Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Esmeralda]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmsT-l5Ii8Y]Twelve Minutes on Elm Street - YouTube[/ame]

Similar situation, and the homeowner got life in prison.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You've tried to float this turd like eight times now. An army of one. This is not an issue of gun rights, and you can't make it into one. Nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma, or anyone else, has the right to own and use a gun. So that's the end of that fantasy, sorry. As already painstakingly pointed out multiple times, this is about the responsible use of that firearm. Guns don't shoot themselves; they need a human to make the wrong decision for them.

Similarly, nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma (or anyone else) has the right to defend his home. The entire question you keep desperately trying to morph is whether that is what he was doing.

Sorry, told you before, that kind of deflection bullshit is not gonna fly here.

As for the concept of Montanans, culturally, and the contrast with Alabama (again, with the caveat of using stereotypes) --

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?

Montanans, as a rural spead-out state that deals with way more wildlife (and livestock, and ranches) than Alabama, do own a lot of guns proportionate to their population; the issue is they're not "nuts" about them. They have, at the risk of delving deeper into stereotype, more diversity of thought than Alabama, which is why they are not all that "red", and since this case is about the actions of a gun user and not his rights, are more likely than an outsider like Ernie might assume to consider those actions in their context including the human cost -- which is the whole crux of the matter here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Then why were you writing Dede's eulogy earlier? I mean you were practically defending him! You were trying to redefine statutes to make it appear he was only trespassing, not burglarizing Kaarma's home. If I recall it was a conversation you had with SkullPilot when he referred to Dede as a 'piece of shit.'

And how can you support your claim that Kaarma was a "vigilante"? Let's put it this way, if some guy with a gun saved your life from another gun wielding maniac, would you refer to him as a "vigilante"?

Your arguments are tainted with bias, Pogo, and I'm calling you on it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You ignore the evidence once again. Regardless of the fact that there was a trap, the kid had every intent of burglarizing the home. And those examples you gave are how it should be, but not how you should define everyone who owns a gun.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Then why were you writing Dede's eulogy earlier? I mean you were practically defending him! You were trying to redefine statutes to make it appear he was only trespassing, not burglarizing Kaarma's home. If I recall it was a conversation you had with SkullPilot when he referred to Dede as a 'piece of shit.'

And how can you support your claim that Kaarma was a "vigilante"? Let's put it this way, is some guy with a gun saved your life from another gun wielding maniac, would you refer to him as a "vigilante"?

Your arguments are tainted with bias, Pogo, and I'm calling you on it.

Nobody "saved" anybody's life here. Your analogy fails. Let's go to "vigilante":

>> vig·i·lan·te
ˌvijəˈlantē/
noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate. <<​

Not only is this what Kaarma did, it's what he predicted that he would do and gave as his reasoning, even noting that (inadequacy) in the police report. What else do you think he could have meant? Hell, he even claimed to be looking forward to shooting a cop. Which is a strange conclusion for a guy who claims the police aren't doing enough, but we are talking about a nutter.

First question stands unmolested -- where has anyone anywhere "look(ed) to completely absolve the child of doing anything wrong"? Answer: nowhere. Does not exist. Ergo, strawman.

Yes I did point out Skull Pilot's effort to dehumanize the victim, and I'm about to point out the whole pattern thereof, thanks to Slowie's return and contribution thereto. Next post.

 

[Pogo]

From the previous point about "completely absolving the child of doing anything wrong" and stretching that strawman to its opposite: here's the ongoing attempt to make the dead victim into a demon. It's interesting psychology:

The kid was German...more than likely full of hate and bloodlust. The homeowmer orobably did the world a favor...this kid had the potential of b3ing the next Hitler.

If the German kid didn't try to march into the guys residence like it was Poland then he would not have gotten shot. Wonder if the guy used a WWII vintage M-1 garand?

I hope the exchange student was a gay communist. that would be like an added bonus.

This one even tries to deflect the shooter so far that he actually blames an Act of Nature:

Look like that exchange student was Book Smart and Street Stupid... all books and no brains.

Nature has de-selected him.

(repeated multiple times)

Nothing to see here, just Darwin cleaning out the gene pool of retards.

