Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

Interesting stuff from link 2 above, unrelated to that point:

>> Kaarma allegedly told a hairdresser several days before the shooting that police were “baiting him into killing these kids,” the affidavit said.

He told the hairdresser that he was tired because he had been up the last three nights, “waiting with his shotgun for some kids to come back into his garage again.”

The hairdresser later told police Kaarma was not just venting, he was angry.

“And I’m not (expletive) kidding, you’ll see this on the (expletive) news,” Kaarma said when the appointment was over. “I’m going to (expletive) kill ’em.”

The conversation was overheard by another hairdresser who told police the man had been going to the salon for years and always seemed “angry at the world.” The hairdresser added she was afraid of Kaarma.


.... Kaarma appeared in Missoula Justice Court on April 28 and was released from custody after posting a $30,000 bail. Neighbors and witnesses have since reported Kaarma was the instigator of several alleged road rage incidents in the neighborhood prior to the shooting.

On April 26, Kaarma was allegedly driving well-below the posted 25 mph speed limit on Prospect Lane in his gray pickup truck. The witness attempted to pass the truck, but Kaarma allegedly pulled his truck across the road – blocking the roadway.

The witness backed up and attempted to go around again, but the defendant allegedly jumped out of his truck and started yelling “gibberish” at the witness.

“The witness said that the defendant appeared disheveled, sloppy and unshaven,” the affidavit stated. “It appeared that the defendant looked ready to fight.”

Two other road rage incidences allegedly involving Kaarma occurred the same day, the affidavit stated, including one where a neighbor reported Kaarma appeared to be high or drunk. <<​

 

[Kondor3]

...Geez K, you're really getting desperate here...

Anyway it's odd, if no one knew the circumstances in Missoula, that word was already in Germany and commented on by the German Consulate in San Francisco in a story dated April 29th. But somehow nobody in Missoula knew?...

I'm getting desperate?

In saying that the candlelight vigil for Dede in Missoula on May 2nd took place before it became publicly known that Dede's accomplice had confessed that the two of them had engaged in garage-hopping (burglary) on multiple occasions prior to the April 27 shooting?

Show me where in that article is says that the German Consulate in San Francisco knew on April 29 that Dede had engaged in garage-burblaries in the past, or that was what he was engaged in at the time of the shooting?

You can't. I read it. Such evidence is not there.

Also...

Show us, if you will, where the confession of Dede's accomplice (the Ecuadoran student) - which implicated Dede as well - became public knowledge prior to the May 2 candlelight vigil...

Not the police report used to book Kaarma...

That was taken on-the-scene, and touched-up back at the station, immediately afterwards...

The Ecudoran student's confession came as part of a subsequent statement to police...

The Eduadoran student's all-important implication of Dede came later...

Insofar as I am aware, that disclosure only became public on May 6, four days after the candlelight vigil...

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

This is a very narrow and simple-to-resolve related sidebar...

You have asked me why I had the impression that the folks at the Missoula candellight vigil might not have known about Dede's criminality at the time of the vigil...

I have just provided you with the relevant facts (vigil on May 2, disclosure of Dede's criminality on May 6)...

Either refute them, or concede this minor point...

You ARE capable of conceding a point from time to time, are you not?

 

[Pogo]

Yet another factoid:

ATF form 4473 for firearm transactions (here) reads in part:

>> e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? <<

Kaarma's self-described previous burgles involved his stash of cannabis being taken from the garage as well as a pipe (where the couple reportedly smoked it), which is also arguably the reason at least one burgle wasn't reported. Police also found and confiscated a container of cannabis in the home and ordered Kaarma tested for the presence of cannabis, drugs or alcohol, the results of which have not been released.

Just sayin'.... I'm not a lawyer (though I'm happy to play one on the internets) but if I were I'd be interested in this li'l tidbit.

 

[thanatos144]

Another News Flash Pogo doesn't want Americans to have the right to defend themselves because guns make him wet himself!

 

[Pogo]

...Geez K, you're really getting desperate here...

Anyway it's odd, if no one knew the circumstances in Missoula, that word was already in Germany and commented on by the German Consulate in San Francisco in a story dated April 29th. But somehow nobody in Missoula knew?...

I'm getting desperate?

In saying that the candlelight vigil for Dede in Missoula on May 2nd took place before it became publicly known that Dede's accomplice had confessed that the two of them had engaged in garage-hopping (burglary) on multiple occasions prior to the April 27 shooting?

That simply isn't true. The kid said that HE (the Ecuadoran kid) had been out doing it. Not THEY.

Show me where in that article is says that the German Consulate in San Francisco knew on April 29 that Dede had engaged in garage-burblaries in the past, or that was what he was engaged in at the time of the shooting?

The first is a nonoperative strawman, since you made it up; to the second:

>> "We hope that justice will be done to make it clear to everyone that an unarmed juvenile cannot be lawfully killed by a citizen in Montana simply because he has trespassed in a garage," said Julia Reinhardt, press spokeswoman for the German Consulate General in San Francisco. "It is for us a big concern." <<
​

Paragraph 4.

