Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Esmeralda]

You are incapable of using logical reasoning.

 

[jc456]

You are incapable of using logical reasoning.

hahahahahahaahahahaahahahaha...Now that's funny!

 

[Pogo]

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.

The neighborhood in the incident isn't known for violence. That's made clear in the articles by quotes from the locals.

You can't assume a threat on the basis of nothing. You need some reason to base that expectation on. The fact that somebody's in your space doesn't automatically mean they intend harm or even have the capability for it. You can't just go "what if he's armed" out of your imagination, any more than you can go "what if he's Chinese" or "what if he's carrying malaria".

If somebody's burgling somebody else's space, they're trying to do it without being caught or seen. If an evildoer's intent actually IS to do harm to the family, he's not going to be fumbling around in the garage; he's going to burst in the front door or crash through a window.

Kaarma by his own admission could see absolutely nothing in the garage until the shooting was over and the lights went on. Therefore he had no clue of any "threat".


Seven years ago I was asked by a cousin to evict a tenant that had stopped paying rent; they were way behind and apparently doing a lot of meth, had trashed the place, had some rough dogs, etc. I got them out and started cleaning the place up and moving things in and out... one day the sun was setting and I decided to just spend the night even though there was no electricity, water etc. Soon as I got settled down I hear BAM BAM BAM on the front door. My first gut reaction was that the meth freaks were coming back to cause trouble. When I opened the door I saw no one there.
--- until I looked down at a small girl in a witch costume who said, "Trick or treat!". I had forgotten it was Hallowe'en.

But for a moment I was in fear for my safety. What if I had answered the door with buckshot and killed that little girl? Think the law would let me walk?

Again, the inkling of an idea in the brain is an entirely different thing from actual evidence of something -- something real from one of the five senses, rather than something grasped out of ethereal imagination.

This is all kind of moot as regards Kaarma anyway; his defense stance is undermined by the fact that he predicted, a week before, that he was going to do exactly this, and even bragged that people would be reading about it. Allow me to rephrase that -- his defense is not so much "undermined" as "has its kneecaps broken".

 

[Pogo]

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.

This is a message board Ernie. Nobody's feelings are "irrelevant". If that were the case there would be no reason for any of us to post here.

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?

Far as I know from the documents available it was never specified that the door to the garage from the house was locked or unlocked. But we do know from Pflager's statements that the outside garage door was left wide open intentionally. From that we can presume it's likely they kept that house/garage door locked -- because otherwise you have in effect your house wide open to the outside world -- which does not square with Kaarma's claims of feeling beleagured by burglary. And then we have the fact that he went out the front door to shoot into the garage -- meaning if the intruder was not hit, his means of escape could only be into the house, meaning he'd be driving the guy he claimed to see as a threat into his own house. That further underscores the strong likelihood that the garage/house door would have certainly been locked.

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.

She's using the same logic as the castle doctrine. If such a law actually means that all the shooter needs is to claim he/she "felt threatened", then we live in anarchy. Not total anarchy, but a legal system where everybody who wants one gets a "get out of murder free" card.

And by the way I sense you consistently making some assumptions about the character of Montanans. I've been blessed to spend time there and I can assure you -- it ain't Alabama.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Trespassing is not a felony.

Start there.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Which was heard by two witnesses. Plus the foaming-at-the-mouth road rage incidents reported by three different people.

Oh he said he'd be happy to shoot a cop too. That oughta go over well.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

I'm lost as to why you keep trying to make this point.

This is a message board, for discussing things. Nobody has suggested we're a Missoula jury.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

This is a message board Ernie. Nobody's feelings are "irrelevant". If that were the case there would be no reason for any of us to post here.

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?

Far as I know from the documents available it was never specified that the door to the garage from the house was locked or unlocked. But we do know from Pflager's statements that the outside garage door was left wide open intentionally. From that we can presume it's likely they kept that house/garage door locked -- because otherwise you have in effect your house wide open to the outside world -- which does not square with Kaarma's claims of feeling beleagured by burglary. And then we have the fact that he went out the front door to shoot into the garage -- meaning if the intruder was not hit, his means of escape could only be into the house, meaning he'd be driving the guy he claimed to see as a threat into his own house. That further underscores the strong likelihood that the garage/house door would have certainly been locked.

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.