Stupid shit teenage punk died; good riddance.

SPESHULL IRONY MENTION:

If the 'hairdresser' is telling the truth, then, it would appear that the shooter did, indeed, bait a trap, and might very well deserve to be prosecuted for wrongful death of some kind.

IF...

That having been said...

For now, the benefit-of-the-doubt goes to the homeowner, not the burglar...

Innocent until proven guilty...

And assuming that the shooter was legally entitled to keep and use that weapon on his own property...

Then all the gun-control laws in the world (short of gen-seizure) would NOT have prevented this death...

You can legislate what happens to someone, when they violate the law, but...

You cannot legislate whether or not they decide to abide by the law...

(this was at least the fourth time Kondor tried to morph the thread into a topic on gun control laws. But ya gotta love the irony of "innocent until proven guilty". Note also the subtle swipe at the hairdresser, all dressed up in bold and quotes as if hairdresser is not to be taken seriously, because they happened inconveniently enough to report what Markus Kaarma predicted a week before the event. And yes, "they"-- there were two witnesses to his comments; ain't that inconvenient.)

The shooter is going to get off scot-free and the idiot student will be forgotten soon enough.

And just today:

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You ignore the evidence once again. Regardless of the fact that there was a trap, the kid had every intent of burglarizing the home. And those examples you gave are how it should be, but not how you should define everyone who owns a gun.

Did Target have a special on strawmen today? I missed it.

Nobody's defined "everyone who owns a gun" in any particular way. Nice try, no exploding cigar.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

You've tried to float this turd like eight times now. An army of one. This is not an issue of gun rights, and you can't make it into one. Nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma, or anyone else, has the right to own and use a gun. So that's the end of that fantasy, sorry. As already painstakingly pointed out multiple times, this is about the responsible use of that firearm. Guns don't shoot themselves; they need a human to make the wrong decision for them.

Similarly, nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma (or anyone else) has the right to defend his home. The entire question you keep desperately trying to morph is whether that is what he was doing.

Sorry, told you before, that kind of deflection bullshit is not gonna fly here...

Newsflash.

This particular sidebar was about the validity of stereotyping as it applies to the likely consistency and sentiments of a jury in this case, not gun-control.

Try to keep up.

And please refrain from slowing down the conversation as you catch up.

Oh, and, by the way, nobody died and annointed you with the holy oil of Saint Thread Boss.

Lighten up.

...As for the concept of Montanans...

We see the validity of stereotyping differently, in the context of this case.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Kondor3]

From the previous point about "completely absolving the child of doing anything wrong" and stretching that strawman to its opposite: here's the ongoing attempt to make the dead victim into a demon. It's interesting psychology...

Awwwwww... I don't think you like the feedback provided by people who see the teenage delinquent perpetrator as having brought his fate down upon his own head...

Oh, dear me, what to do?

 

[Esmeralda]

How can you deny that you exhibit pleasure that a young man is dead simply because he entered someone's garage? You are obviously pleased and are even calling him a 'delinquent.' He had never done it before, he was unarmed, he was going along with the other kids and doing a prank. Does calling him a delinquent help you, in your soul, justify his murder? Next you or someone else will be calling him a thug. That helps justify the murder of children, eh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You ignore the evidence once again. Regardless of the fact that there was a trap, the kid had every intent of burglarizing the home. And those examples you gave are how it should be, but not how you should define everyone who owns a gun.

Did Target have a special on strawmen today? I missed it.

Nobody's defined "everyone who owns a gun" in any particular way. Nice try, no exploding cigar.

Actually that is a strawman, Pogo. Stop stealing mine.

 

[Slyhunter]

How can you deny that you exhibit pleasure that a young man is dead simply because he entered someone's garage? You are obviously pleased and are even calling him a 'delinquent.' He had never done it before, he was unarmed, he was going along with the other kids and doing a prank. Does calling him a delinquent help you, in your soul, justify his murder? Next you or someone else will be calling him a thug. That helps justify the murder of children, eh?

