Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

I take anyone in my home uninvited as a threat. I HAVE to. I have a wife to protect.
The fact that Dede was found to be unarmed is irrelevant. The fact that he made himself a target by engaging in a criminal and possibly lethal act IS relevant.
Dede caused his own death.

By that logic, that woman who was raped was "just asking for it".

Ehh... no thanks.

Not the same thing nice try but fail!

someone where they are not invited to be is a much different scenario. The kid put himself in the garage, no one put him there. You seem to be having a really hard time with that. That's ok, you just know no difference, you walk into stranger's houses all the time right? It is what all you all do i guess, doesn't bother you, so for me means you partake in the activity. You should be careful when entering those unautorized buildings.

We all know trespassing is a crime (misdemeanor) unless of course you're the Mississippi Tea Party at which point the goalpost mover machine gets toted out of the shed and fired up. Dede being where he shouldn't have been has never been in question.

The question is in the reaction to it -- which is where Kaarma comes in. I know that's a difficult concept for some but the fact remains nowhere in the world is execution the penalty for trespassing. The player in this question is Markus Kaarma. Alone. He's the one who took the action for which he is now indicted for homicide.

So the analogy stands; violating a woman just because she looks vulnerable is no more logical than violating a teenager just because he IS vulnerable. "Might makes right" does not stand as valid argument, and never has.


Speaking of that....
One wonders, if the Mississippi Tea Party burglars had been shot to death by a guard or cop, just shooting willy-nilly into the dark because he heard a motion sensor go off, what the attitude of these same wags would have been defending that errant cop. After all, "you should be careful when you enter unautorized buildings". Things that make ya go hmmm....

 

[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.

So basically what you're trying to saying it's only a threat if you have your eyes open. Nice logic there dude.

I'll try to post this in the same language your obviously open eyes did...

So basically what I'm trying to saying it's only a threat if it exists. Things that exist, exist; things that do not exist.... do not exist. This is a fairly elementary concept of the nature of existence. "That that is, is; that that is not, is not". I defy you to refute that; show me how things that do not exist, DO exist.

Let me know if it's still unclear even after that simplification. Because at that point you and whatever argument you're groping for discontinue to exist.

 

[Meathead]

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.

So basically what you're trying to saying it's only a threat if you have your eyes open. Nice logic there dude.

I'll try to post this in the same language your obviously open eyes did...

So basically what I'm trying to saying it's only a threat if it exists. Things that exist, exist; things that do not exist.... do not exist. This is a fairly elementary concept of the nature of existence. "That that is, is; that that is not, is not". I defy you to refute that; show me how things that do not exist, DO exist.

Let me know if it's still unclear even after that simplification. Because at that point you and whatever argument you're groping for discontinue to exist.

I worry about the gene pool, but it's obviously too late.

 

[Kondor3]

...The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be 'threatened' by the unknown...

OK, now that's just silly.

This is not about a dictionary or textbook definition of an actual threat.

This is about the perception of threat; in this legal context, would a reasonable person feel sufficiently threatened to discharge a firearm into a darkened area.

That's what I just said.

Where you and I differ is that you do not see 'Perceived Threat' as justification for pulling the trigger, whereas I do, as does the rest of the world.

When it comes to trial, both the Prosecution and the Defense will be asking the question (paraphrased here)...

"Based upon the combination of circumstances presenting at the time the trigger was pulled, would a reasonable man have perceived sufficient threat to his person and family so as to justify that pulling of the trigger?"

Now... which way is the jury gong to go, regarding the plausibility of this perceived threat? I dunno. That's where I pack up my crystal ball. But, we must keep in mind: ties (benefit of a doubt) go to the homeowner-shooter in such cases. An important advantage.

..."Not imagination but perceived threat" = "not imagination but imagination". You're trrying to say the same thing in different terms and claim you've said something different...

Nope.

Imagined threat is all the result of internalizing.

Perceived threat in this context is the combination of external stimuli and the subsequent conclusions and actions triggered (bad pun intended) by those stimuli, along with some obligatory internalizing.

...Let's take it a third way: "when you turn the light off, there are monsters under the bed"...

I seriously doubt that many homeowners, preparing to confront burglars in their garages at night, feel that they are dealing with a 5-year-old's 'monsters under the bed' syndrome.

...And since none of that technological feedback indicated a threat -- it wasn't anything more than imagination...

