guy. One hopes it's the latter, or else we're all fucked.

 

[Pogo]

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.

That wasn't the point. The point was, and it's still printed above, that a person being in one's home uninvited is not automatically a "threat" unless and until they define themselves to be one.

To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, this thread has a whole lotta deflectin' goin' on.

Not in my opinion.

Why should a homeowner have to wait to be assaulted by an uninvited intruder?

STILL irrelevant. Apparently you're practicing the message board version: "opine first, read the story later".

The point is definition: a person who exists on your property uninvited IS by definition an intruder but IS NOT by definition a threat. Attributing threat (or anything else) from one's own imagination does not make it real. If you think reality works that way, I've got a guy in Nigeria who has a bunch of money for you.

 

[Kondor3]

EXCLUSIVE PHOTO: Diren Dede Moments Before Shooting

Posted: Apr 30, 2014 12:46 PM CDT

Updated: May 21, 2014 12:46 PM CDT

By Damon Callisto - email

This photo was taken by Marcus Kaarma's wife using a baby video monitor moments before Marcus fired into his garage, killing Diren Dede.

Marcus Kaarma, the man who shot Dede, is charged with deliberate homicide following the deadly shooting at his Missoula home. Court documents allege he was trying to bait burglars. Kaarma's attorneys say the family was robbed twice in the last three weeks, so they set up motion sensors and cameras around their home.

About 12 a.m. Sunday, Kaarma and his wife were laying on the couch when an alarm indicated an intruder in their garage. Court documents show the garage door was left open. When Kaarma headed there, he grabbed a shot gun. Though it was dark, he fired four shots. When the lights came on, he saw 17-year-old Dede on the ground with injuries to his head and arm. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Missoula police detectives said a hairdresser reported hearing Kaarma say the couple wanted to catch and shoot "some kid", allegedly baiting a burglar by leaving the garage door open and an open purse in the garage.

...

EXCLUSIVE PHOTO: Diren Dede Moments Before Shooting - KULR-8 Television, Billings, MT

 

[Kondor3]

If the 'hairdresser' is telling the truth, then, it would appear that the shooter did, indeed, bait a trap, and might very well deserve to be prosecuted for wrongful death of some kind.

IF...

That having been said...

For now, the benefit-of-the-doubt goes to the homeowner, not the burglar...

Innocent until proven guilty...

And assuming that the shooter was legally entitled to keep and use that weapon on his own property...

Then all the gun-control laws in the world (short of gen-seizure) would NOT have prevented this death...

You can legislate what happens to someone, when they violate the law, but...

You cannot legislate whether or not they decide to abide by the law...

 

[Katzndogz]

It looks like Diren didn't grab the purse and run, he was looking around to see what else he could steal.

 

[guno]

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.

A mix of paranoia and guns are a deadly mix. The gun nuts shoot and ask questions later, an NRA poster boy

 

[Kondor3]

...Irrelevant here, as there was no "break-in"...

That was just the backdrop for a kindred scenario, setting the stage for some chatter about the need for split-second decision-making, with zero time to reflect on Rules of Engagement.

...The trapper stopped just short of hanging a sign saying "Free Stuff Here". He announced what he was doing and kept at it for a week. And when he finally got a nibble he methodically took an offensive, not defensive position...

Yes. It is beginning to shape-up that way. We'll know, soon enough. I agree that entrapment is not home-defense.

...No, it's born of a fear of the unknown. Which is irrational and deadly...

"Shoot first and ask questions later" is highly problematic - nolo contendre - but it is how our brains are wired by default, in an adrenaline-charged situation - and such wiring, as well as ancient instincts regarding protection of family - are not things that we can legislate out of existence. It is an aspect of human behavior that makes such nocturnal sorties extremely dangerous for the perpetrators.

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.

Sure. But that doesn't mean you set traps and then mow people down...

Agreed.

...People you can't even see...

Agree, in principle.

Disagree, in practice, on a case-by-case basis.

In the myriad of conditions in which one might find one's self, I'm sure there are a large number in which one should NOT fire until one can see one's target. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a number of conditions under which firing-without-seeing (or waiting to see) makes sufficient sense, that a rational man would pull the trigger.

...What if the guy says he hears something rustling on his lawn and opens fire from his window -- and it turns out to be a neighbor's child? Or his own child? Or somebody's pet?...

Then that child, or that pet, is dead, obviously.