You can't. I read it. Such evidence is not there.

Just did.

Also...

Show us, if you will, where the confession of Dede's accomplice (the Ecuadoran student) - which implicated Dede as well - became public knowledge prior to the May 2 candlelight vigil...

aand right back to the soccer field we go....

​

First off it's not a "confession"; Robby Pazmino wasn't charged with a crime. Second, you keep insisting that his statements (there were two police interviews) are the only way the circumstances would have become public knowledge --- which is interesting since a few minutes ago it was the defense attorney's statement that was the only way it could be known. In any case what you're trying to do is prove a negative so good luck on that.

Not the police report used to book Kaarma...

That was taken on-the-scene, and touched-up back at the station, immediately afterwards...

Police reports are "touched up"? Like airbrushing Playboy playmate photos?

The Ecudoran student's confession came as part of a subsequent statement to police...

The Eduadoran student's all-important implication of Dede came later...

Insofar as I am aware, that disclosure only became public on May 6, four days after the candlelight vigil...

Again it's not a "confession", the prior activities did not involve the deceased, and it was already known he was in the garage trespassing. That's never been in question.

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

This is a very narrow and simple-to-resolve related sidebar...

You have asked me why I had the impression that the folks at the Missoula candellight vigil might not have known about Dede's criminality at the time of the vigil...

I have just provided you with the relevant facts (vigil on May 2, disclosure of Dede's criminality on May 6)...

Either refute them, or concede this minor point...

You ARE capable of conceding a point from time to time, are you not?

Again, you're trying to prove a negative, imagining the "only way they could have known would be the defense attorney's press release" (no it's not) -- "ok, the only way they could have known would be Robby Pazmino's "confession" (no it's not) -- where to next?

I know when I'm being bullshat. A hairdresser isn't really a hairdresser (yes they are); he had been in there before (no he hadn't); nobody knew the circumstances (yes they did)....

The USAToday article was dated April 29, already reporting the reaction of the German Consulate. The local newspaper had already printed the criminal complaint complete with all the details on April 28 -- which I linked way back in post 207. It's the local paper; now you want me to prove nobody read the local paper?

 

[Esmeralda]

Another News Flash Pogo doesn't want Americans to have the right to defend themselves because guns make him wet himself!

 

[jc456]

Yet another factoid:

ATF form 4473 for firearm transactions (here) reads in part:

>> e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? <<

Kaarma's self-described previous burgles involved his stash of cannabis being taken from the garage as well as a pipe (where the couple reportedly smoked it), which is also arguably the reason at least one burgle wasn't reported. Police also found and confiscated a container of cannabis in the home and ordered Kaarma tested for the presence of cannabis, drugs or alcohol, the results of which have not been released.

Just sayin'.... I'm not a lawyer (though I'm happy to play one on the internets) but if I were I'd be interested in this li'l tidbit.

We'll have to wait to see if it was an ambush. If it was, then he most likely will be in a ton of trouble. Sad that the two college kids couldn't control their own urges. You look at it as if the homeowner was the initial bad guy, when in fact the two college kids were. Oh, and now it's two kids who entered his garage? Did the other kid say he was there? That actually might change things ambush or not.

 

[Pogo]

Yet another factoid:

ATF form 4473 for firearm transactions (here) reads in part:

>> e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? <<

Kaarma's self-described previous burgles involved his stash of cannabis being taken from the garage as well as a pipe (where the couple reportedly smoked it), which is also arguably the reason at least one burgle wasn't reported. Police also found and confiscated a container of cannabis in the home and ordered Kaarma tested for the presence of cannabis, drugs or alcohol, the results of which have not been released.

Just sayin'.... I'm not a lawyer (though I'm happy to play one on the internets) but if I were I'd be interested in this li'l tidbit.

We'll have to wait to see if it was an ambush. If it was, then he most likely will be in a ton of trouble. Sad that the two college kids couldn't control their own urges. You look at it as if the homeowner was the initial bad guy, when in fact the two college kids were. Oh, and now it's two kids who entered his garage? Did the other kid say he was there? That actually might change things ambush or not.

You can see the complete description of the police report/complaint back in post 207, in their own words (Kaarma and Pflager) as well as numerous ameliorations theresince.

No, two kids were walking, one went in, the other was nearby according to accounts. How would that affect the concept of "ambush" though? There isn't a limit on how many people you can ambush.

 

[Kondor3]

In saying that the candlelight vigil for Dede in Missoula on May 2nd took place before it became publicly known that Dede's accomplice had confessed that the two of them had engaged in garage-hopping (burglary) on multiple occasions prior to the April 27 shooting?

That simply isn't true. The kid said that HE (the Ecuadoran kid) had been out doing it. Not THEY.