She's using the same logic as the castle doctrine. If such a law actually means that all the shooter needs is to claim he/she "felt threatened", then we live in anarchy. Not total anarchy, but a legal system where everybody who wants one gets a "get out of murder free" card.

And by the way I sense you consistently making some assumptions about the character of Montanans. I've been blessed to spend time there and I can assure you -- it ain't Alabama.

Yes, one of my long time relationships (13 years) was with a man from Montana. Though he was in some ways conservative, he was in no way someone who would think it's okay to blow away an unarmed teenager because there was someone wandering around your garage at night, which you had left open to the street. He was not at all into guns and wouldn't have thought it was okay to shoot blindly into a dark garage at anyone who happened to be there.

It's really, really important to question why Kaarma did not stay in his home, make sure the doors were locked, have his gun at the ready in case someone tried to enter the house, and CALL THE POLICE. Why didn't he do that and just dial 911? Why go out and shoot to kill, shoot blindly at what he couldn't even see? Just because they are from Montana, the jury will not be full of extremist gun nutters.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

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

I'm lost as to why you keep trying to make this point.

This is a message board, for discussing things. Nobody has suggested we're a Missoula jury.

Ernie is basing his opinion of people in Montana on a stereotype, just like these conservatives say everyone from Seattle is some kind of feather brained hippie. Ernie may have never even met someone from Montana, much less known any of them quite well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

This is a message board Ernie. Nobody's feelings are "irrelevant". If that were the case there would be no reason for any of us to post here.



Far as I know from the documents available it was never specified that the door to the garage from the house was locked or unlocked. But we do know from Pflager's statements that the outside garage door was left wide open intentionally. From that we can presume it's likely they kept that house/garage door locked -- because otherwise you have in effect your house wide open to the outside world -- which does not square with Kaarma's claims of feeling beleagured by burglary. And then we have the fact that he went out the front door to shoot into the garage -- meaning if the intruder was not hit, his means of escape could only be into the house, meaning he'd be driving the guy he claimed to see as a threat into his own house. That further underscores the strong likelihood that the garage/house door would have certainly been locked.

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.

She's using the same logic as the castle doctrine. If such a law actually means that all the shooter needs is to claim he/she "felt threatened", then we live in anarchy. Not total anarchy, but a legal system where everybody who wants one gets a "get out of murder free" card.

And by the way I sense you consistently making some assumptions about the character of Montanans. I've been blessed to spend time there and I can assure you -- it ain't Alabama.

Yes, one of my long time relationships (13 years) was with a man from Montana. Though he was in some ways conservative, he was in no way someone who would think it's okay to blow away an unarmed teenager because there was someone wandering around your garage at night, which you had left open to the street. He was not at all into guns and wouldn't have thought it was okay to shoot blindly into a dark garage at anyone who happened to be there.

It's really, really important to question why Kaarma did not stay in his home, make sure the doors were locked, have his gun at the ready in case someone tried to enter the house, and CALL THE POLICE. Why didn't he do that and just dial 911? Why go out and shoot to kill, shoot blindly at what he couldn't even see? Just because they are from Montana, the jury will not be full of extremist gun nutters.

Just listen to all that hype and spin! Unarmed or not, the kid unlawfully entered his premises, whether the purse was put there intentionally is of no consequence. You look to completely absolve the child of doing anything wrong, when it has been established by his accomplice that he had every intent of committing a burglary. Sure, Kaarma overreacted, but why blame him? He had been the victim of a prior burglary. How can you not expect him to react in such a way?

You extol this boy as some sort of unarmed, "minding his own business" sort of kid, then when he does something stupid and gets himself killed, you go into blind hysterics, extolling him as the "innocent victim" that a "gun nutter" killed. I am frankly quite sick of hearing this routine. I get tired of liberals politicizing death, I get sick of people feigning outrage over tragedies such as this. I mean, was this not the same stunt you liberals pulled with Trayvon Martin? Have you no shame at all, whatsoever?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

I'm lost as to why you keep trying to make this point.

This is a message board, for discussing things. Nobody has suggested we're a Missoula jury.

Ernie is basing his opinion of people in Montana on a stereotype, just like these conservatives say everyone from Seattle is some kind of feather brained hippie. Ernie may have never even met someone from Montana, much less known any of them quite well.

