Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

Of course this case (in your Liberal "mind") is exactly like my scenario.
You are equating an open door and a purse with calling the neighbor to help with a plumbing problem. Kaarma DID NOT invite Dede into his home. Dede instigated the altercation by committing a crime. That fact is enough for me, and most reasonable people to consider that, having committed one crime, the perpetrator may be prepared to commit another, more violent crime. It was Kaarma's right and even his responsibility to defend his home and family.
I do see that some jurors will view the purse, open door and the hairdresser's statements as premeditation, but I believe in basic human decency and think that as many will see this as a frustrated man defending his home and family.

No, I said I agreed with you that your scenario is NOT analogous.

Maybe you place more significance on the whole bait thing than I do. It does point at Kaarma's intent but for me it's far more significant that he predicted it and described his plan a week before. To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense" takes a clearly offensive sniper position and literally traps his prey, describing him in his own words as a "caged animal". To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense" starts firing into his own house, penetrating the walls into the living space. To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense", and his GF, both run out of the house and leave a 10-month old baby alone with buckshot peppering the house he's in (we haven't even brought up the assault on the child's hearing) while they both run out to pick off what they would have us believe is a "threat" -- by assuming a position that can only drive the intruder back INTO the house.

It's also corroboratingly significant that a guy who claims to have been frustrated with burglaries, then leaves his garage door wide open and therefore vulnerable. And the three road rage incidents, plus the arrogant language at the hair shop, plus his comment to be happy to shoot a cop, make up a profile of a guy who was clearly out for blood and carrying a "fuck you" attitude. The prosecution will construct that profile and his "defense" case will be wheezing on the floor losing blood like a 17-year-old who just got picked off by a sniper.


IMHO.

The statements of the hairdresser (remember she has not been cross examined as yet) are a statement of intent, IF someone, at some point in the future commits by breaking into his home.
A bold statement, perhaps, but it is a statement that he will protect his family and home, something he is allowed to do under Montana law.

Telling someone you intend to obey a law is NOT premeditation for breaking the same law.

Why do you guys continually try to morph reality into something it's not?

He said nothing about intending to protect his family, and he certainly said nothing about intending to obey the law; quite the contrary. He said he was exhausted from staying up for the last three days (at the time) so he could "shoot some fucking kid". Not a word about the family. Clearly a guy who sets a trap and then leaves his baby to start firing into the home the baby's still in isn't interested in "protecting" anything.

And as far as I know shooting a cop, let alone a kid, is still illegal even in Montana. Nice try, no exploding cigar.

Know what else he didn't say?

The word "IF"

As far as that "If"-- let me know next time a burglar e-mails you in advance to schedule an appointment to burgle your garage so you can make plans for it.

And one more unmorph: it's still hairdressers -- plural.

 

[Slyhunter]

No, I said I agreed with you that your scenario is NOT analogous.

Maybe you place more significance on the whole bait thing than I do. It does point at Kaarma's intent but for me it's far more significant that he predicted it and described his plan a week before. To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense" takes a clearly offensive sniper position and literally traps his prey, describing him in his own words as a "caged animal". To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense" starts firing into his own house, penetrating the walls into the living space. To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense", and his GF, both run out of the house and leave a 10-month old baby alone with buckshot peppering the house he's in (we haven't even brought up the assault on the child's hearing) while they both run out to pick off what they would have us believe is a "threat" -- by assuming a position that can only drive the intruder back INTO the house.

It's also corroboratingly significant that a guy who claims to have been frustrated with burglaries, then leaves his garage door wide open and therefore vulnerable. And the three road rage incidents, plus the arrogant language at the hair shop, plus his comment to be happy to shoot a cop, make up a profile of a guy who was clearly out for blood and carrying a "fuck you" attitude. The prosecution will construct that profile and his "defense" case will be wheezing on the floor losing blood like a 17-year-old who just got picked off by a sniper.


IMHO.

The statements of the hairdresser (remember she has not been cross examined as yet) are a statement of intent, IF someone, at some point in the future commits by breaking into his home.
A bold statement, perhaps, but it is a statement that he will protect his family and home, something he is allowed to do under Montana law.

Telling someone you intend to obey a law is NOT premeditation for breaking the same law.

Why do you guys continually try to morph reality into something it's not?

