Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Kondor3]

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

My emphasis on legislation was intended to be seen by all, not just one, and serves to shore-up the undercurrent here, and on similar threads, that more gun-control legislation is not necessarily the answer to our problems. Enough already.

...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...

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes, about different things.

Just what is it, that you propose to change, that you hope will result in reduced gun-related casualties?

...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...

Again, I am unclear, just what it is that you are talking about, related to change.

Perhaps you answer to the previous question will shed some light on this.

 

[Pogo]

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

My emphasis on legislation was intended to be seen by all, not just one, and serves to shore-up the undercurrent here, and on similar threads, that more gun-control legislation is not necessarily the answer to our problems. Enough already.

More than enough, but it was always a strawman, as nobody brought it up or suggested it was even relevant here.

...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...

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes, about different things.

Just what is it, that you propose to change, that you hope will result in reduced gun-related casualties?

...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...

Again, I am unclear, just what it is that you are talking about, related to change.

Perhaps you answer to the previous question will shed some light on this.

I don't get what's unclear here. The part immediately above amplifies and explains the part above it.

You don't effect cultural change through legislation. You effect it through changing hearts and minds. You do it by modifying social mores to fit the need. That's the whole purpose of message boards and discussion in general. We certainly aren't here to pass laws.

Just to take one example from the above: driving home drunk was once pretty much ignored and just happened. The concept of a designated driver didn't even exist. Now a DD is not only common but no longer "uncool". We modified social mores. We made it uncool to drive drunk. You do that now, you'll get the social disapproval of your peers. And as we are a social animal, that matters. A lot.

Legislation doesn't affect what people want to do -- regardless what the law says. Social values do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

My emphasis on legislation was intended to be seen by all, not just one, and serves to shore-up the undercurrent here, and on similar threads, that more gun-control legislation is not necessarily the answer to our problems. Enough already.

...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...

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes, about different things.

Just what is it, that you propose to change, that you hope will result in reduced gun-related casualties?

...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...

Again, I am unclear, just what it is that you are talking about, related to change.

Perhaps you answer to the previous question will shed some light on this.

Right now the current "gun culture" has reached a point where "shoot first and walk away scot free" has become norm. That effectively reduces the value of life to nothing if you can kill someone just for ringing your doorbell.

There needs to be consequences for killing someone who is unarmed even if they are trespassing. Without an actual threat to your life the use of deadly force is not only immoral but it should be criminal too. The gun culture is imposing a morality that says you can kill anyone, anywhere as long as you claim to be paranoid.

Owning a gun is a responsibility and with that comes accountability for what happens when you pull the trigger. Those who claim to "value life" should not have any problem with this concept. However it appears that to those who embrace the gun culture there is no value to the life of others.

And before everyone makes the wrong assumptions about me I was in the military, I have my marksman's badge, I can shoot better than most people I know and I support the 2nd amendment.

But I am a strong advocate of responsible gun ownership because way too many deaths are caused by irresponsible gun owners. The current gun culture needs to return to advocating accountability and drop the "shoot first and walk away scot free" attitude in my opinion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I read the story and I don't care what the story says.

This piece of shit walked into a man's home uninvited. I don't care if every door ad window to the house was open no one has a right to enter someone else's property unless invited by the home owner or they are a law enforcement officer with a valid warrant.

I would never convict a home owner who shot someone who invaded his home.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I read the story and I don't care what the story says.

This piece of shit walked into a man's home uninvited. I don't care if every door ad window to the house was open no one has a right to enter someone else's property unless invited by the home owner or they are a law enforcement officer with a valid warrant.

I would never convict a home owner who shot someone who invaded his home.

You're STILL dancing around the point. It appears to be all you have. And the point has to do with the flow on this thread, not the story.

But you illustrate something basic here that maybe we haven't touched on:

This piece of shit walked into a man's home uninvited

How do you know the kid is a "piece of shit"? Do you know him personally? What can you tell us about him?

 

[Katzndogz]

The man did not have to steal. He could have knocked on the door and said "you forgot to close your garage door and a purse is open." The thief could have been a decent person instead he chose to be a thief.

 

[blackhawk]

Isn't that the risk you take when you break into someones house?

 

[Pogo]

The man did not have to steal. He could have knocked on the door and said "you forgot to close your garage door and a purse is open." The thief could have been a decent person instead he chose to be a thief.

Yeah?

What did he take? And where is it now?

What about the homeowner's pot, Katz? Shouldn't he be shot in the face for smoking pot in that garage? Didn't the previous burglars do him a service by relieving him of it?

C'mon, inquiring minds need answers here.

 

[Pogo]

Isn't that the risk you take when you break into someones house?

It might be, but this wasn't a break-in.

 

[Kondor3]

Isn't that the risk you take when you break into someones house?