Well then, can I simply say that your utterance of "gun nutters" is quite stereotypical itself? One guy gets shot and killed "gun nutter." When someone shoots up a school, "gun nutter." Really now? Just what can you base that on? Are all those folks committing murder in Chicago right now "gun nutters"?

 

[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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Your feelings are irrelevant too.

I never wanted Zimmerman to be executed. I don't believe in capital punishment for one thing; however, I did not think he needed to be executed but to spend substantial time in prison. Don't put words in my mouth.

Not only are you assuming things about me, but you are making sweeping generalizations about people from Montana. They are not all as pro-gun as you think they are, especially not beyond reason, as you seem to be. They are not going to just let this guy go free without an questions because they are from Montana. You are stereotyping people from Montana.

You apparently completely misunderstand the analogy about kids entering my yard. Hmmmmm... All of these things speak to your reasoning.

 

[Kondor3]

I'm lost as to why you keep trying to make this point.

This is a message board, for discussing things. Nobody has suggested we're a Missoula jury.

Ernie is basing his opinion of people in Montana on a stereotype, just like these conservatives say everyone from Seattle is some kind of feather brained hippie. Ernie may have never even met someone from Montana, much less known any of them quite well.

Well then, can I simply say that your utterance of "gun nutters" is quite stereotypical itself? One guy gets shot and killed "gun nutter." When someone shoots up a school, "gun nutter." Really now? Just what can you base that on? Are all those folks committing murder in Chicago right now "gun nutters"?

Nothing wrong with some modest reliance upon stereotyping, so long as (1) it's labeled as such, and (2) it's not pitched as a rock-solid guarantee of a jury going one way or another.

Most stereotypes have at least some basis in fact, and much of it has to do with unscientific but common-sense perception of a given state of affairs.

For example, it's a stereotype, and a commonly-held one, that folks living in our cities tend to vote Democratic, and are Liberal in their thinking, while, the further away form the big cities that one gets - into the suburbs and towns and rural areas - the more likely it is that folks will vote Republican, and are more Conservative in their thinking.

This is also true, as one moves further away from the Eastern seaboard and the Rust Belt of the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast - generally speaking, as a stereotype - with a few exceptions here-and-there to prove the rule.

One need look no further than the average Red-State / Blue-State map to get a sense for the basic truth of such stereotypes; an imperfect gauge, to be sure, but reliable enough, on the macro level, for many purposes, including, I believe, discussions about Gun Control.

Montana is about as Red State (Republican-Conservative) as they come.

Is it possible that Kaarma will get a jury comprised of folks who are NOT also Gun Rights fans and champions and advocates?

Sure... anything is possible... however...

Based upon the largely valid steretotyping of Mantana as a Red State and as one which prizes its Second Amendment -based Right to Bear Arms?

Smart Vegas Money will quite probably land on the side of that jury being comprised mostly of Gun Rights folk, regardless of whether Gun Grabbers delude themselves to the contrary.

No guarantee, of course, that Kaarma will get a jury comprised of Gun Rights -sympathetic folk; just a reasonable and likely projection, based upon a fact-based stereotype.

Time will tell us whether this common-sense projection based upon stereotyping had merit.

That's all our colleague Ernie is saying, and I think he's probably right on this one.

IMHO.

 

[Meathead]

What's the hullabaloo? Punks die everyday, especially stupid punks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ernie is basing his opinion of people in Montana on a stereotype, just like these conservatives say everyone from Seattle is some kind of feather brained hippie. Ernie may have never even met someone from Montana, much less known any of them quite well.

Well then, can I simply say that your utterance of "gun nutters" is quite stereotypical itself? One guy gets shot and killed "gun nutter." When someone shoots up a school, "gun nutter." Really now? Just what can you base that on? Are all those folks committing murder in Chicago right now "gun nutters"?

Nothing wrong with some modest reliance upon stereotyping, so long as (1) it's labeled as such, and (2) it's not pitched as a rock-solid guarantee of a jury going one way or another.

Most stereotypes have at least some basis in fact, and much of it has to do with unscientific but common-sense perception of a given state of affairs.

For example, it's a stereotype, and a commonly-held one, that folks living in our cities tend to vote Democratic, and are Liberal in their thinking, while, the further away form the big cities that one gets - into the suburbs and towns and rural areas - the more likely it is that folks will vote Republican, and are more Conservative in their thinking.