The motion-sensors and security camera merely informed the homeowner that they had an intruder on the premises. With his partner-spouse and child at-stake, I seriously doubt he took much time to study the data before rushing out to meet the perceived threat, and any Defense attorney worth his salt should be able to pitch that as entirely reasonable.

...Which, once again, was obviously confirmed once the light went on. I put it to you again, as it's been left unanswered: when the lights went on and all could be seen-- what had the threat been?...

The lights merely presented evidence of the actual threat, or lack of it, post facto, not the perceived threat at the time the decision was made to pull the trigger.

And it's the PERCEIVED threat that will be tested for its reasonableness, during the trial.

People get off scot-free all the time, in connection with a reasonable PERCEIVED threat.

...Nothing but imagination.QED...

Correction... nothing but Perception... which is a different animal.

...Why? Is the analogy inconvenient? How is it 'faux'? Were witch burnings and holocausts and race prejudice NOT cases of the powerful abusing their position based on nothing more than suspicions?...

The analogy is not convenient. It simply has no place here.

The analogy is faux because it is entirely and completely and profoundly inapplicable.

Non sequitur.

Background noise.

Irrelevant fluff.

...We agree, the shooter did not know at the time what or who he was shooting at. Which right there, on its own removed from any other circumstances, is irresponsible action...

He knew there was an intruder.

He knew that intruder was in his darkened garage, mere feet away from him.

He heard sudden noises from the darkness which caused him to open fire.

You would not have done that - in all likelihood.

I would not have done that - in all likelihood.

It will be up to the jury to decide whether the shooter was justified in doing so.

And, as I've said before, ties go to the homeowner-shooter.

...The fact remains by definition] he's shooting at his imagination...

But it's not a fact, and we're not dealing with strict literalism here.

At law, we will be dealing with perceived threat, which, again, is another animal, much different than simple imagination.

...Now if you're suggesting that's all that is legally required to start mowing people down, then we need to let the Loughners and Holmeses out of jail right away, because hey, that's all they were doing too. Think about it...

Fortunately for me, what I am suggesting is that a shooter in such circumstances only requires a sufficient level of perceived threat, in order to pull the trigger, legally.

 

[jc456]

By that logic, that woman who was raped was "just asking for it".

Ehh... no thanks.

Not the same thing nice try but fail!

someone where they are not invited to be is a much different scenario. The kid put himself in the garage, no one put him there. You seem to be having a really hard time with that. That's ok, you just know no difference, you walk into stranger's houses all the time right? It is what all you all do i guess, doesn't bother you, so for me means you partake in the activity. You should be careful when entering those unautorized buildings.

We all know trespassing is a crime (misdemeanor) unless of course you're the Mississippi Tea Party at which point the goalpost mover machine gets toted out of the shed and fired up. Dede being where he shouldn't have been has never been in question.

The question is in the reaction to it -- which is where Kaarma comes in. I know that's a difficult concept for some but the fact remains nowhere in the world is execution the penalty for trespassing. The player in this question is Markus Kaarma. Alone. He's the one who took the action for which he is now indicted for homicide.

So the analogy stands; violating a woman just because she looks vulnerable is no more logical than violating a teenager just because he IS vulnerable. "Might makes right" does not stand as valid argument, and never has.


Speaking of that....
One wonders, if the Mississippi Tea Party burglars had been shot to death by a guard or cop, just shooting willy-nilly into the dark because he heard a motion sensor go off, what the attitude of these same wags would have been defending that errant cop. After all, "you should be careful when you enter unautorized buildings". Things that make ya go hmmm....

Well I disagree!

 

[jc456]

So basically what you're trying to saying it's only a threat if you have your eyes open. Nice logic there dude.

I'll try to post this in the same language your obviously open eyes did...

So basically what I'm trying to saying it's only a threat if it exists. Things that exist, exist; things that do not exist.... do not exist. This is a fairly elementary concept of the nature of existence. "That that is, is; that that is not, is not". I defy you to refute that; show me how things that do not exist, DO exist.

Let me know if it's still unclear even after that simplification. Because at that point you and whatever argument you're groping for discontinue to exist.

I worry about the gene pool, but it's obviously too late.

Holy crap did he just make our point or what?

It's only a threat if it exists, well, wasn't the kid present therefore he existed in the garage. So by his own logic he was a threat. nice contradiction eh?

 

[jc456]

By that logic, that woman who was raped was "just asking for it".

Ehh... no thanks.