It might be, but this wasn't a break-in.

You'r focusing far too much on the legal definition of breaking-and-entering...

While overlooking the act of burglary that was underway at the time of the shooting...

Doesn't matter now... the kid is dead.

A shotgun killed him, but his own stupidity put him into the path of that shotgun.

Another Saint Skittles in the making, no doubt.

Time passes... memory fades... a year from now, it will be as if the idiot student never existed.

An ignoble end, brought about by an ignoble intent to steal.

 

[Pogo]

Isn't that the risk you take when you break into someones house?

It might be, but this wasn't a break-in.

You'r focusing far too much on the legal definition of breaking-and-entering...

While overlooking the act of burglary that was underway at the time of the shooting...

Doesn't matter now... the kid is dead.

A shotgun killed him, but his own stupidity put him into the path of that shotgun.

Another Saint Skittles in the making, no doubt.

Time passes... memory fades... a year from now, it will be as if the idiot student never existed.

An ignoble end, brought about by an ignoble intent to steal.

Damn straight I'm focused on definitions, and I'll do that whenever someone waltzes in and tries to change one out of his own ignorance or just because the reality doesn't fit his game plan.

And it DOES matter now, exactly because a kid is dead.

Same question to you as to Skull -- how do you know this kid was an "idiot"? Did you know him? Is that how you know from here what his intent was?

 

[Stephanie]

I guess he could of used a bat

We heard this same thing 10 years ago, didn't we?

 

[Kondor3]

It might be, but this wasn't a break-in.

You'r focusing far too much on the legal definition of breaking-and-entering...

While overlooking the act of burglary that was underway at the time of the shooting...

Doesn't matter now... the kid is dead.

A shotgun killed him, but his own stupidity put him into the path of that shotgun.

Another Saint Skittles in the making, no doubt.

Time passes... memory fades... a year from now, it will be as if the idiot student never existed.

An ignoble end, brought about by an ignoble intent to steal.

Damn straight I'm focused on definitions, and I'll do that whenever someone waltzes in and tries to change one out of his own ignorance or just because the reality doesn't fit his game plan...

Nobody was trying to change definitions.

Rather, multiple posters here (myself included) invoked the image of breaking and entering, as a kindred substitute for trespassing and entering, in a strictly legal sense.

It is the 'entering' part which is most significant, anyway - traversing the property by stealth and then entering into a structure erected on the premises which stores valuables of one kind or another... close enough, as a discussion baseline.

...And it DOES matter now, exactly because a kid is dead...

Not really. The shooter is going to get off scot-free and the idiot student will be forgotten soon enough.

...Same question to you as to Skull -- how do you know this kid was an "idiot"? Did you know him? Is that how you know from here what his intent was?

By virtue of the fact that he engaged in criminal activity in a strange country reknowned for its armed and hair-trigger citizenry.

That tells us all we need to know about his idiocy - his lack of common sense.

As to his intent, his companion has confessed to authorities that they were engaged in 'garage hopping', which is defined as intrusion into private garages and stealing contents.

Assuming that the reports are true - and that the confession is legitimate - then that tells us all we need to know about his motives, as well.

No personal knowledge of the principals is required in order to formulate and serve-up an evidence-based opinion on the subject.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Damn Germans making Karma a reality.

 

[Pogo]

You'r focusing far too much on the legal definition of breaking-and-entering...

While overlooking the act of burglary that was underway at the time of the shooting...

Doesn't matter now... the kid is dead.

A shotgun killed him, but his own stupidity put him into the path of that shotgun.

Another Saint Skittles in the making, no doubt.

Time passes... memory fades... a year from now, it will be as if the idiot student never existed.

An ignoble end, brought about by an ignoble intent to steal.

Damn straight I'm focused on definitions, and I'll do that whenever someone waltzes in and tries to change one out of his own ignorance or just because the reality doesn't fit his game plan...

Nobody was trying to change definitions.

Rather, multiple posters here (myself included) invoked the image of breaking and entering, as a kindred substitute for trespassing and entering, in a strictly legal sense.

It is the 'entering' part which is most significant - traversing the property by stealth and then entering into a structure erected on the premises which stores valuables of one kind or another... close enough, as a discussion baseline.

...And it DOES matter now, exactly because a kid is dead...

Not really. The shooter is going to get off scot-free and the idiot student will be forgotten soon enough.

...Same question to you as to Skull -- how do you know this kid was an "idiot"? Did you know him? Is that how you know from here what his intent was?

By virtue of the fact that he engaged in criminal activity in a strange country reknowned for its armed and hair-trigger citizenry.

That tells us all we need to know about his idiocy - his lack of common sense.

As to his intent, his companion has confessed to authorities that they were engaged in 'garage hopping', which is defined as intrusion into private garages and stealing contents.