With regarding to firing without seeing one's target...

If it's broad daylight, all bets are off, and the homeowner should be prosecuted.

If it's the dead of the night, and dark, the homeowner gets a lot more latitude.

...In each case his property was "intruded" upon -- is that a reasonable reaction? Hardly...

Agreed.

...Esmeralda cited some cases yesterday that were apparently dismissed as inconvenient, such as the Japanese student killed for no reason -- no reason except fear...

Didn't see 'em, so I won't comment on 'em.

Methinks three (related) lines of legal defense, for the homeowner, in connection with firing-without-seeing, would be...

1. are the individual and particular circumstances of the encounter such that a reasonable person would have acted in a similar manner?

2. is the shooter a reasonable person (in control of his faculties)?

3. was the shooter in control of his faculties at the time of the shooting?

...none of which can be prevented (reliably) by legislation.

...What you're advocating by giving any credence whatsoever to the myth of "shoot first, ask questions later" is a world of paranoid fear where everybody shoots everybody else...

Not really.

Merely the greatest possible latitude on behalf of the homeowner-shooter, in assessing whether conditions warranted 'Shoot First Ask Questions Later' (SFAQL).

...A world of knuckledragger ignorance...

Hardly.

Merely ensuring that one wins, in any such encounter.

...SFAQL means you're so ignorant you can't be bothered to even comprehend what's going on...

Not really.

It means: "When in doubt, shoot" - in order to give yourself and your family the best possible chance of surviving the encounter.

We are talking survival instincts here - millions of years of evolution and honing of those instincts - overlaid upon the fragile shell we call 'civilized behavior'.

We are all slaves to instinct, at some level or another, depending upon the person and that person's experiences and personal development.

...you just blow it away and then excuse it by calling yourself a slave to your own fears...

That is a great line: 'slave to your own fear', and the muse for my slave-of-instinct remark, above.

That enslavement to instinct is not the best ethical or legal defense, of course, because it can be so easily exploited by those who do violence and then cop such a plea, but it is patently obvious that such gripping fear is operative in a sufficiently large percentage of such cases (home break-ins/invasions) that we should not set it aside and thereby throw the baby out with the bathwater.

...This egocentric Self-über-alles attitude is the most regressively backward element of our culture; it has wiped out flora and fauna, given us dangerous drugs, lead paint, polluted air and water, and, as in this case, it kills people directly...

I really don't know how to respond to this, other than you seem very dissatisfied with Existence As We Know It, and are making really off-the-wall, wild-and-hairy, broad, sweeping generalizations here that are not helping to advance the discussion.

...Several springs ago I observed a wasp building a nest over my back door, the one I use most often. Thinking along this self-über-alles mentality, I planned out my attack with a garden hose over here, and then I would run over there... then I stopped and thought, she's just building a home for her family, same as I am. She's not a threat. So I dropped the hose plan and let her continue. Her home thrived, and so did mine, and nobody got in anybody's way. And they rebuild every year...

Irrelevant, but, while we're really grasping at straws for analogies...

Your attitude might have been much different if you or a loved one in your household had a deadly allergic reaction to wasp stings.

...Threat is all too often in the imagination of the beholder...

And, of course, the flip side is true. People (and their families) all-too-often are harmed because someone foolishly ignored a threat or failed to take it seriously enough when confronting it.

...We've got to get over this egocentric bullshit that incites us to flip out when some imaginary line is crossed. React, fine,..

"In the year, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Five..."

Good luck breeding that level of Survival Instinct out of human behavior anytime soon.

...but this guy flipped the fuck out. Admit it...

If the hairdresser is telling the truth about the guy laying-out a trap, then, yeppers, the guy flipped out, in a deliberate and calculated fashion. I will have no trouble in conceding as much if-and-when the time times. But that has zero bearing upon the lion's share of the discussion on this thread, making the assumption that the guy did NOT lay a trap.

...

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...

Yeah, I heartily agree or disagree, depending on what that means...

Translation:

1. I don't much care if we devise better gun-controls, so long as we find a middle-ground that will satisfy both the Constitution and the lion's share of people on both sides.

2. We do, indeed, need 'Rules of Engagement', as a tool, in deciding whether or not a shooter went overboard.

3. When in doubt, the tie goes to the shooter, not the burglar.

 

[Pogo]

If the 'hairdresser' is telling the truth, then, it would appear that the shooter did, indeed, bait a trap, and might very well deserve to be prosecuted for wrongful death of some kind.