So we should just let them rip us off and not protect our homes in your liberal world? If he didn't want to die he shouldn't of taken up B&E as a vocation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Then why were you writing Dede's eulogy earlier? I mean you were practically defending him! You were trying to redefine statutes to make it appear he was only trespassing, not burglarizing Kaarma's home. If I recall it was a conversation you had with SkullPilot when he referred to Dede as a 'piece of shit.'

And how can you support your claim that Kaarma was a "vigilante"? Let's put it this way, is some guy with a gun saved your life from another gun wielding maniac, would you refer to him as a "vigilante"?

Your arguments are tainted with bias, Pogo, and I'm calling you on it.

Nobody "saved" anybody's life here. Your analogy fails. Let's go to "vigilante":

>> vig·i·lan·te
&#716;vij&#601;&#712;lant&#275;/
noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate. <<​

Not only is this what Kaarma did, it's what he predicted that he would do and gave as his reasoning, even noting that (inadequacy) in the police report. What else do you think he could have meant? Hell, he even claimed to be looking forward to shooting a cop. Which is a strange conclusion for a guy who claims the police aren't doing enough, but we are talking about a nutter.

First question stands unmolested -- where has anyone anywhere "look(ed) to completely absolve the child of doing anything wrong"? Answer: nowhere. Does not exist. Ergo, strawman.

Yes I did point out Skull Pilot's effort to dehumanize the victim, and I'm about to point out the whole pattern thereof, thanks to Slowie's return and contribution thereto. Next post.

Inadequacy? Really? He was the victim of a prior burglary! You basically posted articles extolling Dede as someone other than what he was being portrayed. You were almost into hysterics at the point in time. And unless Kaarma was or is a member of a militia, who are by definition 'vigilantes.'

 

[Kondor3]

How can you deny that you exhibit pleasure that a young man is dead simply because he entered someone's garage?...

How? By saying "You're wrong", and meaning it. That is your highly emotional and partisan interpretation and opinion; one which the data does not support. On the contrary, I have labeled the death of the idiot-student as tragic. I have even gone so far as to say that if the testimony of the hairdresser was truthful, and deemed significant by prosecuting authorities, that the shooter deserves to have heavy-hitting charges arraigned against him. You are confusing my disdain for the the idiot's behavior with compassion for the family, and even for the idiot-teen himself. You throw the baby out with the bathwater.

...You are obviously pleased...

Again, your interpretation, and the incorrect one. You confuse my genuine delight in effectively counterpointing Gun-Grabbers and their fellow travelers and sympathizers, with some kind of pleasure over the loss of a human life. A little less pompous certainty and a little more humble benefit-of-a-doubt would serve you well in this context.

...and are even calling him a 'delinquent.'...

Because that is exactly what he was. A juvenile delinquent. Committing a misdemeanor (trespassing) as prelude to committing a felony (burglary). Don't blame me if your boy committed a crime and earned the appellation.

...He had never done it before...

Incorrect, if the confession-statement of his Ecuadoran sidekick is to be believed; a confession-statement in which the Ecuadoran admitted that he and Dede had engaged in garage-hopping on multiple occasions in the past.

...he was unarmed...

True. Nolo contendre. Although one cannot tell in the dark. Best not to be on somebody else's property and rummaging-around in their buildings, in order to avoid just that sort of tragic possibility, yes? The little idiot simply didn't think through the possibilities before barging into someone else's buildings.

...he was going along with the other kids and doing a prank...

Sorry. Incorrect. He was alone. He told his Ecuadoran buddy that he was going to enter that garage and his Ecuadoran friend told him to go into Kaarma's garage by by himself, and proceeded further down the block,waiting for Dede to re-emerge, which he never did. Based upon what is passing as 'common knowledge' in this case so far, I do not believe that you have a solid handle on the circumstances and the nature and number of the parties related to the incident that night. Perhaps I am wrong.

...Does calling him a delinquent help you, in your soul, justify his murder?...

Nope.

But it helps to talk you emotional heart-on-the-sleeves types down out of the trees.

Then again, we don't know yet if it's "murder", do we?

I'll be the first one to admit that it doesn't look good for the shooter, based on all that's coming to light.

But the Castle Defense thing is gonna get in the way of pinning the shooter to the wall.

Not to mention the property-centric (and gun-favoring) Conservative folk in Montana, who will serve as a jury of his peers.