Incorrect. The article clearly refers to "the boys" (plural), and, in that context, Ryan's disclosure of the contents of the Ecudoran student's statement-context can only be construed as meaning both the Ecuadoran student and Dede. Go back and read the article again.

...The first is a nonoperative strawman, since you made it up...

Incorrect. I faithfully relayed the content of the news article.

...to the second

>> "We hope that justice will be done to make it clear to everyone that an unarmed juvenile cannot be lawfully killed by a citizen in Montana simply because he has trespassed in a garage," said Julia Reinhardt, press spokeswoman for the German Consulate General in San Francisco. "It is for us a big concern." <<
​

Paragraph 4.

Which merely related the Consult's knowledge that Dede was trespassing.

That does NOT provide evidence that the Consul was aware on April 29 that Dede was engaged in burglary, and that he had engaged in such burglary (garage-hopping) multiple times in the recent past, accompanied by the Ecuadoran student.

Your challenge, several posts ago, was to strongly imply that the Consul had knowledge of the burglary act or intent, on April 29.

Given that the content of the Ecuadoran student's confession/statement did not become public knowledge until May 6, and given that there is no evidence in the statement by the Consul that he had knowledge of that fact, your use of that article, and your position that the Consul had such knowledge on April 29, is dismissed as unsubstantiated.

You can always revisit the issue, later, if you manage to dig-up something solid, to support your claim that the German Consul had knowledge of the burglary activities of Dede on April 29. Until that time, we must go with the evidence already extant in the public domain.

...First off it's not a 'confession'...

It's a sworn statement to the police, attesting that he and Dede engaged in such activity in the past, and that Dede was engaging in such at the time of the shooting, even though the Ecuadoran student held back, that time. Despite its legal nomenclature, it serves functionally as a confession, in discussion of the incident. Stop picking nits. It's beneath you.

...Robby Pazmino wasn't charged with a crime...

Entirely irrelevant, regarding whether or not such a statement/confession was made.

...Second, you keep insisting that his statements (there were two police interviews) are the only way the circumstances would have become public knowledge...

I insist upon no such thing.

I merely serve-up the earliest known public declaration on the subject.

If you have one that predates the defense attorney's (Ryan's) - and, more importantly for your and my purpose here - prior to either the April 29 German Consul's statement or the May 2 candlelight vigil - then, by all means, bring that forward.

In the absence of any other indications (which should be easy enough to find in most cases, on the Internet), we have little choice but to conclude that the participants in the candlelight vigil on May 2 had not yet obtained knowledge of Dede's burglary activities and history, and that the same probably applies to the German Consul as well, as early as April 29.

If you can prove that the information (Dede's criminal actvity, based upon the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession) was leaked earlier than the May 6 Ryan disclosure, feel free to present your evidence.

...which is interesting since a few minutes ago it was the defense attorney's statement that was the only way it could be known. In any case what you're trying to do is prove a negative so good luck on that...

I'm not trying to prove a negative.

I have proven a positive - that the earliest public release of information related to Dede's criminal (burglary) activity was made on May 6, after the candlelight vigil occurred.

If you can refute that proof of a positive, then, by all means, have at it.

...Police reports are "touched up"? Like airbrushing Playboy playmate photos?...

Our colleagues yesterday were right.

You DO move the goal-posts, whenever somebody gets close enough to score a point.

Disappointing.

If you have evidence that the Missoula, Montana police department, or the States Attorneys Office, have touched-up police reports, then, by all means, have at it.

That should go a long way towards getting the charges dropped against Kaarma before he even goes to trial.

There is no sane and rational reason to expect that police reports were sabotaged.

There is no sane and rational reason to expect that the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession was altered by police or other law enforcement, regarding Dede's criminal activities.

...Again it's not a "confession", the prior activities did not involve the deceased, and it was already known he was in the garage trespassing. That's never been in question...

Incorrect. The Ecuadoran student confessed that he and Dede had engage in such behaviors.

...I know when I'm being bullshat...

Pity you don't have the same filters for outbound traffic.

...A hairdresser isn't really a hairdresser (yes they are); he had been in there before (no he hadn't); nobody knew the circumstances (yes they did)....

The hairdresser has nothing to do with whether or not the Ecuadoran student confessed that he and Dede had engaged in criminal behaviors, nor does it lend any insight into the earliest date on which that confession became public knowledge (in relation to the May 2 candlelight vigil).

...The USAToday article was dated April 29, already reporting the reaction of the German Consulate. The local newspaper had already printed the criminal complaint complete with all the details on April 28 -- which I linked way back in post 207. It's the local paper; now you want me to prove nobody read the local paper?

I have read the Criminal Complain repeatedly myself, and without your link.

Go back and read it yourself.

Nowhere does that Complaint mention Dede's prior criminal (garage-hopping) behavior.

Nowhere does that Complaint mention that Dede was engaged in anything other than trespassing.