IF...

That having been said...

For now, the benefit-of-the-doubt goes to the homeowner, not the burglar...

Innocent until proven guilty...

And assuming that the shooter was legally entitled to keep and use that weapon on his own property...

Then all the gun-control laws in the world (short of gen-seizure) would NOT have prevented this death...

You can legislate what happens to someone, when they violate the law, but...

You cannot legislate whether or not they decide to abide by the law...

There you go with "legislation" again. Forget "legislation". Legislation doesn't fix cultural sickness. Can't touch it. Legislation may serve to penalize this guy but it doesn't address the root issue -- the Numero Uno-über-alles violence fetish kick-all-their-asses elitist mentality. Legislation is irrelevant. Why do you keep trying to bring it up?

By the way, we don't normally boldface the word hairdresser, nor do we set it in quotes. Not sure what you're going for there (are you implying she's not a hairdresser? ), but this statement and the rest of the description was all in the criminal complaint -- I put that back in posts 202 and 207.

Also in there is the description of how the girlfriend set the purse bait -- in her own words. If you recall the original article it stated that the girlfriend had not been charged, begging the question "of course not, why would she be?" --- the article didn't explain why there would be any suggestion, but her statement does.

 

[Kondor3]

If the 'hairdresser' is telling the truth, then, it would appear that the shooter did, indeed, bait a trap, and might very well deserve to be prosecuted for wrongful death of some kind.

IF...

That having been said...

For now, the benefit-of-the-doubt goes to the homeowner, not the burglar...

Innocent until proven guilty...

And assuming that the shooter was legally entitled to keep and use that weapon on his own property...

Then all the gun-control laws in the world (short of gen-seizure) would NOT have prevented this death...

You can legislate what happens to someone, when they violate the law, but...

You cannot legislate whether or not they decide to abide by the law...

There you go with "legislation" again. Forget "legislation". Legislation doesn't fix cultural sickness. Can't touch it. Legislation may serve to penalize this guy but it doesn't address the root issue -- the Numero Uno-über-alles violence fetish kick-all-their-asses elitist mentality. Legislation is irrelevant. Why do you keep trying to bring it up?..

Why mention legislation?

Because that is the only device on-hand by which to even attempt to effect such change.

Change which is doomed to failure, regardless of how it's attempted.

Unless, of course, you have a multi-generational, multi-millennia genetic engineering plan in mind.

By the way, we don't normally boldface the word hairdresser, nor do we set it in quotes. Not sure what you're going for there (are you implying she's not a hairdresser? ), but this statement and the rest of the description was all in the criminal complaint -- I put that back in posts 202 and 207.

I highlighted the word 'hairdresser' in one post because I had referred to it in its immediate predecessor, and highlighting the word in BOTH would serve-up the link or context between the two.

...Also in there is the description of how the girlfriend set the purse bait -- in her own words. If you recall the original article it stated that the girlfriend had not been charged, begging the question "of course not, why would she be?" --- the article didn't explain why there would be any suggestion, but her statement does.

That's up to the local States Attorney office. If they're content, then so am I.

 

[Pogo]

...Irrelevant here, as there was no "break-in"...

That was just the backdrop for a kindred scenario, setting the stage for some chatter about the need for split-second decision-making, with zero time to reflect on Rules of Engagement.

...The trapper stopped just short of hanging a sign saying "Free Stuff Here". He announced what he was doing and kept at it for a week. And when he finally got a nibble he methodically took an offensive, not defensive position...

Yes. It is beginning to shape-up that way. We'll know, soon enough. I agree that entrapment is not home-defense.


"Shoot first and ask questions later" is highly problematic - nolo contendre - but it is how our brains are wired by default, in an adrenaline-charged situation - and such wiring, as well as ancient instincts regarding protection of family - are not things that we can legislate out of existence. It is an aspect of human behavior that makes such nocturnal sorties extremely dangerous for the perpetrators.


Agreed.


Agree, in principle.

Disagree, in practice, on a case-by-case basis.

In the myriad of conditions in which one might find one's self, I'm sure there are a large number in which one should NOT fire until one can see one's target. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a number of conditions under which firing-without-seeing (or waiting to see) makes sufficient sense, that a rational man would pull the trigger.


Then that child, or that pet, is dead, obviously.

With regarding to firing without seeing one's target...