The dumbass teenager knew better than to do what he did.

He paid with his life for his stupidity.

...Next you or someone else will be calling him a thug. That helps justify the murder of children, eh?

Save your melodramatic and unfounded accusations and attempted (and failed) below-the-belt hits for somebody whom you can bully with them.

 

[hunarcy]

How can you deny that you exhibit pleasure that a young man is dead simply because he entered someone's garage? You are obviously pleased and are even calling him a 'delinquent.' He had never done it before, he was unarmed, he was going along with the other kids and doing a prank. Does calling him a delinquent help you, in your soul, justify his murder? Next you or someone else will be calling him a thug. That helps justify the murder of children, eh?

If he was in someone's garage and didn't have permission to be there, that means he is guilty of a misdeed or offense (burglary) which makes him a delinquent. It doesn't matter how many times he's done it, as soon as exhibits delinquent behavior, he's a delinquent.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You've tried to float this turd like eight times now. An army of one. This is not an issue of gun rights, and you can't make it into one. Nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma, or anyone else, has the right to own and use a gun. So that's the end of that fantasy, sorry. As already painstakingly pointed out multiple times, this is about the responsible use of that firearm. Guns don't shoot themselves; they need a human to make the wrong decision for them.

Similarly, nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma (or anyone else) has the right to defend his home. The entire question you keep desperately trying to morph is whether that is what he was doing.

Sorry, told you before, that kind of deflection bullshit is not gonna fly here...

Newsflash.

This particular sidebar was about the validity of stereotyping as it applies to the likely consistency and sentiments of a jury in this case, not gun-control.

Try to keep up.

I'm starting to infer that by "sidebar" you must mean "tangent" (?) Just a guess, but sidebar is an actual word in publishing... anyway your point was how Montanans would see the Second Amendment.

And I quote, directly from above:

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.

--- which is why I then pointed out (yet again, the ninth (?) time) that this story has nothing to do with Second Amendment, right to bear arms or "gun grabbers". I know that's what you wish it were about but .... it isn't. So whether the jury is comprised of "gun rights folk" (which really doesn't need to be capitalized), is entirely moot. Because the case isn't about Second Amendment or gun grabbers. It's about Markus Kaarma and what he did. It's about the action taken.

And please refrain from slowing down the conversation as you catch up.

Oh, and, by the way, nobody died and annointed you with the holy oil of Saint Thread Boss.

Lighten up.

No guess what any of that means ...

...As for the concept of Montanans...

We see the validity of stereotyping differently, in the context of this case.

Thank you for your feedback.

Perhaps, but I responded to the various predictions of "what Montanans will do" because I actually have experience with Montanans in Montana, and I don't believe the assumptions from you or Ernie are entirely accurate about them. Culturally they're far from Alabama, and they're not quite as red as you seem to assume. By my count these run more than 2-to-1 that Kaarma's action was way out of line, premeditated, grossly disproportionate to the event, and constitutes murder.

As far as predicting what a local jury will do, our opinions and a $ will buy each of us our own cup of coffee, but if we take a hint from this page of comments made to the Missoulian newspaper back in late April at the time of the event I suspect you'll see what I mean. Kind of a ... wait for it... sidebar.

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Pogo]

Then why were you writing Dede's eulogy earlier? I mean you were practically defending him! You were trying to redefine statutes to make it appear he was only trespassing, not burglarizing Kaarma's home. If I recall it was a conversation you had with SkullPilot when he referred to Dede as a 'piece of shit.'

And how can you support your claim that Kaarma was a "vigilante"? Let's put it this way, is some guy with a gun saved your life from another gun wielding maniac, would you refer to him as a "vigilante"?

Your arguments are tainted with bias, Pogo, and I'm calling you on it.

Nobody "saved" anybody's life here. Your analogy fails. Let's go to "vigilante":

>> vig·i·lan·te
&#716;vij&#601;&#712;lant&#275;/
noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate. <<​

Not only is this what Kaarma did, it's what he predicted that he would do and gave as his reasoning, even noting that (inadequacy) in the police report. What else do you think he could have meant? Hell, he even claimed to be looking forward to shooting a cop. Which is a strange conclusion for a guy who claims the police aren't doing enough, but we are talking about a nutter.