Nowhere does that Complaint mention the Ecuadoran Student's statement/confession.

Nowhere does that Complaint even mention the EXISTENCE of the Ecuadoran student.

Nowhere does that Complaint serve-up such information (about the Ecuadoran and Dede being engaged in burglary, then or earlier) prior to the May 2 vigil.

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

Gotcha...

It's such a small point...

I said that I had the impression that the folks in Missoula had no idea about Dede's criminal activity at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, and speculated that the vigil might have been canceled or far more poorly attended, had that knowledge been public at that time.

You asked me why I had that impression.

I gave you the news-making public disclosure of the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession, made public by the defense attorney on May 6.

You disagreed, and served-up an April 29 statement by the German Consul-General in San Francisco, as evidence that Dede's garage-hopping (burglary) past was known at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, if not earlier.

You disagreed, and served-up the Apirl 28 Criminal Complaint by the local States Attorney office, as evidence that Dede's garage-hopping (burglary) past was known by the town-folk of Missoula, at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, if not earlier.

I debunked both of your pieces of evidence as containing zero (0) information supporting your claim; indeed, neither proferred piece of evidence even MENTIONED that information.

You then began twisting and squriming and wildly speculating about fudged police reports and Playboy and other imagined information leaks that the folks in Missoula were privy to prior to the May 2 candlelight vigil, that the rest of the world was not privy to.

You tried to move the goal-posts.

You got caught.

You got called on it, too.

I win the sidebar.

You lose the sidebar.

Ordinarily, I would have dismissed the 'win' with a flick of the nostril and a wink of the eye, and moved on.

Ordinarily, I would not be un-gracious, and Lord-it-over an oftentimes worthy opponent, by feasting on such a small bite-sized and virtually meaningless 'win'.

You, however, were sooooooo vested in trying to publicly prove yourself right at any cost and no matter how long it took, that, when the axe fell on this one, your disingenuous tactics and goal-post moving anctics inspired me to make a far bigger deal out of this 'win' than I would otherwise have done.

Try 'man-ing -up' next time, and just saying: "Well, OK, yeah, you got me on that one, anyway - although it's small potatoes in the broader scheme of things, relative to this case."

Far less painful and time-consuming that way.

Not to mention less embarrassing, when you run out of wiggle-room.

But, given the heavy lifting that you made me do, over something so picayune and lightweight and unimportant as this...

You've just been pwned.

You lose.

I win.

Gotcha.

 

[Slyhunter]

Interesting stuff from link 2 above, unrelated to that point:

>> Kaarma allegedly told a hairdresser several days before the shooting that police were “baiting him into killing these kids,” the affidavit said.

He told the hairdresser that he was tired because he had been up the last three nights, “waiting with his shotgun for some kids to come back into his garage again.”

The hairdresser later told police Kaarma was not just venting, he was angry.

“And I’m not (expletive) kidding, you’ll see this on the (expletive) news,” Kaarma said when the appointment was over. “I’m going to (expletive) kill ’em.”

The conversation was overheard by another hairdresser who told police the man had been going to the salon for years and always seemed “angry at the world.” The hairdresser added she was afraid of Kaarma.


.... Kaarma appeared in Missoula Justice Court on April 28 and was released from custody after posting a $30,000 bail. Neighbors and witnesses have since reported Kaarma was the instigator of several alleged road rage incidents in the neighborhood prior to the shooting.

On April 26, Kaarma was allegedly driving well-below the posted 25 mph speed limit on Prospect Lane in his gray pickup truck. The witness attempted to pass the truck, but Kaarma allegedly pulled his truck across the road – blocking the roadway.

The witness backed up and attempted to go around again, but the defendant allegedly jumped out of his truck and started yelling “gibberish” at the witness.

“The witness said that the defendant appeared disheveled, sloppy and unshaven,” the affidavit stated. “It appeared that the defendant looked ready to fight.”

Two other road rage incidences allegedly involving Kaarma occurred the same day, the affidavit stated, including one where a neighbor reported Kaarma appeared to be high or drunk. <<​

Don't care that he was waiting on them night after night so he could shoot them, it was still his right to do so. And if they didn't want to be shot they shouldn't of broken into his home.

 

[Slyhunter]

Yet another factoid:

ATF form 4473 for firearm transactions (here) reads in part:

>> e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? <<

Kaarma's self-described previous burgles involved his stash of cannabis being taken from the garage as well as a pipe (where the couple reportedly smoked it), which is also arguably the reason at least one burgle wasn't reported. Police also found and confiscated a container of cannabis in the home and ordered Kaarma tested for the presence of cannabis, drugs or alcohol, the results of which have not been released.

Just sayin'.... I'm not a lawyer (though I'm happy to play one on the internets) but if I were I'd be interested in this li'l tidbit.