He said nothing about intending to protect his family, and he certainly said nothing about intending to obey the law; quite the contrary. He said he was exhausted from staying up for the last three days (at the time) so he could "shoot some fucking kid". Not a word about the family. Clearly a guy who sets a trap and then leaves his baby to start firing into the home the baby's still in isn't interested in "protecting" anything.

And as far as I know shooting a cop, let alone a kid, is still illegal even in Montana. Nice try, no exploding cigar.

Know what else he didn't say?

The word "IF"

As far as that "If"-- let me know next time a burglar e-mails you in advance to schedule an appointment to burgle your garage so you can make plans for it.

And one more unmorph: it's still hairdressers -- plural.

So what. Did the kid invade his garage or not? If yes, then the shooting is justified. Period.

 

[Pogo]

The statements of the hairdresser (remember she has not been cross examined as yet) are a statement of intent, IF someone, at some point in the future commits by breaking into his home.
A bold statement, perhaps, but it is a statement that he will protect his family and home, something he is allowed to do under Montana law.

Telling someone you intend to obey a law is NOT premeditation for breaking the same law.

Why do you guys continually try to morph reality into something it's not?

He said nothing about intending to protect his family, and he certainly said nothing about intending to obey the law; quite the contrary. He said he was exhausted from staying up for the last three days (at the time) so he could "shoot some fucking kid". Not a word about the family. Clearly a guy who sets a trap and then leaves his baby to start firing into the home the baby's still in isn't interested in "protecting" anything.

And as far as I know shooting a cop, let alone a kid, is still illegal even in Montana. Nice try, no exploding cigar.

Know what else he didn't say?

The word "IF"

As far as that "If"-- let me know next time a burglar e-mails you in advance to schedule an appointment to burgle your garage so you can make plans for it.

And one more unmorph: it's still hairdressers -- plural.

So what. Did the kid invade his garage or not? If yes, then the shooting is justified. Period.

So what? So that obliterates his claim of "self-defense", that's what. If we're all allowed to simply claim 'self-defense' as a get-out-of-murder-free card, then we live in anarchy. "Oh look, there's a black guy down the street, I feel threatened!" Doesn't work that way Junior.

 

[jc456]

Zimmerman is living in hiding because someone will probably kill him if he shows his face in public.

Believable.

But who would actually follow-through and kill Zimmerman, other than some disaffected member of Martin's family?

I expect there are thousands of people around the country, unstable people true, who would happily blow him away. He probably gets death threats on a daily basis.

So, you're ok with those unstable people eh? LOL.

 

[jc456]

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, pleads not guilty in shooting death of German exchange student - CBS News

Suspect in German exchange student killing pleads not guilty.

Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

American is the only modern Western country where unarmed burglary seems to warrant a death sentence.

In your OP, the word "unarmed" is mentioned 3 times. That's a lot for a word that is 100% meaningless to the topic.

UNARMED means the boy was never a physical threat.

just because someone is unarmed does not mean they are not a physical threat. they still have arms. BTW, ever confront someone before?

 

[jc456]

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
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.

IMO, what he proved was his house was a target. he stood up and made a stand. Now was it legal, we'll be finding out soon. That's all right now. No more, no less.

 

[thanatos144]

In your OP, the word "unarmed" is mentioned 3 times. That's a lot for a word that is 100% meaningless to the topic.

UNARMED means the boy was never a physical threat.

just because someone is unarmed does not mean they are not a physical threat. they still have arms. BTW, ever confront someone before?

I would have just asked her if those babies that were aborted if they were armed?

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

seems to me you're obsessed with stereo typing individuals.

 

[Kondor3]

I expect there are thousands of people around the country, unstable people true, who would happily blow him away. He probably gets death threats on a daily basis.

Well...

Chances are, for the most part...

Those who would kill him are not White...

Those who would kill him are not Hispanic...

Those who would kill him are not Asian nor Native American...

Those who would kill him are not Conservative...

Those who would kill him are not Centrists...

Those who would kill him are not Gun-Rights folk...

If true, in the main, then, I wonder who that leaves, upon which to build a pool of motivated potential killers?

A committee of strawmen?

Or one or two 'main groups' omitted from the narrowing-down exercise, above.

 

[Ernie S.]

What he said was I should die, it would be doing you all a favor if I died. That's pretty clear. Very graphic. I should die because he doesn't like my opinion about guns.