Not the same thing nice try but fail!

someone where they are not invited to be is a much different scenario. The kid put himself in the garage, no one put him there. You seem to be having a really hard time with that. That's ok, you just know no difference, you walk into stranger's houses all the time right? It is what all you all do i guess, doesn't bother you, so for me means you partake in the activity. You should be careful when entering those unautorized buildings.

We all know trespassing is a crime (misdemeanor) unless of course you're the Mississippi Tea Party at which point the goalpost mover machine gets toted out of the shed and fired up. Dede being where he shouldn't have been has never been in question.

The question is in the reaction to it -- which is where Kaarma comes in. I know that's a difficult concept for some but the fact remains nowhere in the world is execution the penalty for trespassing. The player in this question is Markus Kaarma. Alone. He's the one who took the action for which he is now indicted for homicide.

So the analogy stands; violating a woman just because she looks vulnerable is no more logical than violating a teenager just because he IS vulnerable. "Might makes right" does not stand as valid argument, and never has.


Speaking of that....
One wonders, if the Mississippi Tea Party burglars had been shot to death by a guard or cop, just shooting willy-nilly into the dark because he heard a motion sensor go off, what the attitude of these same wags would have been defending that errant cop. After all, "you should be careful when you enter unautorized buildings". Things that make ya go hmmm....

I disagree, and You're a nutjob!

 

[jc456]

OK, now that's just silly.

This is not about a dictionary or textbook definition of an actual threat.

This is about the perception of threat; in this legal context, would a reasonable person feel sufficiently threatened to discharge a firearm into a darkened area.

That's what I just said.

Where you and I differ is that you do not see 'Perceived Threat' as justification for pulling the trigger, whereas I do, as does the rest of the world.

When it comes to trial, both the Prosecution and the Defense will be asking the question (paraphrased here)...

"Based upon the combination of circumstances presenting at the time the trigger was pulled, would a reasonable man have perceived sufficient threat to his person and family so as to justify that pulling of the trigger?"

Now... which way is the jury gong to go, regarding the plausibility of this perceived threat? I dunno. That's where I pack up my crystal ball. But, we must keep in mind: ties (benefit of a doubt) go to the homeowner-shooter in such cases. An important advantage.


Nope.

Imagined threat is all the result of internalizing.

Perceived threat in this context is the combination of external stimuli and the subsequent conclusions and actions triggered (bad pun intended) by those stimuli, along with some obligatory internalizing.


I seriously doubt that many homeowners, preparing to confront burglars in their garages at night, feel that they are dealing with a 5-year-old's 'monsters under the bed' syndrome.


The motion-sensors and security camera merely informed the homeowner that they had an intruder on the premises. With his partner-spouse and child at-stake, I seriously doubt he took much time to study the data before rushing out to meet the perceived threat, and any Defense attorney worth his salt should be able to pitch that as entirely reasonable.


The lights merely presented evidence of the actual threat, or lack of it, post facto, not the perceived threat at the time the decision was made to pull the trigger.

And it's the PERCEIVED threat that will be tested for its reasonableness, during the trial.

People get off scot-free all the time, in connection with a reasonable PERCEIVED threat.


Correction... nothing but Perception... which is a different animal.


The analogy is not convenient. It simply has no place here.

The analogy is faux because it is entirely and completely and profoundly inapplicable.

Non sequitur.

Background noise.

Irrelevant fluff.


He knew there was an intruder.

He knew that intruder was in his darkened garage, mere feet away from him.

He heard sudden noises from the darkness which caused him to open fire.

You would not have done that - in all likelihood.

I would not have done that - in all likelihood.

It will be up to the jury to decide whether the shooter was justified in doing so.

And, as I've said before, ties go to the homeowner-shooter.

...The fact remains by definition] he's shooting at his imagination...

But it's not a fact, and we're not dealing with strict literalism here.

At law, we will be dealing with perceived threat, which, again, is another animal, much different than simple imagination.

...Now if you're suggesting that's all that is legally required to start mowing people down, then we need to let the Loughners and Holmeses out of jail right away, because hey, that's all they were doing too. Think about it...

Fortunately for me, what I am suggesting is that a shooter in such circumstances only requires a sufficient level of perceived threat, in order to pull the trigger, legally.

Wondered if monsters under the bed trigger motion detectors and are audible. Just sayin!

I'd like to see this punk walk down an inner city alley after midnight. Territory is important.

 

[Pogo]

OK, now that's just silly.

This is not about a dictionary or textbook definition of an actual threat.

This is about the perception of threat; in this legal context, would a reasonable person feel sufficiently threatened to discharge a firearm into a darkened area.