First question stands unmolested -- where has anyone anywhere "look(ed) to completely absolve the child of doing anything wrong"? Answer: nowhere. Does not exist. Ergo, strawman.

Yes I did point out Skull Pilot's effort to dehumanize the victim, and I'm about to point out the whole pattern thereof, thanks to Slowie's return and contribution thereto. Next post.

Inadequacy? Really? He was the victim of a prior burglary! You basically posted articles extolling Dede as someone other than what he was being portrayed. You were almost into hysterics at the point in time. And unless Kaarma was or is a member of a militia, who are by definition 'vigilantes.'

Your last sentence is a subordinate clause not connected to anything, but no, there's no militia requirement for vigilantism. And "inadequacy" comes from Kaarma's own statements.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

You've tried to float this turd like eight times now. An army of one. This is not an issue of gun rights, and you can't make it into one. Nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma, or anyone else, has the right to own and use a gun. So that's the end of that fantasy, sorry. As already painstakingly pointed out multiple times, this is about the responsible use of that firearm. Guns don't shoot themselves; they need a human to make the wrong decision for them.

Similarly, nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma (or anyone else) has the right to defend his home. The entire question you keep desperately trying to morph is whether that is what he was doing.

Sorry, told you before, that kind of deflection bullshit is not gonna fly here.

As for the concept of Montanans, culturally, and the contrast with Alabama (again, with the caveat of using stereotypes) --

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?

Montanans, as a rural spead-out state that deals with way more wildlife (and livestock, and ranches) than Alabama, do own a lot of guns proportionate to their population; the issue is they're not "nuts" about them. They have, at the risk of delving deeper into stereotype, more diversity of thought than Alabama, which is why they are not all that "red", and since this case is about the actions of a gun user and not his rights, are more likely than an outsider like Ernie might assume to consider those actions in their context including the human cost -- which is the whole crux of the matter here.

One must assume from this diatribe that you've never been to Alabama.

 

[Pogo]

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.

You've tried to float this turd like eight times now. An army of one. This is not an issue of gun rights, and you can't make it into one. Nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma, or anyone else, has the right to own and use a gun. So that's the end of that fantasy, sorry. As already painstakingly pointed out multiple times, this is about the responsible use of that firearm. Guns don't shoot themselves; they need a human to make the wrong decision for them.

Similarly, nobody but nobody has disputed that Markus Kaarma (or anyone else) has the right to defend his home. The entire question you keep desperately trying to morph is whether that is what he was doing.

Sorry, told you before, that kind of deflection bullshit is not gonna fly here.

As for the concept of Montanans, culturally, and the contrast with Alabama (again, with the caveat of using stereotypes) --

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?

Montanans, as a rural spead-out state that deals with way more wildlife (and livestock, and ranches) than Alabama, do own a lot of guns proportionate to their population; the issue is they're not "nuts" about them. They have, at the risk of delving deeper into stereotype, more diversity of thought than Alabama, which is why they are not all that "red", and since this case is about the actions of a gun user and not his rights, are more likely than an outsider like Ernie might assume to consider those actions in their context including the human cost -- which is the whole crux of the matter here.

One must assume from this diatribe that you've never been to Alabama.

At least 100 times since the age of seven.... my mother was from Mississippi and we went there every other year. You can't do that from where we lived without Alabama.

I will admit though, I haven't been there since the spring.

 

[Ernie S.]

I live here. Most of us, especially those to the north of me, hunt. We may not have the same game as Montana, but we do pretty well.
Smaller farms too, but many of them, all with predators to dispatch.
Most of my weapons are primarily for hunting and all are legal hunting weapons in Alabama. Any is also quite suitable
If your implication was to label me a "gun nut", I must tell you that I resent the shit out of that.

Kaarma will get a jury chosen by the voir dire process. The prosecution will be looking for people who are afraid of guns with German last names and the Defense will be looking for people with concealed carry permits that have no compunctions about defending their families, homes and properties. 12 people have to vote to convict If even 2 people vote to acquit, it's very likely the state will not retry the case
A conviction in Montana will be virtually impossible.