Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

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.

Whether a "threat" needs to be established (legally) wasn't the point there; the poster, as a previous poster also did, defines a trespasser (intruder) as a threat by definition. I'm telling them that is a post hoc fallacy. It makes a leap without a bridge. "he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat" simply does not follow.

Moreover, trying to tell the court he "felt threatened by repeated burglaries" won't work, as "repeated burglaries" are not what he's aiming at in the garage. You can't aim a gun at the notion of past events.

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.

Au contraire, I think what the hairdressers especially say is crucial, as it reveals he was planning and even predicting an ambush. Which once again, is going on the offensive. Just as you can't be on defense if you're on offense, you can't "feel threatened" if you've deliberately set up a killing field. That's not feeling threatened; it's revenge. In this case revenge on somebody who hadn't even been involved in the prior incidents.

And I think you guys are way off suggesting the state has to prove a negative about what's in somebody's head. That's impossible in any circumstance. If that's all the law means, I could randomly blow away the next person I see on the street, on the road, wherever, and all I need to do to walk is say "hey, I felt threatened, can't touch me". Don't think so. If murder were that easy Markus Kaarma would not be charged with intentional homicide right now.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Then you get why the rest of us are appalled. That's the point here.

See? Even with your closed mind you couldn't help learning something. Incredible.

 

[Ernie S.]

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."

He had no reason to believe otherwise. The kid was already in his garage uninvited. Had he been standing in the street, you would be right

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

Provoke??? Kaarma somehow forced the kid to enter his garage? Oh! The purse and the open door. It's his home and his girlfriend's purse. They do not need your permission to leave a door open and a purse whereever the fuck they want. Did the kid not know that burglary is a felony?
They always left the garage open so they could go out for a smoke without the child being exposed.

I have a motorcycle and thousands in power tools in my garage and I leave the door up often. Alabamans know that I will protect my home and my family.

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."

In Montana, it does. All Kaarma needs is a reasonable fear for his wellbeing. The onus is on the State to prove he wasn't afraid.

Montana 45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.

(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Whether a "threat" needs to be established (legally) wasn't the point there; the poster, as a previous poster also did, defines a trespasser (intruder) as a threat by definition. I'm telling them that is a post hoc fallacy. It makes a leap without a bridge. "he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat" simply does not follow.

Moreover, trying to tell the court he "felt threatened by repeated burglaries" won't work, as "repeated burglaries" are not what he's aiming at in the garage. You can't aim a gun at the notion of past events.

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.

Au contraire, I think what the hairdressers especially say is crucial, as it reveals he was planning and even predicting an ambush. Which once again, is going on the offensive. Just as you can't be on defense if you're on offense, you can't "feel threatened" if you've deliberately set up a killing field. That's not feeling threatened; it's revenge. In this case revenge on somebody who hadn't even been involved in the prior incidents.

And I think you guys are way off suggesting the state has to prove a negative about what's in somebody's head. That's impossible in any circumstance. If that's all the law means, I could randomly blow away the next person I see on the street, on the road, wherever, and all I need to do to walk is say "hey, I felt threatened, can't touch me". Don't think so. If murder were that easy Markus Kaarma would not be charged with intentional homicide right now.

Read the Montana statute Please try to comprehend the parts you may disagree with. The State of Montana DOES NOT CARE whether you agree or not. You and your feelings are irrelevant.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Whether a "threat" needs to be established (legally) wasn't the point there; the poster, as a previous poster also did, defines a trespasser (intruder) as a threat by definition. I'm telling them that is a post hoc fallacy. It makes a leap without a bridge. "he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat" simply does not follow.

Moreover, trying to tell the court he "felt threatened by repeated burglaries" won't work, as "repeated burglaries" are not what he's aiming at in the garage. You can't aim a gun at the notion of past events.

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.

Au contraire, I think what the hairdressers especially say is crucial, as it reveals he was planning and even predicting an ambush. Which once again, is going on the offensive. Just as you can't be on defense if you're on offense, you can't "feel threatened" if you've deliberately set up a killing field. That's not feeling threatened; it's revenge. In this case revenge on somebody who hadn't even been involved in the prior incidents.

And I think you guys are way off suggesting the state has to prove a negative about what's in somebody's head. That's impossible in any circumstance. If that's all the law means, I could randomly blow away the next person I see on the street, on the road, wherever, and all I need to do to walk is say "hey, I felt threatened, can't touch me". Don't think so. If murder were that easy Markus Kaarma would not be charged with intentional homicide right now.