Assuming that the reports are true - and that the confession is legitimate - then that tells us all we need to know about his motives, as well.

No personal knowledge of the principals is required in order to formulate and serve-up an evidence-based opinion on the subject.

Thank you for taking my bait. What you've just laid out (and I'm sure Skull would have done the same thing) is this same elitism that sees an under-caste. The dichotomy-think that declares everything is black and white, good and evil, cops and robbers. So you don't know this kid, neither does SkullPilot -- you guys just cram him into a preconceived box based on an article and a message board thread and say "good riddance".

That's the same kind of box I spoke of earlier today. It's not reality. It's a crutch used to avoid reality. The truth is there are always two sides to every story and if this kid had been simply arrested for trespassing (or whatever crime) he would be given the opportunity to state his side in court. Just as the shooter is going to get to tell his side.

Of course only one of them lives to see that day in court, because of dichotomous thinking. The fact is you don't know Diren Dede was "an idiot"; SkullPilot doesn't know he was "a piece of shit", and Katzendogz and the rest of the rabid killer crowd don't know Dede deserved his vigilante death penalty.

This is also reflective of this culture's disregard for human life that puts these Internet Tough Guy posts up and pulls the trigger on Kaarma's shotgun. They're not people; they're dehumanized "pieces of shit". We "don't know" and we don't WANT to know.

That's the root of the problem right there.

 

[Kondor3]

Damn straight I'm focused on definitions, and I'll do that whenever someone waltzes in and tries to change one out of his own ignorance or just because the reality doesn't fit his game plan...

Nobody was trying to change definitions.

Rather, multiple posters here (myself included) invoked the image of breaking and entering, as a kindred substitute for trespassing and entering, in a strictly legal sense.

It is the 'entering' part which is most significant - traversing the property by stealth and then entering into a structure erected on the premises which stores valuables of one kind or another... close enough, as a discussion baseline.


Not really. The shooter is going to get off scot-free and the idiot student will be forgotten soon enough.

...Same question to you as to Skull -- how do you know this kid was an "idiot"? Did you know him? Is that how you know from here what his intent was?

By virtue of the fact that he engaged in criminal activity in a strange country reknowned for its armed and hair-trigger citizenry.

That tells us all we need to know about his idiocy - his lack of common sense.

As to his intent, his companion has confessed to authorities that they were engaged in 'garage hopping', which is defined as intrusion into private garages and stealing contents.

Assuming that the reports are true - and that the confession is legitimate - then that tells us all we need to know about his motives, as well.

No personal knowledge of the principals is required in order to formulate and serve-up an evidence-based opinion on the subject.

Thank you for taking my bait...

What bait would that be?

The bait of asking a colleague for an honest answer?

You are a little more transparent and predictable than you would like to think.

Knowing that an attempt to spring a trap was in the works, I chose to serve-up an honest answer, regardless; secure in the knowledge that the trap was made of tissue paper, and would not hold.

Truth be told, there is no prejudice to a metaphorical judgment of 'idiocy' attributable to a lack of personal knowledge.

If it flaps like a duck, and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck and looks like a duck, then chances are very, very good that it is, indeed, a duck.

If a foreign exchange student engages in criminal trespass and burglary in a foreign country in which he is a guest, in light of that country's world-reknown for an armed citizenry and a hair-trigger, then the metaphorical epithet of 'idiot' is quite defensible.

Some trap you set for me there.

...What you've just laid out (and I'm sure Skull would have done the same thing) is this same elitism that sees an under-caste...

Sorry. I stepped away from the bong and laid-aside my Chairman Mao Little Red Book eons ago; leaving the Sixties well behind me.

...The dichotomy-think that declares everything is black and white, good and evil, cops and robbers...

Isn't this fun, pretending that you know the intellectual capacity and the analytic and judgmental abilities of your entire range of opposites in such matters, and indulging in the pleasant delusion that they all think in the way that you want to believe they do?

...So you don't know this kid, neither does SkullPilot -- you guys just cram him into a preconceived box based on an article and a message board thread and say "good riddance"...

If it waddles like a duck and flaps like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck and looks like a duck, then I don't need to know the beastie, to reach the reasonable conclusion that it is quite probably a duck.

...That's the same kind of box I spoke of earlier today. It's not reality. It's a crutch used to avoid reality...

No. The reality is, the Perp is now pushing up daisies in Germany.

...The truth is there are always two sides to every story...

Ya learn sumfin' new every day...

...and if this kid had been simply arrested for trespassing (or whatever crime) he would be given the opportunity to state his side in court. Just as the shooter is going to get to tell his side...

And if that idiot-kid and his idiot-buddy had not invaded the space of others and set the stage to commit a burglary - a felony - he would not now be pushing-up daisies in Germany; unable to tell his story due to his own fatal foolishness.