If it's broad daylight, all bets are off, and the homeowner should be prosecuted.

If it's the dead of the night, and dark, the homeowner gets a lot more latitude.


Agreed.


Didn't see 'em, so I won't comment on 'em.

Methinks three (related) lines of legal defense, for the homeowner, in connection with firing-without-seeing, would be...

1. are the individual and particular circumstances of the encounter such that a reasonable person would have acted in a similar manner?

2. is the shooter a reasonable person (in control of his faculties)?

3. was the shooter in control of his faculties at the time of the shooting?

...none of which can be prevented (reliably) by legislation.


Not really.

Merely the greatest possible latitude on behalf of the homeowner-shooter, in assessing whether conditions warranted 'Shoot First Ask Questions Later' (SFAQL).


Hardly.

Merely ensuring that one wins, in any such encounter.


Not really.

It means: "When in doubt, shoot" - in order to give yourself and your family the best possible chance of surviving the encounter.

We are talking survival instincts here - millions of years of evolution and honing of those instincts - overlaid upon the fragile shell we call 'civilized behavior'.

We are all slaves to instinct, at some level or another, depending upon the person and that person's experiences and personal development.


That is a great line: 'slave to your own fear', and the muse for my slave-of-instinct remark, above.

That enslavement to instinct is not the best ethical or legal defense, of course, because it can be so easily exploited by those who do violence and then cop such a plea, but it is patently obvious that such gripping fear is operative in a sufficiently large percentage of such cases (home break-ins/invasions) that we should not set it aside and thereby throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I really don't know how to respond to this, other than you seem very dissatisfied with Existence As We Know It, and are making really off-the-wall, wild-and-hairy, broad, sweeping generalizations here that are not helping to advance the discussion.


Irrelevant, but, while we're really grasping at straws for analogies...

Your attitude might have been much different if you or a loved one in your household had a deadly allergic reaction to wasp stings.


And, of course, the flip side is true. People (and their families) all-too-often are harmed because someone foolishly ignored a threat or failed to take it seriously enough when confronting it.


"In the year, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Five..."

Good luck breeding that level of Survival Instinct out of human behavior anytime soon.


If the hairdresser is telling the truth about the guy laying-out a trap, then, yeppers, the guy flipped out, in a deliberate and calculated fashion. I will have no trouble in conceding as much if-and-when the time times. But that has zero bearing upon the lion's share of the discussion on this thread, making the assumption that the guy did NOT lay a trap.

...

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...

Yeah, I heartily agree or disagree, depending on what that means...

Translation:

1. I don't much care if we devise better gun-controls, so long as we find a middle-ground that will satisfy both the Constitution and the lion's share of people on both sides.

2. We do, indeed, need 'Rules of Engagement', as a tool, in deciding whether or not a shooter went overboard.

3. When in doubt, the tie goes to the shooter, not the burglar.

1. I say such legislation is irrelevant and pointless. I've always said that.

2. Yes, agreed. I think that's what should (should) be settled here. As posted earlier, a Montana state legislator has vowed to address the law. But still, that doesn't address the root cause; it only addresses penalties after the fact. That's why legislation as preventative measure is pointless.

3. I think you're thinking of baseball. "Tie goes to the runner". Would that all of this were only a sport; baseball teams lose a game and live to play again.

Interestingly, having instituted instant replay this year with all that technology, baseball is now saying there's no such thing as a tie, that one event must precede the other, and a close enough inspection will declare which one happened first. Baseball's bending over backward to get it right. We should too.

Just to continue the baseball analogy for a moment -- when the ball gets to the base before the runner, the latter is out. There's no need for the fielder to then turn on the runner and beat him to a pulp.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't see the intervening responses at first -- on we go...

...Irrelevant here, as there was no "break-in"...

That was just the backdrop for a kindred scenario, setting the stage for some chatter about the need for split-second decision-making, with zero time to reflect on Rules of Engagement.

...The trapper stopped just short of hanging a sign saying "Free Stuff Here". He announced what he was doing and kept at it for a week. And when he finally got a nibble he methodically took an offensive, not defensive position...

Yes. It is beginning to shape-up that way. We'll know, soon enough. I agree that entrapment is not home-defense.

Actually it shaped up that way from the beginning. It's all in the criminal complaint that charged Kaarma with "deliberate homicide". It's how they reached that conclusion. It was not spelled out specifically in the original article and only hinted at (the girlfriend was "not charged"). That was a glaring omission and I had to go suss out the rest.