Read the Montana statute Please try to comprehend the parts you may disagree with. The State of Montana DOES NOT CARE whether you agree or not. You and your feelings are irrelevant.

The bottom line is 'reasonable fear' of bodily harm. Though those who are pro-gun extremists may want to believe it, hopefully a reasonable and sane jury will realize there is no reasonable fear of bodily harm here. The 'intruder' was alone in the garage, not in the house, and one would assume the door between the house and garage was locked. The homeowner was out in front of the house with his gun aimed at the intruder in the garage, in position, ready to shoot. If he thought the intruder was going to try to enter the house, he would think it would be through the garage, but he knew that door was locked. He knew the 'intruder' could not enter through the front door because he, the homeowner, was there, stationed and in position to shoot, shoot to kill.

There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house by way of the garage. There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house through the front door. If the jury is sane and bases its decision on reason, Kaarma will go to prison.

Doesn't matter which interpretation of the Castle Doctrine you use, a person doesn't just get to say 'I felt threatened,' not without any questions. If that were so, anyone could kill anyone who comes to the door, is on your lawn, etc. I used to have a house with a six foot plus fence around the back yard. Sometimes a ball the kids next door were playing with would come over the fence into my yard and they'd go around to the gate and enter my yard, without asking, to get their ball. If I followed your reasoning, I would have been within my rights to shoot them, and shoot to kill, and then just say I felt 'threatened.' And there would be no questioning of my assertion that I felt threatened enough to use lethal force. Your reasoning is seriously flawed.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Whether a "threat" needs to be established (legally) wasn't the point there; the poster, as a previous poster also did, defines a trespasser (intruder) as a threat by definition. I'm telling them that is a post hoc fallacy. It makes a leap without a bridge. "he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat" simply does not follow.

Moreover, trying to tell the court he "felt threatened by repeated burglaries" won't work, as "repeated burglaries" are not what he's aiming at in the garage. You can't aim a gun at the notion of past events.

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.

Au contraire, I think what the hairdressers especially say is crucial, as it reveals he was planning and even predicting an ambush. Which once again, is going on the offensive. Just as you can't be on defense if you're on offense, you can't "feel threatened" if you've deliberately set up a killing field. That's not feeling threatened; it's revenge. In this case revenge on somebody who hadn't even been involved in the prior incidents.

And I think you guys are way off suggesting the state has to prove a negative about what's in somebody's head. That's impossible in any circumstance. If that's all the law means, I could randomly blow away the next person I see on the street, on the road, wherever, and all I need to do to walk is say "hey, I felt threatened, can't touch me". Don't think so. If murder were that easy Markus Kaarma would not be charged with intentional homicide right now.

Read the Montana statute Please try to comprehend the parts you may disagree with. The State of Montana DOES NOT CARE whether you agree or not. You and your feelings are irrelevant.

Thanks, I did. Know what I see in that law, in part 1, also in part 2a, also in part 2b (in other words in every part of the law)?

The word "reasonably".

And I don't disagree with that being there. At all.

 

[jc456]

Whether a "threat" needs to be established (legally) wasn't the point there; the poster, as a previous poster also did, defines a trespasser (intruder) as a threat by definition. I'm telling them that is a post hoc fallacy. It makes a leap without a bridge. "he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat" simply does not follow.

Moreover, trying to tell the court he "felt threatened by repeated burglaries" won't work, as "repeated burglaries" are not what he's aiming at in the garage. You can't aim a gun at the notion of past events.



Au contraire, I think what the hairdressers especially say is crucial, as it reveals he was planning and even predicting an ambush. Which once again, is going on the offensive. Just as you can't be on defense if you're on offense, you can't "feel threatened" if you've deliberately set up a killing field. That's not feeling threatened; it's revenge. In this case revenge on somebody who hadn't even been involved in the prior incidents.

And I think you guys are way off suggesting the state has to prove a negative about what's in somebody's head. That's impossible in any circumstance. If that's all the law means, I could randomly blow away the next person I see on the street, on the road, wherever, and all I need to do to walk is say "hey, I felt threatened, can't touch me". Don't think so. If murder were that easy Markus Kaarma would not be charged with intentional homicide right now.

Read the Montana statute Please try to comprehend the parts you may disagree with. The State of Montana DOES NOT CARE whether you agree or not. You and your feelings are irrelevant.