Did HE threaten you, or posit that it might be appropriate for you to be a victim of a violent home invasion?Seems like you have a lot of bitterness, child. I take delight in Dede's death and thanatos is threatening you....

That's 2 apologies you need to be making today, little one.

That is exactly what he said, that it would be doing him a favor that I be the victim of a violent home invasion and be 'snuffed' in the process.
I don't have bitterness; I think you are violent people who delight in the idea of killing anyone you deem should be killed; that you are the ones who are bitter and frightened, and the only thing that makes you feel powerful is to think about how tough you are with your gun and how you can just blow away people you don't like.

I lost a son the same age as Mr. Dede. To presume that I take delight in his death is both a lie and a cruel statement. I will take that appology now please.
As for thanatos, he mused that it might be fitting for you to be a victim, but in order for that to be considered a threat, he would need to say he would carry it out. He did not. You are a piss ant anonymous Liberal on a message board. The chances of him having any idea where you are are nil. You were not threatened.

 

[Ernie S.]

No, I said I agreed with you that your scenario is NOT analogous.

Maybe you place more significance on the whole bait thing than I do. It does point at Kaarma's intent but for me it's far more significant that he predicted it and described his plan a week before. To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense" takes a clearly offensive sniper position and literally traps his prey, describing him in his own words as a "caged animal". To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense" starts firing into his own house, penetrating the walls into the living space. To me it's significant that a guy who claims "defense", and his GF, both run out of the house and leave a 10-month old baby alone with buckshot peppering the house he's in (we haven't even brought up the assault on the child's hearing) while they both run out to pick off what they would have us believe is a "threat" -- by assuming a position that can only drive the intruder back INTO the house.

It's also corroboratingly significant that a guy who claims to have been frustrated with burglaries, then leaves his garage door wide open and therefore vulnerable. And the three road rage incidents, plus the arrogant language at the hair shop, plus his comment to be happy to shoot a cop, make up a profile of a guy who was clearly out for blood and carrying a "fuck you" attitude. The prosecution will construct that profile and his "defense" case will be wheezing on the floor losing blood like a 17-year-old who just got picked off by a sniper.


IMHO.

The statements of the hairdresser (remember she has not been cross examined as yet) are a statement of intent, IF someone, at some point in the future commits by breaking into his home.
A bold statement, perhaps, but it is a statement that he will protect his family and home, something he is allowed to do under Montana law.

Telling someone you intend to obey a law is NOT premeditation for breaking the same law.

Why do you guys continually try to morph reality into something it's not?

He said nothing about intending to protect his family, and he certainly said nothing about intending to obey the law; quite the contrary. He said he was exhausted from staying up for the last three days (at the time) so he could "shoot some fucking kid". Not a word about the family. Clearly a guy who sets a trap and then leaves his baby to start firing into the home the baby's still in isn't interested in "protecting" anything.

And as far as I know shooting a cop, let alone a kid, is still illegal even in Montana. Nice try, no exploding cigar.

Know what else he didn't say?

The word "IF"

As far as that "If"-- let me know next time a burglar e-mails you in advance to schedule an appointment to burgle your garage so you can make plans for it.

And one more unmorph: it's still hairdressers -- plural.

DAMN Pogo! Defending yourself from someone breaking into your implies yourself and your family. He has a live in and a baby. He did not have to mention them by name. He is responsible for protecting them. He did an admirable job considering the implied threat of a stranger entering his home in the middle of the night.

Off to work.

 

[Pogo]

The statements of the hairdresser (remember she has not been cross examined as yet) are a statement of intent, IF someone, at some point in the future commits by breaking into his home.
A bold statement, perhaps, but it is a statement that he will protect his family and home, something he is allowed to do under Montana law.

Telling someone you intend to obey a law is NOT premeditation for breaking the same law.

Why do you guys continually try to morph reality into something it's not?

He said nothing about intending to protect his family, and he certainly said nothing about intending to obey the law; quite the contrary. He said he was exhausted from staying up for the last three days (at the time) so he could "shoot some fucking kid". Not a word about the family. Clearly a guy who sets a trap and then leaves his baby to start firing into the home the baby's still in isn't interested in "protecting" anything.

And as far as I know shooting a cop, let alone a kid, is still illegal even in Montana. Nice try, no exploding cigar.