We'll have to wait to see if it was an ambush. If it was, then he most likely will be in a ton of trouble. Sad that the two college kids couldn't control their own urges. You look at it as if the homeowner was the initial bad guy, when in fact the two college kids were. Oh, and now it's two kids who entered his garage? Did the other kid say he was there? That actually might change things ambush or not.

Who cares if it was an ambush or not. The question that matters is did they break into his home?

 

[jc456]

Yet another factoid:

ATF form 4473 for firearm transactions (here) reads in part:

>> e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? <<

Kaarma's self-described previous burgles involved his stash of cannabis being taken from the garage as well as a pipe (where the couple reportedly smoked it), which is also arguably the reason at least one burgle wasn't reported. Police also found and confiscated a container of cannabis in the home and ordered Kaarma tested for the presence of cannabis, drugs or alcohol, the results of which have not been released.

Just sayin'.... I'm not a lawyer (though I'm happy to play one on the internets) but if I were I'd be interested in this li'l tidbit.

We'll have to wait to see if it was an ambush. If it was, then he most likely will be in a ton of trouble. Sad that the two college kids couldn't control their own urges. You look at it as if the homeowner was the initial bad guy, when in fact the two college kids were. Oh, and now it's two kids who entered his garage? Did the other kid say he was there? That actually might change things ambush or not.

Who cares if it was an ambush or not. The question that matters is did they break into his home?

No, the question is were they in his house. Why are you hung up on the term break? he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat. The ignorance of not locking the door is immaterial.

 

[Pogo]

In saying that the candlelight vigil for Dede in Missoula on May 2nd took place before it became publicly known that Dede's accomplice had confessed that the two of them had engaged in garage-hopping (burglary) on multiple occasions prior to the April 27 shooting?

That simply isn't true. The kid said that HE (the Ecuadoran kid) had been out doing it. Not THEY.

Incorrect. The article clearly refers to "the boys" (plural), and, in that context, Ryan's disclosure of the contents of the Ecudoran student's statement-context can only be construed as meaning both the Ecuadoran student and Dede. Go back and read the article again.

Which article? At this point you need to specify.

This from today's Der Spiegel link:

>> Robby and Diren headed out for a walk. They left Prospect Drive and turned down Deer Canyon Court. They had almost passed house number 2607 when Diren turned around.

It was pitch black; there were no streetlights. And why should there be? The neighborhood is safe, a place where children can play on the streets. That, at least, is what Diren's host mother had always told him. Robby wasn't wearing his glasses and couldn't see very clearly. When Diren said that the garage door was open and he wanted to go in and look around, Robby turned around, shook his head and kept going. He said later that he had hoped Diren would follow him. But when he turned around again, Diren was nowhere to be seen. <<​

There were other sources of course but this one's still open and time is limited on a very busy day...

Which merely related the Consult's knowledge that Dede was trespassing.

That does NOT provide evidence that the Consul was aware on April 29 that Dede was engaged in burglary, and that he had engaged in such burglary (garage-hopping) multiple times in the recent past, accompanied by the Ecuadoran student.

Again that is not the case. Pazmino admitted to having "garage hopped" in the past; there's no evidence that Dede had. And one of the links I just gave you earlier is in fact titled "Slain German Exchange Student Didn't Burgle Shooter's Garage" -- which we've already established far back in this thread, there being no evidence of anything taken or attempted-taken. We have trespassing, and that is literally all we know, and dead men tell no tales.

Your challenge, several posts ago, was to strongly imply that the Consul had knowledge of the burglary act or intent, on April 29.

No, the challenge was that the circumstances of how he came to be in the garage were not known, yet they were. Trespassing is obvious; it's where his dying body lay. His intent, i.e. what he would have done if left unfettered, no one can know. It's possible Dede himself didn't know.

Given that the content of the Ecuadoran student's confession/statement did not become public knowledge until May 6, and given that there is no evidence in the statement by the Consul that he had knowledge of that fact, your use of that article, and your position that the Consul had such knowledge on April 29, is dismissed as unsubstantiated.

A Consul named "Julia" would be a she. The window dressing of Pazmino is irrelevant; Dede was in the garage, there's no question he was trespassing, and the Consul did mention that. The fact that she didn't use the word "garage hopping" is irrelevant. Your claim was the circumstances of his being there were not known a week later; I just demonstrated that they were known all the way out in Germany a DAY later. Dede's father in fact flew in from Germany and was there Wednesday (April 30) to claim the body.

It's a sworn statement to the police, attesting that he and Dede engaged in such activity in the past, and that Dede was engaging in such at the time of the shooting, even though the Ecuadoran student held back, that time. Despite its legal nomenclature, it serves functionally as a confession, in discussion of the incident. Stop picking nits. It's beneath you.

Got a quote saying they BOTH did it in the past? Until you do.... money talks.
And I specifically remember the local police specifically stating Dede had never been in that garage before.

I insist upon no such thing.

I merely serve-up the earliest known public declaration on the subject.

