Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Liberals never met a murderer they didn't love or a innocent they didn't want dead
tapatalk post
It might depend on the media source from which your are quoting.Wrong on two counts; he didn't "break in" and it wasn't the house. But you did get the word he right. So there's that.
"Opine first, read the story later". And "damn the facts, full speed ahead".
"A Montana man accused of fatally shooting a German exchange student in his garage pleaded not guilty to murder Wednesday, Reuters reports.
Last month, 29-year-old Markus Kaarma, of Missoula, allegedly shot and killed 17-year-old Diren Dede, of Hamburg, Germany, after the teen broke into his garage."
Not sure what article you're reading, but stating blatant lies isn't a good gesture. But what do you care right?
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.
Castle doctrine. He was in the home. The prosecution will have to prove the defendant did not feel reasonably threatened. That's hard to do. If the victim did in fact make an attempt to surrender, for instance - and the defendant shot him anyway - that's absolutely not legal. But how do you prove -beyond a reasonable doubt- that happened without, say, a video tape?
On the other hand - Rodney Peairs shot and killed a Japanese exchange student who was OUTSIDE his home and who had simply gone to the wrong house for a Halloween party. - AND HE GOT AWAY WITH IT -
Death of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yup, the Hattori case has been cited in this thread. In the instant case what undermine's the "self-defense" defense is that the defendant was clearly on offense -- having baited his garage and left it open and then having taken a sniper position outside the house, aiming back into the garage, so that exiting the garage would be impossible. He then strafed the entire facing of the garage (with a shotgun) to ensure wiping out whoever or whatever was in there, regardless whether the intruder attempted to leave or not, with no warning at all (in other words, ambush). And, he predicted his own offensive action a week before the event (it apparently took that long for anyone to take the bait).
This is all described in the criminal complaint, which is linked back in post 202 in its entirety. This offensive posture is in fact the whole reason he got booked with "intentional homicide" in the first place.
Then of course there's the matter of shooting into the darkened void, without knowing who or what one is shooting at, which could have been a child, a police officer investigating, an animal, or Flo from Progressive Insurance. No one from the kill-em-all crowd seems to want to address that little bit of firearm responsibility.
Actually it might have been better if it was Flo from Progressive Insurance...
It might depend on the media source from which your are quoting."A Montana man accused of fatally shooting a German exchange student in his garage pleaded not guilty to murder Wednesday, Reuters reports.
Last month, 29-year-old Markus Kaarma, of Missoula, allegedly shot and killed 17-year-old Diren Dede, of Hamburg, Germany, after the teen broke into his garage."
Not sure what article you're reading, but stating blatant lies isn't a good gesture. But what do you care right?
I quoted the OPs. You know, the one to start this thread? The dude wrote read the article and I quoted what the article stated. Is there a studder in there somewhere?
It might depend on the media source from which your are quoting.
I quoted the OPs. You know, the one to start this thread? The dude wrote read the article and I quoted what the article stated. Is there a studder in there somewhere?
Okay. Forgot how it was worded. But the point is, how one uses language. The reporter used terms that were not precise, not legally precise either. 'Broke into,' is not what legally happened as there was no 'breaking.' He just walked through an open door. It's like when they say 'allegedly' shot. He did literally shoot the boy. But they say 'allegedly' because he has not been tried and convicted.
It might depend on the media source from which your are quoting."A Montana man accused of fatally shooting a German exchange student in his garage pleaded not guilty to murder Wednesday, Reuters reports.
Last month, 29-year-old Markus Kaarma, of Missoula, allegedly shot and killed 17-year-old Diren Dede, of Hamburg, Germany, after the teen broke into his garage."
Not sure what article you're reading, but stating blatant lies isn't a good gesture. But what do you care right?
I quoted the OPs. You know, the one to start this thread? The dude wrote read the article and I quoted what the article stated. Is there a studder in there somewhere?
Castle doctrine. He was in the home. The prosecution will have to prove the defendant did not feel reasonably threatened. That's hard to do. If the victim did in fact make an attempt to surrender, for instance - and the defendant shot him anyway - that's absolutely not legal. But how do you prove -beyond a reasonable doubt- that happened without, say, a video tape?
On the other hand - Rodney Peairs shot and killed a Japanese exchange student who was OUTSIDE his home and who had simply gone to the wrong house for a Halloween party. - AND HE GOT AWAY WITH IT -
Death of Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yup, the Hattori case has been cited in this thread. In the instant case what undermine's the "self-defense" defense is that the defendant was clearly on offense -- having baited his garage and left it open and then having taken a sniper position outside the house, aiming back into the garage, so that exiting the garage would be impossible. He then strafed the entire facing of the garage (with a shotgun) to ensure wiping out whoever or whatever was in there, regardless whether the intruder attempted to leave or not, with no warning at all (in other words, ambush). And, he predicted his own offensive action a week before the event (it apparently took that long for anyone to take the bait).
This is all described in the criminal complaint, which is linked back in post 202 in its entirety. This offensive posture is in fact the whole reason he got booked with "intentional homicide" in the first place.