The bottom line is 'reasonable fear' of bodily harm. Though those who are pro-gun extremists may want to believe it, hopefully a reasonable and sane jury will realize there is no reasonable fear of bodily harm here. The 'intruder' was alone in the garage, not in the house, and one would assume the door between the house and garage was locked. The homeowner was out in front of the house with his gun aimed at the intruder in the garage, in position, ready to shoot. If he thought the intruder was going to try to enter the house, he would think it would be through the garage, but he knew that door was locked. He knew the 'intruder' could not enter through the front door because he, the homeowner, was there, stationed and in position to shoot, shoot to kill.

There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house by way of the garage. There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house through the front door. If the jury is sane and bases its decision on reason, Kaarma will go to prison.

Doesn't matter which interpretation of the Castle Doctrine you use, a person doesn't just get to say 'I felt threatened,' not without any questions. If that were so, anyone could kill anyone who comes to the door, is on your lawn, etc. I used to have a house with a six foot plus fence around the back yard. Sometimes a ball the kids next door were playing with would come over the fence into my yard and they'd go around to the gate and enter my yard, without asking, to get their ball. If I followed your reasoning, I would have been within my rights to shoot them, and shoot to kill, and then just say I felt 'threatened.' And there would be no questioning of my assertion that I felt threatened enough to use lethal force. Your reasoning is seriously flawed.

explain 'without any questions'?

It's amazing to me you missed that it wasn't someone coming to the front door and knocking. Nice leap there. Talk about unreasonable, that maam you are.

 

[Esmeralda]

Explain 'without any questions'? As I said, it's the same as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' You need to feel threatened beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just say you felt threatened: there has to be a logical reason to be frightened, and to be frightened of serious bodily harm or death if you are going to use deadly force. So, a jury would question if there was a logical reason to fear he or his family were in physical danger. You can make jokes about him not ringing the front door bell, but that is intellectual dishonesty on your part. The facts are that Dede was in the garage and was not trying to enter the house where people were, so there was no threat of physical harm, no reason to fear it until, if it happened, he tried to enter the home where people were. No one was in fear of being phyiscally assaulted or killed, so no reason to use lethal force.

I am not the one using flawed reasoning.

 

[jc456]

Explain 'without any questions'? As I said, it's the same as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' You need to feel threatened beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just say you felt threatened: there has to be a logical reason to be frightened, and to be frightened of serious bodily harm or death if you are going to use deadly force. So, a jury would question if there was a logical reason to fear he or his family were in physical danger. You can make jokes about him not ringing the front door bell, but that is intellectual dishonesty on your part. The facts are that Dede was in the garage and was not trying to enter the house where people were, so there was no threat of physical harm, no reason to fear it until, if it happened, he tried to enter the home where people were. No one was in fear of being phyiscally assaulted or killed, so no reason to use lethal force.

I am not the one using flawed reasoning.

Show us the language that says that in the doctrine.

 

[Esmeralda]

I already did that.

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.

Any reasonable human being realizes that just 'saying' you feel threatened is not enough for any court. If that were so, we could all just shoot anyone we felt l ike and say 'I felt threatened,' and there would be no questions asked. As much a some people would like to believe that is so, it isn't . Questions will be asked and the question is whether or not the shooter had a real, logical reason to feel threatened. I believe you are being intellectually dishonest in trying to claim that isn't so.

 

[jc456]

I already did that.

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.

Any reasonable human being realizes that just 'saying' you feel threatened is not enough for any court. If that were so, we could all just shoot anyone we felt l ike and say 'I felt threatened,' and there would be no questions asked. As much a some people would like to believe that is so, it isn't . Questions will be asked and the question is whether or not the shooter had a real, logical reason to feel threatened. I believe you are being intellectually dishonest in trying to claim that isn't so.

Nope, the info isn't correct. See in 2009 they changed that. Perhaps look at the adds from 2009.

here a brief:

" In response, state Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula, proposed legislation attempting to repeal parts of the Defense of an Occupied Structure statute that were added during the 2009 Legislature.

The legislation, House Bill 228, was backed by the National Rifle Association and expanded the circumstances under which deadly force can be used in self-defense.

Hill said she doesn’t have a problem with the Second Amendment or even the historic version of the castle doctrine, but takes issue with the “stand your ground” language added in 2009.