"Earliest known" is debatable, but I already linked not just the USAToday article from April 29 but the Missoulian's publication of the criminal complaint on April 28. That would be the Monday before the Friday of the vigil.

If you have one that predates the defense attorney's (Ryan's) - and, more importantly for your and my purpose here - prior to either the April 29 German Consul's statement or the May 2 candlelight vigil - then, by all means, bring that forward.

Already done. Repeatedly.

In the absence of any other indications (which should be easy enough to find in most cases, on the Internet), we have little choice but to conclude that the participants in the candlelight vigil on May 2 had not yet obtained knowledge of Dede's burglary activities and history, and that the same probably applies to the German Consul as well, as early as April 29.

Indeed they cannot have known history which does not exist.

If you can prove that the information (Dede's criminal actvity, based upon the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession) was leaked earlier than the May 6 Ryan disclosure, feel free to present your evidence.

It is not my contention that there IS any history. That's yours.

I'm not trying to prove a negative.

I have proven a positive - that the earliest public release of information related to Dede's criminal (burglary) activity was made on May 6, after the candlelight vigil occurred.

Already debunked at least twice -- unless you mean past activity, for which evidence is nonexistent. Your point here, and I can't imagine why it matters, is that the population of the school and community, a day short of a full week after the event, all knew of the slaying yet had no questions about how it could have happened, read no newspapers and spread no news of readily available information. You have yet to make that case. Now to me, when you're saying nobody in a group of hundreds of vigilers knew the circumstances, yeah that's asserting a negative. "Nobody" is a negative.

Our colleagues yesterday were right.

You DO move the goal-posts, whenever somebody gets close enough to score a point.

Disappointing.

If you have evidence that the Missoula, Montana police department, or the States Attorneys Office, have touched-up police reports, then, by all means, have at it.

DUDE!!

This is YOUR point!

And I quote!

Not the police report used to book Kaarma...

That was taken on-the-scene, and touched-up back at the station, immediately afterwards...

Helllooooo?? "Moving goalposts"?? You're moving the whole damned field.

That should go a long way towards getting the charges dropped against Kaarma before he even goes to trial.

There is no sane and rational reason to expect that police reports were sabotaged.

There is no sane and rational reason to expect that the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession was altered by police or other law enforcement, regarding Dede's criminal activities.

Thank you. Then don't suggest there is and then try to pin it on me.

Incorrect. The Ecuadoran student confessed that he and Dede had engage in such behaviors.

-- Where?

Again, like the hairdresser, like the community knowledge in Missoula, like the imaginary history, you're deliberately distorting here, even after being called on it.

>> What is CONFESSION?

In criminal law. A voluntary statement made by a person charged with the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, communicated to another person, wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of the offense charged, and discloses the circumstances of the act or the share and participation which he had in it. Spicer v. Com. (Ky.) 51 S. W. 802; People v. Parton, 49 Cal. 037; Lee v. State, 102 Ga. 221. 29 S. E. 204; State v. Heidenreich, 29 Or. 38L 45 Pac. 755. Also the act of a prisoner, when arraigned for a crime or misdemeanor, in acknowledging and avowing that he is guilty of the offense charged. <<​

Pazmino wasn't charged with a crime. A statement is not a "confession". You're trying to morph everything you can in this case to fit a predetermined conclusion, and you're gonna be called on it every time.

...A hairdresser isn't really a hairdresser (yes they are); he had been in there before (no he hadn't); nobody knew the circumstances (yes they did)....

The hairdresser has nothing to do with whether or not the Ecuadoran student confessed that he and Dede had engaged in criminal behaviors, nor does it lend any insight into the earliest date on which that confession became public knowledge (in relation to the May 2 candlelight vigil).

Agreed (finally) -- that isn't related to the question of community knowledge; that's another illustration of how you have attempted to distort this story into something it is not on a daily basis.

...The USAToday article was dated April 29, already reporting the reaction of the German Consulate. The local newspaper had already printed the criminal complaint complete with all the details on April 28 -- which I linked way back in post 207. It's the local paper; now you want me to prove nobody read the local paper?

I have read the Criminal Complain repeatedly myself, and without your link.

Go back and read it yourself.

Nowhere does that Complaint mention Dede's prior criminal (garage-hopping) behavior.

Correct. Nor does it mention that he was a three-headed zgwof from planet Zork. There would be no reason to make something up, furthermore even if Dede had had a prior history it would not have been mentioned in a criminal complaint on this event. It would be immaterial.

Nowhere does that Complaint mention the Ecuadoran Student's statement/confession.

Nowhere does that Complaint even mention the EXISTENCE of the Ecuadoran student.

Nowhere does that Complaint serve-up such information prior to the May 2 vigil.

Pazmino (he has a name you know) wasn't shot, nor was he arrested. His statement is hearsay and may or may not be useful as corroborating evidence (only) to the defense, prosecution, or both. It isn't relevant to the criminal complaint, which is an address of the actions of Markus Kaarma. Whether Pazmino had engaged in garage hopping, with or without Dede, or whether he was even present, is immaterial to that complaint.