Then of course there's the matter of shooting into the darkened void, without knowing who or what one is shooting at, which could have been a child, a police officer investigating, an animal, or Flo from Progressive Insurance. No one from the kill-em-all crowd seems to want to address that little bit of firearm responsibility.
Actually it might have been better if it was Flo from Progressive Insurance...
Oh, so you were there and witnessed what happened and of course already have all the findings? Good for you, typical lib stuff.
I quoted the OPs. You know, the one to start this thread? The dude wrote read the article and I quoted what the article stated. Is there a studder in there somewhere?
Okay. Forgot how it was worded. But the point is, how one uses language. The reporter used terms that were not precise, not legally precise either. 'Broke into,' is not what legally happened as there was no 'breaking.' He just walked through an open door. It's like when they say 'allegedly' shot. He did literally shoot the boy. But they say 'allegedly' because he has not been tried and convicted.
Was the teen in the man's garage? Fairly simple question. If he was, then he shouldn't have been. And you know for sure the door wasn't locked?
Just curious there. If I leave a door open doesn't mean someone on the street can just walk in. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that anymore.
See those who have broken in and walked in uninvited in the past has changed all of that. Shame. When the have nots want someone elses, then they feel they just deserve to take it. Double shame. It's unfortunate what happened, why not let it play out in the courts and get all of the relevant information?
The point is that Kaarma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Kaarma spends a lot of time in prison.
He was a bad guy.
By definition he was breaking the law and therefore was a criminal.
It is prudent to assume that a criminal entering your home uninvited under cover of darkness is a threat to your or your family's safety.
If he didn't enter a man's hoe uninvited under the cover of darkness he would not have been shot.
It really is that simple.
If Dede was a 'bad' guy, then Kaarma is a much, much worse one because he set a trap with the intention of shooting someone, not showing any value for human life. His intention was to kill. Dede's intention was to steal some beer.
Potentially a case of a Bad Guy protected by law, and a dumb-ass kid who suffered because he broke the law.If Dede was a 'bad' guy, then Kaarma is a much, much worse one because he set a trap with the intention of shooting someone, not showing any value for human life. His intention was to kill. Dede's intention was to steal some beer.
It's the chance one takes, when one engages in criminal activity, regardless of its scope.
It's not so much the dollar or other value of the intended theft, it's the intrusion into the home property of another under cover of darkness that tips the scales.
Scales that will ultimately see the shooter get off scot-free.
It doesn't much matter what you nor I think about him, and his alleged trap-setting.
What matter is that penetration onto home-residence property, by stealth, at night.
I doubt the guy will even get a slap on the wrist, judicially.
I could be wrong about that, but, I doubt it.
I've been robbed twice, burglarized. Nothing of great value was taken though one thing, a ring, of sentimental value was taken. In neither instance did I harbor the idea that the thief deserved the death sentence. It is not nice to be violated that way; I know that very well, but it still is not a crime worthy of death. I hope the homeowner goes to prison for a long time. He took a life without any good reason, and it was premeditated.
You have to make allowances for dingbats I suppose, but someone who would allow themselves to be violated defies logic. I wonder if she would on a personal level. I mean if it were a woman alone in a house, especially with a baby that did the same thing, would it be different?Potentially a case of a Bad Guy protected by law, and a dumb-ass kid who suffered because he broke the law.
It's the chance one takes, when one engages in criminal activity, regardless of its scope.
It's not so much the dollar or other value of the intended theft, it's the intrusion into the home property of another under cover of darkness that tips the scales.
Scales that will ultimately see the shooter get off scot-free.
It doesn't much matter what you nor I think about him, and his alleged trap-setting.
What matter is that penetration onto home-residence property, by stealth, at night.
I doubt the guy will even get a slap on the wrist, judicially.
I could be wrong about that, but, I doubt it.
I've been robbed twice, burglarized. Nothing of great value was taken though one thing, a ring, of sentimental value was taken. In neither instance did I harbor the idea that the thief deserved the death sentence. It is not nice to be violated that way; I know that very well, but it still is not a crime worthy of death. I hope the homeowner goes to prison for a long time. He took a life without any good reason, and it was premeditated.
You weren't home at the time were you?
How would you feel if someone broke in while you were home? Threatened? Afraid? or would you assume the criminal entering your home uninvited in the middle of the night was there to clean your house for you and give you a foot rub?
He was a bad guy.
By definition he was breaking the law and therefore was a criminal.
It is prudent to assume that a criminal entering your home uninvited under cover of darkness is a threat to your or your family's safety.
If he didn't enter a man's hoe uninvited under the cover of darkness he would not have been shot.
It really is that simple.
If Dede was a 'bad' guy, then Kaarma is a much, much worse one because he set a trap with the intention of shooting someone, not showing any value for human life. His intention was to kill. Dede's intention was to steal some beer.
A person who was not of a criminal mind set would not have entered the house even if every door and window were open and there was a stack of 100 dollar bills in plain view.
You don't know what his intentions were and neither did the home owner.
