Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

More background, from an older story:

>> Kaarma also told police he would have preferred to keep the garage door shut and the vehicle car doors locked, but on the night of April 26 “Pflager likely left the garage door partially open to entice the suspect(s) to come back inside the garage,” the affidavit stated.

“This isn’t something I initially wanted,” he told police. “I want to close the garage. I want to lock everything up.”

She also left her purse in the garage as “bait” for someone to take, the affidavit stated.

When the couple was alerted to Dede’s presence in the garage, Pflager allegedly told her husband to “get out there.” He grabbed the shotgun sitting in their dining room and exited the home through the front door.

Pflager initially told police that she was indoors putting her shoes on when Kaarma fired the first shot, but later said she was close behind Kaarma when he exited the front door. So close, in fact, she saw a darkened figure – Dede’s friend Robby Pazmino – run from the scene as her husband fired the first shot.

.... According to Kaarma’s attorney, Paul Ryan, Pflager comforted Dede in her arms while he breathed his last breaths on the garage floor.

The following day, Pflager reportedly told a visiting neighbor she didn’t have to worry about the burglary problem anymore.

“Why, did the police catch him?” the neighbor asked.

“He’s dead,” Pflager allegedly said.

Missoula police, however, said they have since determined that Dede had no involvement in the earlier burglaries, and had never before been in Kaarma’s garage. <<​

For what it's worth -- gives us an indication of motivations and driving forces.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pogo, it is wrong to entice someone to their death. But it is also wrong to break into someone's house, regardless of how enticing it may have been. There was evil intent on both ends, it ended with someone dying. Laws were broken all over. Trespassing, attempted robbery, burglary, manslaughter, conspiracy to commit murder... what have you. When anyone attempts to violate the sanctity of someone's home, they deserve whatever consequences are proper for that circumstance. On the other hand, if someone doesn't need to die, they don't need to die. Let the proper authorities handle it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

Lawfully, Pogo, it is still breaking and entering. Regardless of what the homeowner did to lure him there.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

Lawfully, Pogo, it is still breaking and entering. Regardless of what the homeowner did to lure him there.

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

 

[Kondor3]

...That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

And over and over again, you've been corrected in your attempts at correction, to reinforce for you the idea that property or home invasion, with intent to burglarize, may not be 'breaking and entering' in the strictest legal sense, but the 'entering' part, with intent to steal, renders it as something far more serious, and potentially lethal for a homeowner and family, than simple trespassing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Lawfully, Pogo, it is still breaking and entering. Regardless of what the homeowner did to lure him there.

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

First sentence confirms my point Pogo. Entering without authorization with the intent to commit burglary does not need to have any force applied to the victims for it to be breaking and entering. Burglary doesn't need to involve force. Burglary is a form a trespassing, along with theft. They are all interlinked. I've read through enough of Black's Law 9th Ed. to know.

Breaking and Entering in this instance does not necessarily have to involve force in the commission of the felony. Breaking and entering involves the person being inside the premises without authorization, whether through the tenant's negligence or not. The purse was hung in order to lure the guy there. It worked, and therefore we can deduce that he was trespassing with the intent to commit a crime, in this case burglary.

 

[Pogo]

...That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

And over and over again, you've been corrected in your attempts at correction, to reinforce for you the idea that property or home invasion, with intent to burglarize, may not be 'breaking and entering' in the strictest legal sense, but the 'entering' part, with intent to steal, renders it as something far more serious, and potentially lethal for a homeowner and family, than simple trespassing.

And since the intruder is dead, there was by definition nothing stolen. Therefore his intent is entirely speculation. Ergo: simple trespassing.

See, this is why when police set up a sting they make sure their target follows through, sells the drugs, names her price for specific sex, etc. Otherwise they have no crime to charge. Kaarma, obviously, didn't do that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Lawfully, Pogo, it is still breaking and entering. Regardless of what the homeowner did to lure him there.

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

First sentence confirms my point Pogo. Entering without authorization with the intent to commit burglary does not need to have any force applied to the victims for it to be breaking and entering. Burglary doesn't need to involve force. Burglary is a form a trespassing, along with theft. They are all interlinked. I've read through enough of Black's Law 9th Ed. to know.

Breaking and Entering in this instance does not necessarily have to involve force in the commission of the felony. Breaking and entering involves the person being inside the premises without authorization, whether through the tenant's negligence or not, with the intent of committing theft. Breaking and entering, Pogo, can simply involve pushing a door open to gain access, or just by simply walking through an open one.

Trespass is a misdemeanor, but from what I read, there was bait... taking advantage of the person's desire to commit a burglary as well. Something involving a purse? Even still, in my legal interpretation, that is burglary, not simply breaking and entering.