That's what I just said.

Where you and I differ is that you do not see 'Perceived Threat' as justification for pulling the trigger, whereas I do, as does the rest of the world.

When it comes to trial, both the Prosecution and the Defense will be asking the question (paraphrased here)...

"Based upon the combination of circumstances presenting at the time the trigger was pulled, would a reasonable man have perceived sufficient threat to his person and family so as to justify that pulling of the trigger?"

Trying to parse "perceived" versus "imaginary" isn't going to get traction. "Perceived" is something that arrives to you through the senses. "Imaginary" derives from the mind alone. Which moves us along to...

Nope.

Imagined threat is all the result of internalizing.

Perceived threat in this context is the combination of external stimuli and the subsequent conclusions and actions triggered (bad pun intended) by those stimuli, along with some obligatory internalizing.

Bad pun appreciated, but it's not your best.

External stimuli (motion sensors, baby monitor and nondescript noises) are all perceived sensory input, but none are threats. There is no "threat" in the fact that motion exists; no threat in confirmation that someone is in the garage; no threat in noises that can't be connected with a known action. When that's all the stimuli there are, "threat" must be added in by the imagination. It's a classic post hoc conclusion fallacy. Which brings us to your second paragraph and the crucial word in the law:

"Reasonable".

This is going to be center stage. Whether 'tis reasonable in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of one's own perhaps outrageous imagination, or to take up arms against an unarmed teenager out for at the most petty theft, and by overkill (pun intended) end him? Aye, there's the rub. MUST give us pause.

Is it "reasonable" to react to a trespasser by trapping him "like a caged animal" (Kaarma's words) and strafe everything, all the while having no idea what -- or what else -- one may be aiming at... Is it "reasonable" to tell people you're sitting up with a baited trap and a shotgun to "kill some fucking kid" (again, Kaarma's own words) several days before doing exactly that, and then claim "defense"? Is it even "reasonable" to be shooting into your own house, penetrating your own walls, leaving a 10-month-old baby alone in that same house? Is it "reasonable" to have assumed a sniper position that would only, if not effective, send said intruder INTO said house? Indeed, are ANY of these actions "reasonable"?

That's what I'd be pounding if I were the Prosecution.

I seriously doubt that many homeowners, preparing to confront burglars in their garages at night, feel that they are dealing with a 5-year-old's 'monsters under the bed' syndrome.

Yet it's exactly the pretext you're going with here. The whole purpose of that phrase is to expose the silliness of the logic therein. The proverbial child is afraid of the dark because of what he IMAGINES out of the unknown. Which is exactly what Kaarma did ----- unless of course the whole thing was a vengeance homicide, which is what the circumstances point to, which is why he's charged with that crime.

The motion-sensors and security camera merely informed the homeowner that they had an intruder on the premises. With his partner-spouse and child at-stake, I seriously doubt he took much time to study the data before rushing out to meet the perceived threat, and any Defense attorney worth his salt should be able to pitch that as entirely reasonable.

That IS entirely reasonable. It's the actions taken subsequently where reason launches itself into space, never to be seen again.

...And since none of that technological feedback indicated a threat -- it wasn't anything more than imagination...

The lights merely presented evidence of the actual threat, or lack of it, post facto, not the perceived threat at the time the decision was made to pull the trigger.

And that evidence was, and is, nonexistent. That's the point; it leaves this imaginary "threat" where it came from --the imagination -- because, there being no actual threat, it's the only place it CAN have come from.

And it's the PERCEIVED threat that will be tested for its reasonableness, during the trial.

Exactly.

People get off scot-free all the time, in connection with a reasonable PERCEIVED threat.

Again -- "reasonable". If you refer to the Yoshihoro Hattori case -- that's exactly the problem to be dealt with. Once again -- a "threat" born out of the imagination, that never existed. Where on earth is the penalty for getting an address wrong death?

...Nothing but imagination.QED...

Correction... nothing but Perception... which is a different animal.

No correction needed. Perceptions from stimuli are real; imagination is not. "That that is, is; that that is not, is not". You can't claim what's in your head that no one else sees, is real. Well you can, but nobody's going to take you seriously. Nothing in Kaarma's received perception stimuli warranted an execution. That is derived entirely from his imagination. Entirely.

...Why? Is the analogy inconvenient? How is it 'faux'? Were witch burnings and holocausts and race prejudice NOT cases of the powerful abusing their position based on nothing more than suspicions?...