It is prudent to assume a criminal entering your house in the middle of the night is a threat to you or your family.
The point is that Kaarma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Kaarma spends a lot of time in prison.
You hate guns we get it. The point is I don't care about Kharma (with an H) or whether someone in my garage is a hardcore burglar. If you are in mu garage you don't belong there.
Like I said, you people love to kill: the idea of blowing someone away with your precious guns is a wet dream for you all. It's Kaarma. I think he's going to have some kharma to deal with now.
If Dede was a 'bad' guy, then Kaarma is a much, much worse one because he set a trap with the intention of shooting someone, not showing any value for human life. His intention was to kill. Dede's intention was to steal some beer.
A person who was not of a criminal mind set would not have entered the house even if every door and window were open and there was a stack of 100 dollar bills in plain view.
You don't know what his intentions were and neither did the home owner.
Thank you.
We've got a bunch of Karnaks in house who think they do know what his intentions were, have already convicted him on it, as well as several other burglaries that have nothing to do with the kid, and apparently even have him closing the garage door just so he could then "break in".
It's notable that we actually have a much better idea of what Mr. Kaarma's intentions were, since he articulated them in no uncertain terms to his hairdresser a week before the event (and that's hairdresser, with neither quotes nor boldface).
It is prudent to assume a criminal entering your house in the middle of the night is a threat to you or your family.
Agreed, it is prudent to assume that's likely. It is also prudent to test that hypothesis before you go strafing shotgun spray into a dark space you can't see inside that you know for a fact has been left open all night.
Innit?
A person who was not of a criminal mind set would not have entered the house even if every door and window were open and there was a stack of 100 dollar bills in plain view.
You don't know what his intentions were and neither did the home owner.
Thank you.
We've got a bunch of Karnaks in house who think they do know what his intentions were, have already convicted him on it, as well as several other burglaries that have nothing to do with the kid, and apparently even have him closing the garage door just so he could then "break in".
It's notable that we actually have a much better idea of what Mr. Kaarma's intentions were, since he articulated them in no uncertain terms to his hairdresser a week before the event (and that's hairdresser, with neither quotes nor boldface).
It is prudent to assume a criminal entering your house in the middle of the night is a threat to you or your family.
Agreed, it is prudent to assume that's likely. It is also prudent to test that hypothesis before you go strafing shotgun spray into a dark space you can't see inside that you know for a fact has been left open all night.
Innit?
No. The simple fact is that the homeowner did not give permission for anyone to be in his home. The assumption is at that point that anyone entering his home is a criminal and therefore a threat.
I am a firm believer in the castle doctrine and as such I will always side with a homeowner defending his family within his own home.
You hate guns we get it. The point is I don't care about Kharma (with an H) or whether someone in my garage is a hardcore burglar. If you are in mu garage you don't belong there.
Like I said, you people love to kill: the idea of blowing someone away with your precious guns is a wet dream for you all. It's Kaarma. I think he's going to have some kharma to deal with now.
Seriously you have some kind of mental defect.
I've been robbed twice, burglarized. Nothing of great value was taken though one thing, a ring, of sentimental value was taken. In neither instance did I harbor the idea that the thief deserved the death sentence. It is not nice to be violated that way; I know that very well, but it still is not a crime worthy of death. I hope the homeowner goes to prison for a long time. He took a life without any good reason, and it was premeditated.
You weren't home at the time were you?
How would you feel if someone broke in while you were home? Threatened? Afraid? or would you assume the criminal entering your home uninvited in the middle of the night was there to clean your house for you and give you a foot rub?
You have to make allowances for dingbats I suppose, but someone who would allow themselves to be violated defies logic. I wonder if she would on a personal level. I mean if it were a woman alone in a house, especially with a baby that did the same thing, would it be different?
Thank you.
We've got a bunch of Karnaks in house who think they do know what his intentions were, have already convicted him on it, as well as several other burglaries that have nothing to do with the kid, and apparently even have him closing the garage door just so he could then "break in".
It's notable that we actually have a much better idea of what Mr. Kaarma's intentions were, since he articulated them in no uncertain terms to his hairdresser a week before the event (and that's hairdresser, with neither quotes nor boldface).
Agreed, it is prudent to assume that's likely. It is also prudent to test that hypothesis before you go strafing shotgun spray into a dark space you can't see inside that you know for a fact has been left open all night.
Innit?
No. The simple fact is that the homeowner did not give permission for anyone to be in his home. The assumption is at that point that anyone entering his home is a criminal and therefore a threat.
I am a firm believer in the castle doctrine and as such I will always side with a homeowner defending his family within his own home.
Once again you completely fail to address the question and deflect off somewhere irrelevant. Seems to be a pattern. Some "pilot"...
It's a dingbat thing.You hate guns we get it. The point is I don't care about Kharma (with an H) or whether someone in my garage is a hardcore burglar. If you are in mu garage you don't belong there.
Like I said, you people love to kill: the idea of blowing someone away with your precious guns is a wet dream for you all. It's Kaarma. I think he's going to have some kharma to deal with now.
Seriously you have some kind of mental defect.