The reference to the complaint itself being there (and published) is there to make the point that the full description of the event, including where Dede was, was published, known and disseminated not only in Missoula but around the world, by the beginning of that week. Given that info alone, the whole world knew he was trespassing on somebody's property.

What do you want me to do, sign up for Nosebook so I can ferret out some reference from the locals prior to Friday? What's the point?

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

Gotcha...

It's such a small point...

I said that I had the impression that the folks in Missoula had no idea about Dede's criminal activity at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, and speculated that the vigil might have been canceled or far more poorly attended, had that knowledge been public at that time.

You asked me why I had that impression.

I gave you the news-making public disclosure of the Ecuadoran student's statement/confession, made public by the defense attorney on May 6.

You disagreed, and served-up an April 29 statement by the German Consul-General in San Francisco, as evidence that Dede's garage-hopping (burglary) past was known at the time of the May 2 candlelight vigil, if not earlier.

WRONG. Do not put words in my mouth. I have never held that Dede had a history. Ever. That is YOUR point. If I made such a point ----- quote me.

I debunked both of your pieces of evidence as containing zero (0) information supporting your claim; indeed, neither proferred piece of evidence even MENTIONED that information.

WRONG. What you did was set up a strawman and knocked it down. You seem to have a hard time following which one of us said what.

You then began twisting and squriming and wildly speculating about fudged police reports and Playboy and other imagined information leaks that the folks in Missoula were privy to prior to the May 2 candlelight vigil, that the rest of the world was not privy to.

Which is YOUR point, not mine. See above.

You tried to move the goal-posts.

You got caught.

I'm sure it amuses you to imagine so but I just quoted you so---- bullshit.

I win the sidebar.

You lose the sidebar.

Do you know what a "sidebar" actually is? This is the second time you've misused that term...

Ordinarily, I would have dismissed the 'win' with a flick of the nostril and a wink of the eye, and moved on.

Ordinarily, I would not be un-gracious, and Lord-it-over an oftentimes worthy opponent, by feasting on such a small bite-sized and virtually meaningless 'win'.

You, however, were sooooooo vested in trying to publicly prove yourself right at any cost and no matter how long it took, that, when the axe fell on this one, your disingenuous tactics and goal-post moving anctics inspired me to make a far bigger deal out of this 'win' than I would otherwise have done.

Try 'man-ing -up' next time, and just saying: "Well, OK, yeah, you got me on that one, anyway - although it's small potatoes in the broader scheme of things, relative to this case."

Far less painful and time-consuming that way.

Not to mention less embarrassing, when you run out of wiggle-room.

But, given the heavy lifting that you made me do, over something so picayune and lightweight and unimportant as this...

You've just been pwned.

You lose.

I win.

Gotcha.

Bullshit, Danth. Pick up your strawman and if need be, modify your earlier posts so they don't say what's inconvenient. I laid it out for you; quotes don't lie. Burden of proof remains with you sir.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting stuff from link 2 above, unrelated to that point:

>> Kaarma allegedly told a hairdresser several days before the shooting that police were “baiting him into killing these kids,” the affidavit said.

He told the hairdresser that he was tired because he had been up the last three nights, “waiting with his shotgun for some kids to come back into his garage again.”

The hairdresser later told police Kaarma was not just venting, he was angry.

“And I’m not (expletive) kidding, you’ll see this on the (expletive) news,” Kaarma said when the appointment was over. “I’m going to (expletive) kill ’em.”

The conversation was overheard by another hairdresser who told police the man had been going to the salon for years and always seemed “angry at the world.” The hairdresser added she was afraid of Kaarma.


.... Kaarma appeared in Missoula Justice Court on April 28 and was released from custody after posting a $30,000 bail. Neighbors and witnesses have since reported Kaarma was the instigator of several alleged road rage incidents in the neighborhood prior to the shooting.

On April 26, Kaarma was allegedly driving well-below the posted 25 mph speed limit on Prospect Lane in his gray pickup truck. The witness attempted to pass the truck, but Kaarma allegedly pulled his truck across the road – blocking the roadway.

The witness backed up and attempted to go around again, but the defendant allegedly jumped out of his truck and started yelling “gibberish” at the witness.

“The witness said that the defendant appeared disheveled, sloppy and unshaven,” the affidavit stated. “It appeared that the defendant looked ready to fight.”

Two other road rage incidences allegedly involving Kaarma occurred the same day, the affidavit stated, including one where a neighbor reported Kaarma appeared to be high or drunk. <<​

Don't care that he was waiting on them night after night so he could shoot them, it was still his right to do so. And if they didn't want to be shot they shouldn't of broken into his home.

Nobody "broke in" to anything. And it matters because he's claiming "self-defense". You can't set up an ambush, brag about it a week ahead, predict you're gonna kill somebody, take a sniper position that cuts off all exit, and then claim you were in "defense" mode.