Know what else he didn't say?

The word "IF"

As far as that "If"-- let me know next time a burglar e-mails you in advance to schedule an appointment to burgle your garage so you can make plans for it.

And one more unmorph: it's still hairdressers -- plural.

DAMN Pogo! Defending yourself from someone breaking into your implies yourself and your family. He has a live in and a baby. He did not have to mention them by name. He is responsible for protecting them. He did an admirable job considering the implied threat of a stranger entering his home in the middle of the night.

Off to work.

Defending (real defending) would imply that, and no he wouldn't have had to mention them at all.

But that's not what he spoke of in his rant; he spoke strictly of offense. He mentioned only himself and his yet-to-be-determined victim. He spoke only of what he, Markus Kaarma, was going to do to his victim and how that action would be in then news. He even spoke of shooting a cop. Not a word about being threatened, not a word about anybody being in any kind of danger, except for his target. Indeed the only threat that night to the family, or anyone, both before and during the incident, was Markus Kaarma himself.

I like the shift to "implied threat" though. Very subtle.

 

[Kondor3]

Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, at at-risk, and a threat exists, in any reasonable mind.

All else here is a matter of Rules of Engagement, and their reasonableness (or lack thereof), and the shooter's adherence to those Rules (or lack thereof).

 

[Pogo]

Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, at at-risk, and a threat exists, in any reasonable mind.

Does it really? What is it, this threat?

In this event when the light went on and all could be seen -- what did the threat turn out to have been?

More correctly stated:
Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, may be at-risk, and a threat may exist, in any reasonable mind. But if by this very definition such reasonable mind cannot see, then the existence of such threat has not been established. Which means the reality of said threat remains in the realm of the imaginary.

Since I sense I'm channeling Rod Serling stylistically, I'll refer you again to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" (1960) for a perfect illustration of why your original rendering is fallacious. Submitted for your approval as the saying goes.

All else here is a matter of Rules of Engagement, and their reasonableness (or lack thereof), and the shooter's adherence to those Rules (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

 

[Ernie S.]

Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, at at-risk, and a threat exists, in any reasonable mind.

Does it really? What is it, this threat?

In this event when the light went on and all could be seen -- what did the threat turn out to have been?

More correctly stated:
Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, may be at-risk, and a threat may exist, in any reasonable mind. But if by this very definition such reasonable mind cannot see, then the existence of such threat has not been established. Which means the reality of said threat remains in the realm of the imaginary.

Since I sense I'm channeling Rod Serling stylistically, I'll refer you again to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" (1960) for a perfect illustration of why your original rendering is fallacious. Submitted for your approval as the saying goes.

All else here is a matter of Rules of Engagement, and their reasonableness (or lack thereof), and the shooter's adherence to those Rules (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

You may not feel threatened by an armed or unarmed (Kaarma didn't know which) intruder entering your home around midnight, but sane and reasonable people do. Taking about what he would do if presented with such a scenario is hardly premeditation. It is a reasonable and legal plan to end a threat. Your tender feewings matter not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, at at-risk, and a threat exists, in any reasonable mind.

Does it really? What is it, this threat?

In this event when the light went on and all could be seen -- what did the threat turn out to have been?

More correctly stated:
Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, may be at-risk, and a threat may exist, in any reasonable mind. But if by this very definition such reasonable mind cannot see, then the existence of such threat has not been established. Which means the reality of said threat remains in the realm of the imaginary.

Since I sense I'm channeling Rod Serling stylistically, I'll refer you again to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" (1960) for a perfect illustration of why your original rendering is fallacious. Submitted for your approval as the saying goes.

All else here is a matter of Rules of Engagement, and their reasonableness (or lack thereof), and the shooter's adherence to those Rules (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

You may not feel threatened by an armed or unarmed (Kaarma didn't know which) intruder entering your home around midnight, but sane and reasonable people do. Taking about what he would do if presented with such a scenario is hardly premeditation. It is a reasonable and legal plan to end a threat. Your tender feewings matter not.

Pogo is a liar and will say anything no matter how stupid to support his claim. He is full of bull shit and a waste of your time, but you are of course, free to post no matter what I think, obviously.

If it suited Pogo he might tell you that he was a billionaire with a proven track record for time traveling and was 6' 4" and looked a lot like Robert Downey Jr.