"Shoot first and ask questions later" is highly problematic - nolo contendre - but it is how our brains are wired by default, in an adrenaline-charged situation - and such wiring, as well as ancient instincts regarding protection of family - are not things that we can legislate out of existence. It is an aspect of human behavior that makes such nocturnal sorties extremely dangerous for the perpetrators.

Sadly, it seems here and in subsequent comments what you're saying is throwing up your hands and declaring "oh well, it's how people are, whattaya gonna do", implying we have no capacity to learn, improve or grow. I'm just not buying.

Agree, in principle.

Disagree, in practice, on a case-by-case basis.

In the myriad of conditions in which one might find one's self, I'm sure there are a large number in which one should NOT fire until one can see one's target. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a number of conditions under which firing-without-seeing (or waiting to see) makes sufficient sense, that a rational man would pull the trigger.

The question is -- does it apply in this case, yes or no?
Here's a garage wide open to anything and anyone. By the time he gets outside and takes his sniper position the original intruder might still be there -- the original intruder might have already taken off --- a cop could be in there investigating -- a child, an animal -- anything. He didn't wait to find out, he didn't call "come out with your hands up" (which he was clearly in a safe position to do); he just sprayed shotgun everywhere. And lied to the police about his aiming.

So given all that, and the intentionally open garage, is it "reasonable" to open fire?

Didn't see 'em, so I won't comment on 'em.

Methinks three (related) lines of legal defense, for the homeowner, in connection with firing-without-seeing, would be...

1. are the individual and particular circumstances of the encounter such that a reasonable person would have acted in a similar manner?

2. is the shooter a reasonable person (in control of his faculties)?

3. was the shooter in control of his faculties at the time of the shooting?

...none of which can be prevented (reliably) by legislation.

Agreed on all points. I don't know why you keep falling back on legislation as if it's some kind of magic wand. Law can set guidelines for what's legal and illegal action, but somebody is always going to defy it and/or push the envelope. That's a given. The laws of the state of Montana establish whatever they establish and will be adhered to or disregarded individually; the cultural attitude that drives nuts like Kaarma to do what he did run everywhere, including this thread. That's why we're here. Laws are irrelevant.

I'll have a look back and bring those relevant other cases forward.

Not really.

It means: "When in doubt, shoot" - in order to give yourself and your family the best possible chance of surviving the encounter.

We are talking survival instincts here - millions of years of evolution and honing of those instincts - overlaid upon the fragile shell we call 'civilized behavior'.

We are all slaves to instinct, at some level or another, depending upon the person and that person's experiences and personal development.

There you go throwing up your hands again. Addressed earlier. You could say stealing food or raping or holding slaves is instinctual too, but we found ways around it for the general society. Why should we stop now?

"When in doubt, shoot" is the same thing (SFAQL) restated; it doesn't improve the ignorance. And it's literally ignorance when you don't know if you don't know whether what you're shooting at actually poses a threat -- nay, don't even know where your target is or even if he's still there -- or alone -- or who he is.

"When in doubt, investigate" would be rational; "when in doubt, be prepared (including prepared to shoot) is rational. Just spraying ammo everywhere when you don't know what's in there -- is not. Shooting is final. You have the right to protect you and yours; you DON'T have the right to take somebody else's.

That is a great line: 'slave to your own fear', and the muse for my slave-of-instinct remark, above.

That enslavement to instinct is not the best ethical or legal defense, of course, because it can be so easily exploited by those who do violence and then cop such a plea, but it is patently obvious that such gripping fear is operative in a sufficiently large percentage of such cases (home break-ins/invasions) that we should not set it aside and thereby throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I sense you're nudging this back to legislation again... sigh...

I really don't know how to respond to this, other than you seem very dissatisfied with Existence As We Know It, and are making really off-the-wall, wild-and-hairy, broad, sweeping generalizations here that are not helping to advance the discussion.

Irrelevant, but, while we're really grasping at straws for analogies...

Not at all; it's a general observation of a worldview common to all of this - don't you see it?

We started spewing soot into the air on the simplistic basis of Industrial Revolution and Prosperity without thinking of the effect on the atmosphere (see China today) -- "industrialize first, ask questions later".

We put lead in gasoline and paint without a thought to what it does to the cerebral nervous system: "paint first, ask questions later".

We all began smoking because it looked "cool", mindless of the effect on the lungs: "smoke first, ask questions later".