“What the castle doctrine has done in this country is it has created a culture of gun violence and vigilante justice,” Hill said. “And it’s created a culture that it’s OK to shoot first and ask questions later.”

What’s missing from the law is common sense, she said.

As it stands, the law allows the use of lethal force by an individual who “reasonably believes” the force will stop an intruder’s unlawful entry into an occupied structure.

Prior to 2009, a person could only use lethal force against an intruder if the assailant acted in a “violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner.”"

BTW, I am a reasonable person and I'm good with the law. Let me ask you a question, if you were walking in a known violent neighborhood, would you walk alone down an alley? Or would you feel that wouldn't be a smart move? Perhaps just walking alone in a known bad neighborhood? Why would that be? Your knowledge of the area? So you're against setting up a question in a thief's head that perhaps if I enter I just may end up dead? That's where I'd like for us to get. That is the reason for the conceal carry law. And that is working.

 

[Ernie S.]

Whether a "threat" needs to be established (legally) wasn't the point there; the poster, as a previous poster also did, defines a trespasser (intruder) as a threat by definition. I'm telling them that is a post hoc fallacy. It makes a leap without a bridge. "he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat" simply does not follow.

Moreover, trying to tell the court he "felt threatened by repeated burglaries" won't work, as "repeated burglaries" are not what he's aiming at in the garage. You can't aim a gun at the notion of past events.



Au contraire, I think what the hairdressers especially say is crucial, as it reveals he was planning and even predicting an ambush. Which once again, is going on the offensive. Just as you can't be on defense if you're on offense, you can't "feel threatened" if you've deliberately set up a killing field. That's not feeling threatened; it's revenge. In this case revenge on somebody who hadn't even been involved in the prior incidents.

And I think you guys are way off suggesting the state has to prove a negative about what's in somebody's head. That's impossible in any circumstance. If that's all the law means, I could randomly blow away the next person I see on the street, on the road, wherever, and all I need to do to walk is say "hey, I felt threatened, can't touch me". Don't think so. If murder were that easy Markus Kaarma would not be charged with intentional homicide right now.

Read the Montana statute Please try to comprehend the parts you may disagree with. The State of Montana DOES NOT CARE whether you agree or not. You and your feelings are irrelevant.

The bottom line is 'reasonable fear' of bodily harm. Though those who are pro-gun extremists may want to believe it, hopefully a reasonable and sane jury will realize there is no reasonable fear of bodily harm here. The 'intruder' was alone in the garage, not in the house, and one would assume the door between the house and garage was locked. The homeowner was out in front of the house with his gun aimed at the intruder in the garage, in position, ready to shoot. If he thought the intruder was going to try to enter the house, he would think it would be through the garage, but he knew that door was locked. He knew the 'intruder' could not enter through the front door because he, the homeowner, was there, stationed and in position to shoot, shoot to kill.

There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house by way of the garage. There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house through the front door. If the jury is sane and bases its decision on reason, Kaarma will go to prison.

Doesn't matter which interpretation of the Castle Doctrine you use, a person doesn't just get to say 'I felt threatened,' not without any questions. If that were so, anyone could kill anyone who comes to the door, is on your lawn, etc. I used to have a house with a six foot plus fence around the back yard. Sometimes a ball the kids next door were playing with would come over the fence into my yard and they'd go around to the gate and enter my yard, without asking, to get their ball. If I followed your reasoning, I would have been within my rights to shoot them, and shoot to kill, and then just say I felt 'threatened.' And there would be no questioning of my assertion that I felt threatened enough to use lethal force. Your reasoning is seriously flawed.

I get that you don't believe that his fear was reasonable. I get that you wanted George Zimmerman to be executed for defending himself from a thug as well. The point is, your feelings are irrelevant. What IS relevant are Mr. Kaarma's feelings and whether or not the state can prove to 12 people those feelings were unfounded.

In Montana??? Really?

You also assume that the door between the garage and house was locked. Do you have any proof, or are you again assuming what is and is not reasonable to someone else?

About your neighborhood kids.... Really?
A ball rolls into my yard and I would think it reasonable to shoot and kill?

You really are quite pathetic, aren't you?
#1 a ball game in the afternoon is not suspicious activity.
#2 accidentally throwing or batting a baseball over a fence is not a felony.
#3 it is stupid to assume children who are obviously retrieving a baseball are about to assault you.