 

[Pogo]

We'll have to wait to see if it was an ambush. If it was, then he most likely will be in a ton of trouble. Sad that the two college kids couldn't control their own urges. You look at it as if the homeowner was the initial bad guy, when in fact the two college kids were. Oh, and now it's two kids who entered his garage? Did the other kid say he was there? That actually might change things ambush or not.

Who cares if it was an ambush or not. The question that matters is did they break into his home?

No, the question is were they in his house. Why are you hung up on the term break? he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat. The ignorance of not locking the door is immaterial.

They (he) were (was) not in the house. The door being left open wasn't "ignorance"; it was deliberate. It's in Pflager's statements in the criminal complaint. And the articles.

"Unwelcomed", definitely. A "threat" was never established, neither at the time nor in piecing the event together. But yes he was uninvited and therefore trespassing.

We continue to wait for a citation of that local ordinance (anywhere) where the penalty for trespassing is death. So does Germany.

 

[Meathead]

We continue to wait for a citation of that local ordinance (anywhere) where the penalty for trespassing is death. So does Germany.

You can wait till the cows come home. There is no death penalty for trespassing anywhere as far as I know, nor has there been an execution.

Although I agree with the death penalty, I would be appalled if there has were a death sentence for trespassing. I have never heard of one. Stop being an obtuse dingbat.

 

[Kondor3]

...

Seen. Disregarded. The exchange is visible for all to see, and my contribution and conclusions and self-proclaimed 'win' will have to stand or fall upon their own merits, for others to judge.

 

[Slyhunter]

We continue to wait for a citation of that local ordinance (anywhere) where the penalty for trespassing is death. So does Germany.

You can wait till the cows come home. There is no death penalty for trespassing anywhere as far as I know, nor has there been an execution.

Although I agree with the death penalty, I would be appalled if there has were a death sentence for trespassing. I have never heard of one. Stop being an obtuse dingbat.

It's the American way.

 

[Ernie S.]

Who cares if it was an ambush or not. The question that matters is did they break into his home?

No, the question is were they in his house. Why are you hung up on the term break? he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat. The ignorance of not locking the door is immaterial.

They (he) were (was) not in the house. The door being left open wasn't "ignorance"; it was deliberate. It's in Pflager's statements in the criminal complaint. And the articles.

"Unwelcomed", definitely. A "threat" was never established, neither at the time nor in piecing the event together. But yes he was uninvited and therefore trespassing.

We continue to wait for a citation of that local ordinance (anywhere) where the penalty for trespassing is death. So does Germany.

You see, possum, a "threat" doesn't have to be established. Kaarma will tell the jury that he felt threatened by repeated burglaries. He had, after all, a partner and a small child to protect.
The State has to prove that at the moment he pulled the trigger, he did not feel that he or his family was in danger.
What a hair dresser says, what the neighbor says, what the police detectives say, is irrelevant. If the state can't prove he didn't feel threatened, he walks.

 

[Esmeralda]

No, the question is were they in his house. Why are you hung up on the term break? he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat. The ignorance of not locking the door is immaterial.

They (he) were (was) not in the house. The door being left open wasn't "ignorance"; it was deliberate. It's in Pflager's statements in the criminal complaint. And the articles.

"Unwelcomed", definitely. A "threat" was never established, neither at the time nor in piecing the event together. But yes he was uninvited and therefore trespassing.

We continue to wait for a citation of that local ordinance (anywhere) where the penalty for trespassing is death. So does Germany.

You see, possum, a "threat" doesn't have to be established. Kaarma will tell the jury that he felt threatened by repeated burglaries. He had, after all, a partner and a small child to protect.
The State has to prove that at the moment he pulled the trigger, he did not feel that he or his family was in danger.
What a hair dresser says, what the neighbor says, what the police detectives say, is irrelevant. If the state can't prove he didn't feel threatened, he walks.

So, according your interpretation of the Castle Doctrine, all a person has to do is 'say' he feels threatened, and that gives him the right to use lethal force?

Typical conditions that apply to some castle doctrine laws include:

An intruder must be making an attempt (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.

The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.

The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.

Kaarma had no reason at all to believe Dede intended to 'inflict serious bodily harm or death."

Kaarma DID provoke an intrusion by leaving the garage door open and leaving a purse in the garage to tempt an intruder.

The incident does not meet the conditions of the Castle Doctrine. What people are doing is interpreting it to mean all you have to do is 'say' you felt threatened and that's it. It is not just that: you can't just say you felt threatened: there has to be a logical reason behind your feeling threatened. It's like convicting someone of a crime: the jury has to find there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Within the Castle Doctrine, there has to be a reasonable basis for using deadly force, for feeling threatened. Based on all the evidence so far, there was no reasonable basis for Kaarma to feel a threat of "serious bodily harm or death."