We develop drugs like Thalidomide and Phen Phen and put them on the market without evauating how they're going to fuck people up -- "drug first, ask questions later".

This is all part of the same mentality of seeing things as unconnected disparate forces as if they don't relate to anything else. And we keep doing this over and over and over, reinventing the wheel each time, without seeing the pattern that got us into it. And then we do it again.

So here we have a figure caught in the garage cobweb. We don't know who he is or whether he's any kind of threat -- "shoot first, ask questions later". Exactly the same mentality. Over and over and over. What is it we say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Your attitude might have been much different if you or a loved one in your household had a deadly allergic reaction to wasp stings.

Wasp stings are irrelevant to this; the story was about wasps. Your assumption of "sting" is exactly the same fallacy expressed earlier in the thread where someone said that, absent knowing for sure, one assumes a threat. Such assumption has no rational basis. I don't assume I'm going to be stung simply because wasps exist. Because once I think rationally I know that I'm not going to be stung if I don't fuck with the wasp (and to date that's held true).

The idea is to think about it first, arrive at the conclusion that my attack is not warranted, and abandon my original instinct of "shoot the nest down, ask questions later". That instinct was erroneous; the threat existed only in my imagination. Which is the same thing that went down here, except Kaarma didn't think it through.

The whole idea here is to ask the question first.

If we succumb to irrational fears then we're blowing away strangers on the street because they're black. Same mentality.

And, of course, the flip side is true. People (and their families) all-too-often are harmed because someone foolishly ignored a threat or failed to take it seriously enough when confronting it.

Not really relevant here. MIGHT be relevant if the homeowner in this case was on defense instead of offense, but since that's not the case, this is just another rehash of the old assume fallacy. Assuming the worst is all well and good as a measure of caution. Not so good as a basis for lethal attack.

"In the year, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Five..."

Good luck breeding that level of Survival Instinct out of human behavior anytime soon.

Addressed above, at least twice.
Far as I know we don't rape, steal, hold slaves, bind women's feet, sacrifice people, apply leeches, burn heretics at the stake or a lot of other stuff we used to do in approved culture. Throwing up one's hands and giving up now is just not acceptable.

If the hairdresser is telling the truth about the guy laying-out a trap, then, yeppers, the guy flipped out, in a deliberate and calculated fashion. I will have no trouble in conceding as much if-and-when the time times. But that has zero bearing upon the lion's share of the discussion on this thread, making the assumption that the guy did NOT lay a trap.

uh... what??

It's what the entire criminal complaint is about. They already admitted to setting the trap, on the record. Hello??

Better check that criminal complaint again.

 

[Meathead]

If somebody is a threat to you or your family, shot.

 

[Pogo]

If the 'hairdresser' is telling the truth, then, it would appear that the shooter did, indeed, bait a trap, and might very well deserve to be prosecuted for wrongful death of some kind.

IF...

That having been said...

For now, the benefit-of-the-doubt goes to the homeowner, not the burglar...

Innocent until proven guilty...

And assuming that the shooter was legally entitled to keep and use that weapon on his own property...

Then all the gun-control laws in the world (short of gen-seizure) would NOT have prevented this death...

You can legislate what happens to someone, when they violate the law, but...

You cannot legislate whether or not they decide to abide by the law...

There you go with "legislation" again. Forget "legislation". Legislation doesn't fix cultural sickness. Can't touch it. Legislation may serve to penalize this guy but it doesn't address the root issue -- the Numero Uno-über-alles violence fetish kick-all-their-asses elitist mentality. Legislation is irrelevant. Why do you keep trying to bring it up?..

Why mention legislation?

Because that is the only device on-hand by which to even attempt to effect such change.

Change which is doomed to failure, regardless of how it's attempted.

Unless, of course, you have a multi-generational, multi-millennia genetic engineering plan in mind.

SMH...
Legislation doesn't effect change. Don't we know that by now?

Did people stop drinking when we made booze illegal? Did they stop smoking pot? Quite the contrary. On the other hand a lot fewer people smoke tobacco now than did 50 years ago. Is that because somebody passed some law? No. It's because we culturally shifted its value from a positive to a negative. That's where it's at, baby. Think outside the box to which you resign yourself by fatalistic statements like "that is the only device we have". Nothing is the only device we have.