Were Dede and his friend playing baseball in the middle of the afternoon?
Did they have a legitimate reason to be in Kaarma's yard?
Was Dede's baseball sitting in a table in Mr Karma's garage, or Pflager's purse?
Is it totally unreasonable that a person, while in the commission of one crime, may commit another crime?

Your use of the baseball analogy shows your opinion on what is, and is not reasonable to be seriously flawed, but no matter. You will not be on the jury. 12 sane people from Montana will be.

 

[Ernie S.]

Whether a "threat" needs to be established (legally) wasn't the point there; the poster, as a previous poster also did, defines a trespasser (intruder) as a threat by definition. I'm telling them that is a post hoc fallacy. It makes a leap without a bridge. "he was not invited into the garage, therefore he is unwelcomed and a threat" simply does not follow.

Moreover, trying to tell the court he "felt threatened by repeated burglaries" won't work, as "repeated burglaries" are not what he's aiming at in the garage. You can't aim a gun at the notion of past events.



Au contraire, I think what the hairdressers especially say is crucial, as it reveals he was planning and even predicting an ambush. Which once again, is going on the offensive. Just as you can't be on defense if you're on offense, you can't "feel threatened" if you've deliberately set up a killing field. That's not feeling threatened; it's revenge. In this case revenge on somebody who hadn't even been involved in the prior incidents.

And I think you guys are way off suggesting the state has to prove a negative about what's in somebody's head. That's impossible in any circumstance. If that's all the law means, I could randomly blow away the next person I see on the street, on the road, wherever, and all I need to do to walk is say "hey, I felt threatened, can't touch me". Don't think so. If murder were that easy Markus Kaarma would not be charged with intentional homicide right now.

Read the Montana statute Please try to comprehend the parts you may disagree with. The State of Montana DOES NOT CARE whether you agree or not. You and your feelings are irrelevant.

Thanks, I did. Know what I see in that law, in part 1, also in part 2a, also in part 2b (in other words in every part of the law)?

The word "reasonably".

And I don't disagree with that being there. At all.

Thankfully, YOU don't get to decide what Kaarma was feeling that night.

 

[Ernie S.]

Explain 'without any questions'? As I said, it's the same as 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' You need to feel threatened beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just say you felt threatened: there has to be a logical reason to be frightened, and to be frightened of serious bodily harm or death if you are going to use deadly force. So, a jury would question if there was a logical reason to fear he or his family were in physical danger. You can make jokes about him not ringing the front door bell, but that is intellectual dishonesty on your part. The facts are that Dede was in the garage and was not trying to enter the house where people were, so there was no threat of physical harm, no reason to fear it until, if it happened, he tried to enter the home where people were. No one was in fear of being phyiscally assaulted or killed, so no reason to use lethal force.

I am not the one using flawed reasoning.

You don't understand the subtle error in that statement, Esmerelda.
All Kaarma has to do is say he was frightened that Dede would enter his home and assault his family. The state has to prove to 12 people that is was unreasonable for him to assume that a person in the act of committing one felony might commit another.
Again, what you and Pogo see as "reasonable" doesn't matter one iota.

 

[Esmeralda]

Read the Montana statute Please try to comprehend the parts you may disagree with. The State of Montana DOES NOT CARE whether you agree or not. You and your feelings are irrelevant.

The bottom line is 'reasonable fear' of bodily harm. Though those who are pro-gun extremists may want to believe it, hopefully a reasonable and sane jury will realize there is no reasonable fear of bodily harm here. The 'intruder' was alone in the garage, not in the house, and one would assume the door between the house and garage was locked. The homeowner was out in front of the house with his gun aimed at the intruder in the garage, in position, ready to shoot. If he thought the intruder was going to try to enter the house, he would think it would be through the garage, but he knew that door was locked. He knew the 'intruder' could not enter through the front door because he, the homeowner, was there, stationed and in position to shoot, shoot to kill.

There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house by way of the garage. There was no threat of the 'intruder' coming into the house through the front door. If the jury is sane and bases its decision on reason, Kaarma will go to prison.

Doesn't matter which interpretation of the Castle Doctrine you use, a person doesn't just get to say 'I felt threatened,' not without any questions. If that were so, anyone could kill anyone who comes to the door, is on your lawn, etc. I used to have a house with a six foot plus fence around the back yard. Sometimes a ball the kids next door were playing with would come over the fence into my yard and they'd go around to the gate and enter my yard, without asking, to get their ball. If I followed your reasoning, I would have been within my rights to shoot them, and shoot to kill, and then just say I felt 'threatened.' And there would be no questioning of my assertion that I felt threatened enough to use lethal force. Your reasoning is seriously flawed.