 

[Pogo]

Lawfully, Pogo, it is still breaking and entering. Regardless of what the homeowner did to lure him there.

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

First sentence confirms my point Pogo. Entering without authorization with the intent to commit burglary does not need to have any force applied to the victims for it to be breaking and entering. Burglary doesn't need to involve force. Burglary is a form a trespassing, along with theft. They are all interlinked. I've read through enough of Black's Law 9th Ed. to know.

Breaking and Entering in this instance does not necessarily have to involve force in the commission of the felony. Breaking and entering involves the person being inside the premises without authorization, whether through the tenant's negligence or not.

No, I think you're confusing B&E with burglary. In that, force is not required. But in B&E it is. It's right in the post above.

 

[Kondor3]

...That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

And over and over again, you've been corrected in your attempts at correction, to reinforce for you the idea that property or home invasion, with intent to burglarize, may not be 'breaking and entering' in the strictest legal sense, but the 'entering' part, with intent to steal, renders it as something far more serious, and potentially lethal for a homeowner and family, than simple trespassing.

And since the intruder is dead, there was by definition nothing stolen. Therefore intent is entirely speculation. Ergo: simple trespassing.

The dead kid's companion confessed to intention to commit burglary.

Illegal entry, with intent to commit a felony.

Whoops.

Montana juries aren't likely to take kindly to the case of dumbass ferners tryna rob feller Murkins.

 

[Pogo]

And over and over again, you've been corrected in your attempts at correction, to reinforce for you the idea that property or home invasion, with intent to burglarize, may not be 'breaking and entering' in the strictest legal sense, but the 'entering' part, with intent to steal, renders it as something far more serious, and potentially lethal for a homeowner and family, than simple trespassing.

And since the intruder is dead, there was by definition nothing stolen. Therefore intent is entirely speculation. Ergo: simple trespassing.

The dead kid's companion confessed to intention to commit burglary.

Illegal entry, with intent to commit a felony.

Whoops.

Montana juries aren't likely to take kindly to the case of dumbass ferners tryna rob feller Murkins.

I uh.. don't think he can speak for the dead. Isn't he in Ecuador anyway?

And where's your source? ::click:: ::click:: not workin'...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

First sentence confirms my point Pogo. Entering without authorization with the intent to commit burglary does not need to have any force applied to the victims for it to be breaking and entering. Burglary doesn't need to involve force. Burglary is a form a trespassing, along with theft. They are all interlinked. I've read through enough of Black's Law 9th Ed. to know.

Breaking and Entering in this instance does not necessarily have to involve force in the commission of the felony. Breaking and entering involves the person being inside the premises without authorization, whether through the tenant's negligence or not.

No, I think you're confusing B&E with burglary. In that, force is not required. But in B&E it is. It's right in the post above.

Actually, B&E and Burglary in Black's Law are rather interchangeable.

From Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed.)
burglary, n. (16c) 1. The common-law offense of breaking
and entering another's dwelling at night with the intent
to commit a felony. 2. The modern statutory offense
of breaking and entering any building - not just a
dwelling, and not only at night - with the intent to
commit a felony.

When I look up B&E there, it sends me straight to this definition. Strictly speaking, breaking and entering/burglary are one in the same. Note that the definition does not include force as a prerequisite.

 

[Kondor3]

And since the intruder is dead, there was by definition nothing stolen. Therefore intent is entirely speculation. Ergo: simple trespassing.

The dead kid's companion confessed to intention to commit burglary.

Illegal entry, with intent to commit a felony.

Whoops.

Montana juries aren't likely to take kindly to the case of dumbass ferners tryna rob feller Murkins.

...

And where's your source? ::click:: ::click:: not workin'...

There are literally scores of diverse sources on the subject of his companion (from Ecuador) confessing to having been in the process of 'garage hopping' at the time of the shooting.

A link from a National Public Radio (NPR) station in Liberal-land Boston, MA, will do nicely for our purposes, though...

======================

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping'

May 8, 2014 (Here & Now / WBUR-FM)

The surviving teen from a fatal April 27 shooting in Missoula, Montana, has reportedly told police that he and his friend were &#8220;garage hopping.&#8221;

Diren Dede and a friend, both high school exchange students in Missoula, were out around midnight on April 27 when Dede entered an open garage. The homeowner, Markus Kaarma, opened the inside door and shot four times, killing Dede.

.....

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping' | NCPR News from NPR


Next slide, please...

======================

I uh.. don't think he can speak for the dead. Isn't he in Ecuador anyway?

Uh, that's exactly what he DID do - speak for the dead; disclosing what he and his dead friend were up to, when the shooting occurred. The video surveillance camera evidence supports this confession.

So now, among other things, the stupid decisions made by this idiot, and his dead idiot companion, have created a condition whereby the one idiot is seen to be speaking on behalf of both, forevermore clouding the memory of the dead kid with the appelation: thief.