 

[Politico]

That sounds like a threat to me. You are threatening me with death. You are suggesting I should be 'snuffed' out because I disagree with you. And you really want anyone to believe you are level headed enough to be a responsible gun owner?

No where near what he said....

What he said was I should die, it would be doing you all a favor if I died. That's pretty clear. Very graphic. I should die because he doesn't like my opinion about guns.

LOL Quit trolling. Telling you I am going to come to your house and shoot you in the face is a threat. Saying I don't care if you want to be an idiot and get killed because you refuse to defend your home is not. Additionally, telling you I would shoot you if you break into my house is not a threat either. That is a promise.

So is there something you want to tell us? Are you planning to break into my house?

 

[Pogo]

Does it really? What is it, this threat?

In this event when the light went on and all could be seen -- what did the threat turn out to have been?

More correctly stated:
Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, may be at-risk, and a threat may exist, in any reasonable mind. But if by this very definition such reasonable mind cannot see, then the existence of such threat has not been established. Which means the reality of said threat remains in the realm of the imaginary.

Since I sense I'm channeling Rod Serling stylistically, I'll refer you again to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" (1960) for a perfect illustration of why your original rendering is fallacious. Submitted for your approval as the saying goes.



Agreed.

You may not feel threatened by an armed or unarmed (Kaarma didn't know which) intruder entering your home around midnight, but sane and reasonable people do. Taking about what he would do if presented with such a scenario is hardly premeditation. It is a reasonable and legal plan to end a threat. Your tender feewings matter not.

Pogo is a liar and will say anything no matter how stupid to support his claim. He is full of bull shit and a waste of your time, but you are of course, free to post no matter what I think, obviously.

If it suited Pogo he might tell you that he was a billionaire with a proven track record for time traveling and was 6' 4" and looked a lot like Robert Downey Jr.

This ^^ Ernie, is the caliber of your support.

Just sayin'.

 

[Meathead]

The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination.

This is one of the most patently stupid comments I've ever heard. When you feel resistance, stop pushing in the Q-tip. Try that and we'll work from there.

And you wonder why you're a ding bat!

 

[Pogo]

Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, at at-risk, and a threat exists, in any reasonable mind.

Does it really? What is it, this threat?

In this event when the light went on and all could be seen -- what did the threat turn out to have been?

More correctly stated:
Any time that an intruder is present upon your premises, in a sufficiently darkened environment so that you cannot tell if the intruder is armed, and so that you cannot even locate the intruder against a darkened backdrop, you, and your family, may be at-risk, and a threat may exist, in any reasonable mind. But if by this very definition such reasonable mind cannot see, then the existence of such threat has not been established. Which means the reality of said threat remains in the realm of the imaginary.

Since I sense I'm channeling Rod Serling stylistically, I'll refer you again to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" (1960) for a perfect illustration of why your original rendering is fallacious. Submitted for your approval as the saying goes.

All else here is a matter of Rules of Engagement, and their reasonableness (or lack thereof), and the shooter's adherence to those Rules (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

You may not feel threatened by an armed or unarmed (Kaarma didn't know which) intruder entering your home around midnight, but sane and reasonable people do. Taking about what he would do if presented with such a scenario is hardly premeditation. It is a reasonable and legal plan to end a threat. Your tender feewings matter not.

The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be "threatened" by the unknown. If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within, meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination. Who has the right to kill somebody based on their own imagination? I believe that's happened more than a couple of times in human history-- witch burnings, holocausts, lynchings, political persecutions-- NONE of those achieved sociocultural approval; ALL of them were cases of the powerful abusing their position.

This is borne out by the fact that once the lights went on and all could be seen, indeed no threat had ever existed. Which is why the most basic rule of firearm use is to see and know what one is shooting at. Suddenly that's suspended because it's inconvenient? Doooon't think so. And once again, there was no "IF" in his rant; Kaarma spoke of what he was going to do and was already engaged in (the trap) -- he presented no conditions. He in fact predicted they would be "seeing this on the fucking news". News doesn't report IFs. The only thing he was vague about was whether he was actually going to shoot a cop; he didn't quite commit to that.

And we know nothing could be seen, as Markus Kaarma himself described it that way and swept across the garage so as to cover everything. Is he lying about that? Because if he is, meaning he could see, it means he knowingly slaughtered a kid that he knew was no threat.