I get that you don't believe that his fear was reasonable. I get that you wanted George Zimmerman to be executed for defending himself from a thug as well. The point is, your feelings are irrelevant. What IS relevant are Mr. Kaarma's feelings and whether or not the state can prove to 12 people those feelings were unfounded.

In Montana??? Really?

You also assume that the door between the garage and house was locked. Do you have any proof, or are you again assuming what is and is not reasonable to someone else?

About your neighborhood kids.... Really?
A ball rolls into my yard and I would think it reasonable to shoot and kill?

You really are quite pathetic, aren't you?
#1 a ball game in the afternoon is not suspicious activity.
#2 accidentally throwing or batting a baseball over a fence is not a felony.
#3 it is stupid to assume children who are obviously retrieving a baseball are about to assault you.

Were Dede and his friend playing baseball in the middle of the afternoon?
Did they have a legitimate reason to be in Kaarma's yard?
Was Dede's baseball sitting in a table in Mr Karma's garage, or Pflager's purse?
Is it totally unreasonable that a person, while in the commission of one crime, may commit another crime?

Your use of the baseball analogy shows your opinion on what is, and is not reasonable to be seriously flawed, but no matter. You will not be on the jury. 12 reasonable people from Montana will be.

As far as the example of neighborhood kids retrieveing ball, that is exactly my point: it would not be reasonable to assume they were a threat to me physically. They may very well, however, take things from my yard if they felt like it. On more than one occasion when I wasn't home, they left the gate open when they left and my dog got out. I found her wandering the streets when I came home from work. So, my property was threatened; in fact, the most valuable propety I had. However, the idea the kids were a physical threat to me would not be reasonable.

And neither is the situation with Kaarma. There was nothing to lead him to reasonably believe that Dede was a physical threat to him.

If the door between the garage and the house was not locked, why would Kaarma ignore that possible entry to the house and position himself out at the front of the house? You are not thinking this through.

Again, the law requires a 'reasonable' fear of bodily harm. There was no reasonable fear of bodily harm. Add to that we know Kaarma was a hothead and we know he bragged about wanting to kill someone. He'll go to prison.

 

[Ernie S.]

Your point is flawed.
No, he won't go to prison.

Your assessment doesn't matter one bit to a Montana jury.

 

[Meathead]

Never seen a Turk play baseball.

 

[jc456]

Your point is flawed.
No, he won't go to prison.

Your assessment doesn't matter one bit to a Montana jury.

not flawed, stupid. She is showing what unreasonable really is. LOL.

And if she wants to keep the dogs in her yard, but a lock on the gate, Duh!!!!

 

[Esmeralda]

Your point is flawed.
No, he won't go to prison.

Your assessment doesn't matter one bit to a Montana jury.

not flawed, stupid. She is showing what unreasonable really is. LOL.

And if she wants to keep the dogs in her yard, but a lock on the gate, Duh!!!!

There is no flaw in my reasoning.

There was only one dog, a very well behaved one, and I lived in a very nice neighborhood. After the first time they left the gate open, I talked to their father. After the second I put a lock on the gate. After that, they just climbed over the fence. I talked to the father again and put a stop to it all: they had to ask me to enter my yard.

These were new neighbors. I had lived there over a year before they came and no one entered my yard or let the dog out. It was one of the nicest neighborhoods in Seattle. These people just needed to use more control over their children.

 

[jc456]

Your point is flawed.
No, he won't go to prison.

Your assessment doesn't matter one bit to a Montana jury.

not flawed, stupid. She is showing what unreasonable really is. LOL.

And if she wants to keep the dogs in her yard, but a lock on the gate, Duh!!!!

There is no flaw in my reasoning.

There was only one dog, a very well behaved one, and I lived in a very nice neighborhood. After the first time they left the gate open, I talked to their father. After the second I put a lock on the gate. After that, they just climbed over the fence. I talked to the father again and put a stop to it all: they had to ask me to enter my yard.

These were new neighbors. I had lived there over a year before they came and no one entered my yard or let the dog out. It was one of the nicest neighborhoods in Seattle. These people just needed to use more control over their children.

really? You're using that as a comparison? Really? really? It is flawed and stupid. Glad the dog is ok.