This is also true, as one moves further away from the Eastern seaboard and the Rust Belt of the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast - generally speaking, as a stereotype - with a few exceptions here-and-there to prove the rule.

One need look no further than the average Red-State / Blue-State map to get a sense for the basic truth of such stereotypes; an imperfect gauge, to be sure, but reliable enough, on the macro level, for many purposes, including, I believe, discussions about Gun Control.

Montana is about as Red State (Republican-Conservative) as they come.

Is it possible that Kaarma will get a jury comprised of folks who are NOT also Gun Rights fans and champions and advocates?

Sure... anything is possible... however...

Based upon the largely valid steretotyping of Mantana as a Red State and as one which prizes its Second Amendment -based Right to Bear Arms?

Smart Vegas Money will quite probably land on the side of that jury being comprised mostly of Gun Rights folk, regardless of whether Gun Grabbers delude themselves to the contrary.

No guarantee, of course, that Kaarma will get a jury comprised of Gun Rights -sympathetic folk; just a reasonable and likely projection, based upon a fact-based stereotype.

Time will tell us whether this common-sense projection based upon stereotyping had merit.

That's all our colleague Ernie is saying, and I think he's probably right on this one.

IMHO.

According to your own "macro stereotyping" 91% of the nation are "gun grabbers".

24. Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

___________Tot____Rep____Dem___Ind

Support_____91%___88%____96%___90%
Oppose_______8____10_______4______9

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1SKPM_enUS437&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=90%25%20of%20the%20nation%20support%20background%20checks

 

[JimBowie1958]

Frankly, I am glad we have filtered out those defective genes from the human gene pool.

That moron was too stupid to be allowed to breed. The shooter did humanity a big favor and we need more like him.

 

[Kondor3]

...According to your own "macro stereotyping" 91% of the nation are "gun grabbers". ...

Only if you perceive that folks hoping to attain some sane and reasonable vetting and licensing parameters are 'gun-grabbers'.

I, for example, support such measures, and I am definitely NOT a Gun-Grabber.

Methinks you need to lock-down more accurate definitions before you try to assault the defense of a common-sense stereotype with something whose definition is far more stressed and strained..

Heck... the latest Pew Research Center study in 2013 tells us that 33% of the voting public own guns.

Doesn't jive, somehow, with your re-direction attempting to portray 91% of the nation as 'Gun-Grabbers', eh?

I'm sure that both of us could stand a bit more research before we try to take this one much further, but, given that you're proceeding from a baseline (91%, including the majority of folks who simply favor some modest changes in vetting/licensing), I'd venture a guess that you have further to travel in your research and tweaking than I do, in this instance.

 

[Pogo]

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.

This is a message board Ernie. Nobody's feelings are "irrelevant". If that were the case there would be no reason for any of us to post here.



Far as I know from the documents available it was never specified that the door to the garage from the house was locked or unlocked. But we do know from Pflager's statements that the outside garage door was left wide open intentionally. From that we can presume it's likely they kept that house/garage door locked -- because otherwise you have in effect your house wide open to the outside world -- which does not square with Kaarma's claims of feeling beleagured by burglary. And then we have the fact that he went out the front door to shoot into the garage -- meaning if the intruder was not hit, his means of escape could only be into the house, meaning he'd be driving the guy he claimed to see as a threat into his own house. That further underscores the strong likelihood that the garage/house door would have certainly been locked.

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.

She's using the same logic as the castle doctrine. If such a law actually means that all the shooter needs is to claim he/she "felt threatened", then we live in anarchy. Not total anarchy, but a legal system where everybody who wants one gets a "get out of murder free" card.

And by the way I sense you consistently making some assumptions about the character of Montanans. I've been blessed to spend time there and I can assure you -- it ain't Alabama.

Yes, one of my long time relationships (13 years) was with a man from Montana. Though he was in some ways conservative, he was in no way someone who would think it's okay to blow away an unarmed teenager because there was someone wandering around your garage at night, which you had left open to the street. He was not at all into guns and wouldn't have thought it was okay to shoot blindly into a dark garage at anyone who happened to be there.

It's really, really important to question why Kaarma did not stay in his home, make sure the doors were locked, have his gun at the ready in case someone tried to enter the house, and CALL THE POLICE. Why didn't he do that and just dial 911? Why go out and shoot to kill, shoot blindly at what he couldn't even see? Just because they are from Montana, the jury will not be full of extremist gun nutters.