See also:

• Drunk Driving
• Women in workplaces (not their existence there but the acceptance of it)
• Accepting racial equality (ditto above)

etc etc etc

We grow. We just DO.

 

[Pogo]

[MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION] - here's the aforementioned case, brought forward in full -- well worth a repost on its own merit:

Yoshihiro Hattori...was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States, at the time of his death. Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, shot and killed Hattori, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs's subsequent acquittal in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention.

Fatal incident

Two months into his stay in the United States, he received an invitation, along with Webb Haymaker, his homestay brother, to a Halloween party organized for Japanese exchange students on October 17, 1992. Hattori went dressed in a tuxedo in imitation of John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever. Upon their arrival in the quiet working-class neighborhood where the party was held, the boys mistook the Peairses' residence for their intended destination due to the similarity of the address and the Halloween decorations on the outside of the house, and proceeded to step out of their car and walk to the front door.

Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but, seemingly receiving no response, began to walk back to their car. Meanwhile, inside the house, their arrival had not gone unnoticed. Bonnie Peairs had peered out the side door and saw them. Mrs. Peairs, startled, retreated inside, locked the door, and said to her husband, "Rodney, get your gun." Hattori and Haymaker were walking to their car when the carport door was opened by Mr. Peairs. He was armed with a loaded and cocked .44 magnum revolver. He pointed it at Hattori, and yelled "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori, stepped back towards the house, saying "We're here for the party." Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but Peairs fired his weapon at point blank range at Hattori, hitting him in the chest, and then ran back inside. Haymaker rushed to Hattori, badly wounded and lying where he fell, on his back. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairses' house for help. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of their house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting. Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help. One of the Peairses' children later told police that her mother asked, "Why did you shoot him?"

The shot had pierced the upper and lower lobes of Hattori's left lung, and exited through the area of the seventh rib; he died in the ambulance minutes later, from loss of blood.

The criminal trial of Rodney Peairs

Initially, the local police quickly questioned and released Mr. Peairs, and declined to charge him with any crime. They felt that "Peairs had been within his rights in shooting the trespasser." Only after the governor of Louisiana and the New Orleans Japanese consul general protested, was Mr. Pearis charged with manslaughter. His defense was his claim that Hattori had an "extremely unusual manner of moving" that any reasonable person would find "scary", and emphasis on Mr. Peairs as an "average Joe", a man just like the jury members' neighbors, a man who "liked sugar in his grits".

At the trial, Mr. Peairs testified about the moment just prior to the shooting: "It was a person, coming from behind the car, moving real fast. At that point, I pointed the gun and hollered, 'Freeze!' The person kept coming toward me, moving very erratically. At that time, I hollered for him to stop. He didn't; he kept moving forward. I remember him laughing. I was scared to death. This person was not gonna stop, he was gonna do harm to me." Mr. Peairs testified that he shot Hattori once in the chest when the youth was about five feet away. "I had no choice," he said. "I want Yoshi's parents to understand that I'm sorry for everything."

District Attorney Doug Moreau concentrated on establishing that it had not been reasonable for Mr. Peairs, a 6-foot-2, well-armed man, to be so fearful of a polite, friendly, unarmed, 130-pound boy, who rang the doorbell, even if he walked toward him unexpectedly in the driveway, and that Peairs was not justified in using deadly force. Moreau stated, "It started with the ringing of the doorbell. No masks, no disguises. People ringing doorbells are not attempting to make unlawful entry. They didn't walk to the back yard, they didn't start peeking in the windows."

"You were safe and secure, weren't you?" Moreau asked Mr. Peairs during his appearance before the grand jury. "But you didn't call the police, did you?"
"No sir." Peairs said.
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the front door?"
"No sir."
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the carport door?"
"No sir."
"And you were standing right there at the door, weren't you - with a big gun?"
Peairs nodded.
"I know you're sorry you killed him. You are sorry, aren't you?"
"Yes sir."
"But you did kill him, didn't you?"
"Yes sir."

Mr. Peairs testified in a flat, toneless drawl, breaking into tears several times. A police detective testified that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake."

The defense argued that Mr. Peairs was in large part reacting reasonably to his wife's panic. Mrs. Peairs testified for an hour describing the incident, during which she also broke into tears several times. "He was coming real fast, and it just clicked in my mind that he was going to hurt us. I slammed the door and locked it. I took two steps into the living room, where Rod could see me and I could see him. I told him to get the gun." Mr. Peairs did not hesitate or question her, but instead went to retrieve a handgun with a laser sight that was stored in a suitcase in the bedroom, which he said "was the easiest, most accessible gun to me."