...Of course only one of them lives to see that day in court, because of dichotomous thinking...

Yes.

Dichotomous thinking.

The shooter and his family are alive.

The idiot kid is dead.

It doesn't get much more dichotomous than that, does it?

Nature has de-selected him.

The shooter gets off scot-free ( in Montana, no less! )

The dead idiot-kid is soon forgotten.

Next slide, please.

...The fact is you don't know Diren Dede was "an idiot"; SkullPilot doesn't know he was "a piece of shit", and Katzendogz and the rest of the rabid killer crowd don't know Dede deserved his vigilante death penalty...

Metaphorically speaking, he was an Idiot, and was responsible for his own demise.

...This is also reflective of this culture's disregard for human life that puts these Internet Tough Guy posts up and pulls the trigger on Kaarma's shotgun. They're not people; they're dehumanized "pieces of shit". We "don't know" and we don't WANT to know...

In a home-defense context, there is no excuse for invasion. None. Fools who put themselves into harms' way in this visceral context oftentimes come to really bad endings, as this fool did.

...That's the root of the problem right there.

No. The root of the problem is the idiots who invade the homes and properties of others.

 

[Pogo]

It doesn't get much more dichotomous than that, does it?

Nnnope. Sure doesn't.
That was the whole point.

Isn't this fun, pretending that you know the intellectual capacity and the analytic and judgmental abilities of your entire range of opposites in such matters, and indulging in the pleasant delusion that they all think in the way that you want to believe they do?

As was that. Strange how you begged to differ at first and then proceeded to articulate my point perfectly.

Sigh.

Oh well, we just tries again tamorra. Can only lead 'em to water...


By the way, illegal trespass is a misdemeanor. Just sayin'.

 

[Kondor3]

Oh well, we just tries again tamorra. Can only lead 'em to water...

Oh, your message came through, clear enough.

It's just that your 'Change their hearts and minds' routine is reminiscent of soooooo many failed reformers of past years and decades and centuries and millennia.

Lovely concepts, so long as they remain voluntary rather than compulsory, but guaranteed not to yield the results you seek.

It's a hard old world out there - always has been - always will be - and self-defense, in all its manifestations, is as old as Man himself, and not likely to be influenced by a few years or decades of social re-engineering, to the extent you would like to believe is possible.

In this context, and with respect, and with sad regret, I perceive you as an impractical dreamer, to be admired for his principles, forgiven for his aggressiveness in pursuit of his goals, and ignored and pushed aside, when the window breaks, and the bad guys come in.

 

[Pogo]

Sadly I'm forced to perceive you as too enslaved to your own paranoia to take the initiative to throw that paranoia off your back and dare to consider what you're missing rather than dismissing it out of hand.

And it's clear from the last post you're not listening anyway, which is really just repeating the same thing. So ... you have a good night. We'll try again when receptivity improves.

 

[Pogo]

More background...

The sendoff for Diren Dede indicates more than a few people did not think him "a piece of shit"...

(-- from Julia Schaaf: "America Was his Dream")

>> With the body of Diren Dede enroute from Missoula to Hamburg, almost 500 people gather on the football field of the Big Sky High School on Friday to see him off at a vigil. Most classmates are crying in each other's arms, sharing some memories at the 17-year-old exchange student who was shot and killed last Sunday by a neighbor of his host parents.

... About 1000 people [in Hamburg, above] came to express their grief and disbelief over the death of the young man. Candles, souvenir pictures, the football anthem "You'll never walk alone", an exuberant buffet with burek, donuts and muffins, to collect donations.

... Meanwhile Diren's host parents and the neighbors of the Grant Creek district are trying to counteract the often bandied image of a nation of brutal gun nuts. "The first two days we were in a trance," says host father Randy Smith. "Suddenly we found ourselves at the Big Sky High School with 40 crying classmates and a handful of mourning companions again. On the third day we finally decided to do something. A crazy shooter may not dominate the image that others make of us."

So the couple has put together a makeshift memorial in front of his house which grows day by day. Among the first purple pansies and red geraniums plush toys, candles and cards have appeared. ...Neighbors like 71-year-old Katherine Kuebler, who's lived in the residential area in the north of Missoula for 15 years, make time repeatedly to light candles. In many front yards German flags and balloons and ribbons in black, red and gold have been seen flapping in the wind recently. "We want to express our sympathy to Germany and show the people there that we are just as angry and stunned by the shots as they are", says host mother Walker. << (my own translation)​

-- now THAT is the Montana I know. They've been shouted down by every armchair wag from internet coast to coast; let them speak for themselves.

The infamous driveway as seen from across the street -- note black/gold/red (German national colours) display in sympathy for a "piece of shit"​