And FWIW the couple moved there from Washington (state), so they're not themselves Montanans anyway. They didn't specify from where in Washington they moved but it was IIRC less than a year ago.

 

[Pogo]

This is a message board Ernie. Nobody's feelings are "irrelevant". If that were the case there would be no reason for any of us to post here.



Far as I know from the documents available it was never specified that the door to the garage from the house was locked or unlocked. But we do know from Pflager's statements that the outside garage door was left wide open intentionally. From that we can presume it's likely they kept that house/garage door locked -- because otherwise you have in effect your house wide open to the outside world -- which does not square with Kaarma's claims of feeling beleagured by burglary. And then we have the fact that he went out the front door to shoot into the garage -- meaning if the intruder was not hit, his means of escape could only be into the house, meaning he'd be driving the guy he claimed to see as a threat into his own house. That further underscores the strong likelihood that the garage/house door would have certainly been locked.



She's using the same logic as the castle doctrine. If such a law actually means that all the shooter needs is to claim he/she "felt threatened", then we live in anarchy. Not total anarchy, but a legal system where everybody who wants one gets a "get out of murder free" card.

And by the way I sense you consistently making some assumptions about the character of Montanans. I've been blessed to spend time there and I can assure you -- it ain't Alabama.

Yes, one of my long time relationships (13 years) was with a man from Montana. Though he was in some ways conservative, he was in no way someone who would think it's okay to blow away an unarmed teenager because there was someone wandering around your garage at night, which you had left open to the street. He was not at all into guns and wouldn't have thought it was okay to shoot blindly into a dark garage at anyone who happened to be there.

It's really, really important to question why Kaarma did not stay in his home, make sure the doors were locked, have his gun at the ready in case someone tried to enter the house, and CALL THE POLICE. Why didn't he do that and just dial 911? Why go out and shoot to kill, shoot blindly at what he couldn't even see? Just because they are from Montana, the jury will not be full of extremist gun nutters.

Just listen to all that hype and spin! Unarmed or not, the kid unlawfully entered his premises, whether the purse was put there intentionally is of no consequence. You look to completely absolve the child of doing anything wrong, when it has been established by his accomplice that he had every intent of committing a burglary. Sure, Kaarma overreacted, but why blame him? He had been the victim of a prior burglary. How can you not expect him to react in such a way?

You extol this boy as some sort of unarmed, "minding his own business" sort of kid, then when he does something stupid and gets himself killed, you go into blind hysterics, extolling him as the "innocent victim" that a "gun nutter" killed. I am frankly quite sick of hearing this routine. I get tired of liberals politicizing death, I get sick of people feigning outrage over tragedies such as this. I mean, was this not the same stunt you liberals pulled with Trayvon Martin? Have you no shame at all, whatsoever?

Uhhh... refresh my memory: where has anybody, from any side, here or in the outside world, "look(ed) to completely absolve the child of doing anything wrong"? Completely fallacious. A strawman.

And yet in the next sentence you hit the nail on the head of the actual issue:

Sure, Kaarma overreacted

Can't have it both ways TK. Either the vigilante death sentence was reasonable or it was not. Pick one.

 

[Pogo]

I'm lost as to why you keep trying to make this point.

This is a message board, for discussing things. Nobody has suggested we're a Missoula jury.

Ernie is basing his opinion of people in Montana on a stereotype, just like these conservatives say everyone from Seattle is some kind of feather brained hippie. Ernie may have never even met someone from Montana, much less known any of them quite well.

Well then, can I simply say that your utterance of "gun nutters" is quite stereotypical itself? One guy gets shot and killed "gun nutter." When someone shoots up a school, "gun nutter." Really now? Just what can you base that on? Are all those folks committing murder in Chicago right now "gun nutters"?

To the last question I'd say definitely. Anyone who goes through life seeking what they want at the barrel of a gun would be arguably a "gun nutter".

A hunter out looking for a deer to bag isn't a gun nutter; a cop on duty isn't a gun nutter. A guy who sets a trap and brags he's going to "shoot some kid" and then fires a shotgun into the dark... an asshole who marches into an Amish school and slaughters little girls... a racist who shoots up a Sikh gathering because he thinks they're the same thing as Muslims... yup, they all qualify. It's the difference between "responsible" and "irresponsible".

You yourself just got done saying he "overreacted". And you were right.