"There was no thinking involved. I wish I could have thought. If I could have just thought," Mrs. Peairs said.

The trial lasted seven days. After the jurors deliberated for three and a quarter hours, Mr. Peairs was acquitted.

The civil trial

In a later civil action, however, the court found Mr. Peairs liable to Hattori's parents for $650,000 in damages, which they used to establish two charitable funds in their son's name; one to fund U.S. high school students wishing to visit Japan, and one to fund organizations that lobby for gun control. The lawyers for Hattori's parents argued that the Peairses had behaved unreasonably: Bonnie Peairs overreacted to the presence of two teens outside her house; the Peairses behaved unreasonably by not communicating with each other to convey what exactly the threat was; they had not taken the best path to safety—remaining inside the house and calling police; they had erred in taking offensive action rather than defensive action; and Rodney Peairs had used his firearm too quickly, without assessing the situation, using a warning shot, or shooting to wound. Furthermore, the much larger Peairs could likely very easily have subdued the short, slightly built teen. Contrary to Mr. Peairs' claim that Hattori was moving strangely and quickly towards him, forensic evidence demonstrates that Hattori was moving slowly, or not at all, and his arms were away from his body, indicating he was no threat. Overall, a far greater show of force was used than was appropriate. Out of the total compensation, only $100,000 has been paid by an insurance company.

Afterwards

After the trial, Peairs told the press that he would never again own a gun.

The Japanese public were shocked not only by the killing, but by Peairs's acquittal. Shortly after the Hattori case, a Japanese exchange student, Takuma Ito, and a Japanese-American student, Go Matsura, were killed in a carjacking in San Pedro, California, and another Japanese exchange student, Masakazu Kuriyama, was shot in Concord, California. Many Japanese reacted to these deaths as being similar symptoms of a sick society; TV Asahi commentator Takashi Wada put the feelings into words by asking, "But now, which society is more mature? The idea that you protect people by shooting guns is barbaric."

One million Americans and 1.65 million Japanese signed a petition urging stronger gun controls in the US; the petition was presented to Ambassador Walter Mondale on November 22, 1993, who delivered it to President Bill Clinton. Shortly thereafter, the Brady Bill was passed, and on December 3, 1993, Mondale presented Hattori's parents with a copy.

Suspicions of implicit racism in the acquittal of Rodney Peairs further gained traction when, shortly afterwards, a homeowner named Todd Vriesenga, inside his house in Grand Haven, Michigan, similarly shot and killed a 17-year-old named Adam Provencal through the front door. Vriesenga received a 16- to 24-month term for "reckless use of a firearm resulting in death", causing both Japanese and Asian-American advocacy groups to speculate on whether the difference between Vriesenga's conviction and Peairs's acquittal was related to the race of the victims. Other groups publicly stated that Vriesenga should have been convicted of the more severe charge of felony manslaughter.

Shortly afterwards was the similar case of Andrew de Vries, from Aberdeen in Scotland, who got lost on 7 January 1994 after drinking with American friends in Houston, Texas. He knocked on one door asking for directions, and was shot by the householder through the closed door of the house. The householder, Jeffrey Agee, was not indicted, and later settled for an undisclosed sum a substantial claim by Mr. de Vries's widow Alison. Mr. de Vries's mother complained to the press of a lack of support from the UK Government, saying "[The Prime Minister, Mr. Major] doesn't want to rock the boat when it comes to the United States. People should be aware that if they become innocent victims of crime in Texas they cannot expect help from the Government, the Foreign Office or the British Consulate." The de Vries family's Member of Parliament, John McAllion, criticised the investigation by the authorities in Houston, saying that there were "many inconsistencies, indeed blatant lies," in the official version of the events.

In popular culture

The shooting incident was fictionalized on the television show Homicide: Life on the Street, wherein the cousin of one of the detectives shoots a Turkish exchange student who mistakenly goes to the wrong house on Halloween. Unlike in the Hattori incident, the fictionalized version involves the student, dressed as Gene Simmons from the band Kiss acting strangely, and even aggressively towards the shooter. The fictional incident was portrayed as being motivated by racism.

The song "Crackdown" from Grant Lee Buffalo's album Copperopolis is about this incident.

Death of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America the beautiful, land of the free, home of the brave.