And it doesn't matter a damn whether the kid is now in Ecuador.

He provided the police with that information prior to his departure.

A state of affairs which is going to work very well in favor of the shooter.

I'll bet the Montana jury will be licking its chops, to get to the juicy part, where the Defense shreds the Prosecution's case, by serving up sworn testimony that those idiot teens were in the process of committing a felony at the time of the shooting.

Next slide, please.

 

[Pogo]

Ah so now you're backtracking. Your previous post said "intention to commit burglary", now it's downgraded to "garage hopping". Which we all already knew. Still, you cannot speak for the dead.

Nothng to see here, next slide please...

Damn Kondor, you're older'n dirt if you remember when that phrase was used. I do too.

 

[Kondor3]

Ah so now you're backtracking. Your previous post said "intention to commit burglary", now it's downgraded to "garage hopping". Which we all already knew. Still, you cannot speak for the dead.

I'm not backtracking in the slightest.

That's a Fig Newton of your imagination.

The Ecuadorn boy spoke for the dead; no need for any of us to fabricate anything.

...damn Kondor, you're older'n dirt if you remember when that phrase was used. I do too.

I don't know which phrase you're talking about.

And I am exactly as old as I need to be.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Lawfully, Pogo, it is still breaking and entering. Regardless of what the homeowner did to lure him there.

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

Only it was burglary, wasn't it? He intended to take the purse, after all.

 

[Pogo]

Lawfully, Pogo, it is still breaking and entering. Regardless of what the homeowner did to lure him there.

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

Only it was burglary, wasn't it? He intended to take the purse, after all.

We can never know, can we?

 

[Ernie S.]

...That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

And over and over again, you've been corrected in your attempts at correction, to reinforce for you the idea that property or home invasion, with intent to burglarize, may not be 'breaking and entering' in the strictest legal sense, but the 'entering' part, with intent to steal, renders it as something far more serious, and potentially lethal for a homeowner and family, than simple trespassing.

And since the intruder is dead, there was by definition nothing stolen. Therefore his intent is entirely speculation. Ergo: simple trespassing.

See, this is why when police set up a sting they make sure their target follows through, sells the drugs, names her price for specific sex, etc. Otherwise they have no crime to charge. Kaarma, obviously, didn't do that.

You can't have it both ways, Pogo. The homeowner either set a trap and the kid entered the garage intending to take the purse, or the kid entered unprovoked and never intended to take the purse. Which is it?

 

[Pogo]

Ah so now you're backtracking. Your previous post said "intention to commit burglary", now it's downgraded to "garage hopping". Which we all already knew. Still, you cannot speak for the dead.

I'm not backtracking in the slightest.

That's a Fig Newton of your imagination.

The Ecuadorn boy spoke for the dead; no need for any of us to fabricate anything.

Actually it's a Fig Newton of the content of the posts. You could look it up.

The Ecuadoran boy said whatever he said on his own behalf; he cannot speak for a dead boy who's not here to disagree or modify what he says. This is actually pretty basic stuff. Hearsay.

...damn Kondor, you're older'n dirt if you remember when that phrase was used. I do too.

I don't know which phrase you're talking about.

And I am exactly as old as I need to be.

The phrase "next slide please". I actually remember (barely) when a slide projector had to be at least started by an accomplice manually. I think that was history about 30 years ago.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

[Pogo]

And over and over again, you've been corrected in your attempts at correction, to reinforce for you the idea that property or home invasion, with intent to burglarize, may not be 'breaking and entering' in the strictest legal sense, but the 'entering' part, with intent to steal, renders it as something far more serious, and potentially lethal for a homeowner and family, than simple trespassing.

And since the intruder is dead, there was by definition nothing stolen. Therefore his intent is entirely speculation. Ergo: simple trespassing.

See, this is why when police set up a sting they make sure their target follows through, sells the drugs, names her price for specific sex, etc. Otherwise they have no crime to charge. Kaarma, obviously, didn't do that.

You can't have it both ways, Pogo. The homeowner either set a trap and the kid entered the garage intending to take the purse, or the kid entered unprovoked and never intended to take the purse. Which is it?

It isn't necessarily that black and white Ernie.

There's nothing in the story that requires the kid to have been enticed by the bait, number one. Given how dark it supposedly was he may not have even seen it. Nor was there anything mentioned in the stories about Dede having anything in his possession except his own cellphone. The entry and the imaginary intention are separate and unconnected. They do not necessarily depend on one another.

"Garage hopping" for all we know may be simply roaming around this garage and that garage looking to see what's in there. I did it. There was a house at the corner that had about five thousand comic books. I walked in there often.

As just noted, we can never know what the kid's intent was. Kaarma made that impossible.