The analogy is not convenient. It simply has no place here.

The analogy is faux because it is entirely and completely and profoundly inapplicable.

Non sequitur.

Actually non sequitur means "it does not follow"; it means your conclusion cannot follow from your premise, so that doesn't apply. The analogy certainly does apply, as it's several examples, albeit on larger scales, where acting on imagination rather than reality had lethal consequences. "FEAR" the witch and burn her. "FEAR" the Jews and kill them. It's exactly the same mental dynamic. Action based on ignorance.

Sorry if that's inconvenient but it's there to demonstrate where your logic leads and ergo why it's faulty.

We may however invoke non sequitur in Kaarma's alleged reasoning: "I hear a noise and see an image, therefore he is about to kill me". Does not follow.

"The analogy is not convenient". Yeah I'm hip.

He knew there was an intruder.

He knew that intruder was in his darkened garage, mere feet away from him.

He heard sudden noises from the darkness which caused him to open fire.

You would not have done that - in all likelihood.

I would not have done that - in all likelihood.

It will be up to the jury to decide whether the shooter was justified in doing so.

And, as I've said before, ties go to the homeowner-shooter.

No quibbles with any of that except the last line where you demonstrate a dogged determination to trivialize a human life into an infield single.

...The fact remains by definition] he's shooting at his imagination...

But it's not a fact, and we're not dealing with strict literalism here.

But it IS a fact --- if it is not a fact, then I put it to you a fourth time:
When the lights went on and all could be seen, what was this "threat" defined to have been?

Unless you have some breaking new evidence, it was nonexistent.

Therefore there IS nothing left as a catalyst except Kaarma's own imagination. Unless you're about to posit that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll...

At law, we will be dealing with perceived threat, which, again, is another animal than imagination.

Indeed it is, and Kaarma acted ONLY on the latter, since the former did not present him evidence for conclusion of "threat". Threat to security of one's possessions perhaps; but no threat to life. That came, again again again, from Imagination.

Just the boys in Lord of the Flies conceived their threat from nothing more than Imagination. Just as the neighbors on Maple Street turned on each other and killed one of their own from nothing more than Imagination. Just as Loughner and Page and Holmes and Lanza did what they did, out of nothing more than their perverse Imaginations. Just as Rodney Peairs shot Yoshihiro Hattori point blank in the chest, out of nothing more than Imagination. Just as Ted Wafer shot Reneisha McBride point blank in the face --- out of nothing more than Imagination. Just as the city of Tulsa was tossed into race riots in 1921 due to nothing more than baseless rumors and... yup... Imagination.

Stop me when I get to some kind of pattern here. I feel like there must be one.
Oh wait, that's why I put the inconvenient analogy about witches and holocausts. Silly me.

...Now if you're suggesting that's all that is legally required to start mowing people down, then we need to let the Loughners and Holmeses out of jail right away, because hey, that's all they were doing too. Think about it...

Fortunately for me, what I am suggesting is that a shooter in such circumstances only require a sufficient level of perceived threat, in order to pull the trigger, legally.

-- which is a way of awarding a "get out of murder free" card. All you have to do is say you perceived (imagined) a threat. "There's a black guy across the street; I 'perceive' a threat! I hear somebody speaking Arabic -- I 'perceive' a threat!"

(Which recalls yet another; there's an excellent middle eastern restaurant named Mona's in New Orleans; after September 11th, somebody torched the restaurant and burned it to the ground. Why? Because they "perceived a threat". Which came from, all together now, nothing more than their Imagination.)

I guess it's more effective that telling the cops you were given orders by a dog, but when we descend to that level, laws cease to exist.

 

[Pogo]

I'll try to post this in the same language your obviously open eyes did...

So basically what I'm trying to saying it's only a threat if it exists. Things that exist, exist; things that do not exist.... do not exist. This is a fairly elementary concept of the nature of existence. "That that is, is; that that is not, is not". I defy you to refute that; show me how things that do not exist, DO exist.

Let me know if it's still unclear even after that simplification. Because at that point you and whatever argument you're groping for discontinue to exist.

I worry about the gene pool, but it's obviously too late.

Holy crap did he just make our point or what?

It's only a threat if it exists, well, wasn't the kid present therefore he existed in the garage. So by his own logic he was a threat. nice contradiction eh?

"Existence" is in no way a threat. You and I both exist; that doesn't make either one of us "threats".

This is a really head-exploding concept, but in order for something to exist, it must.................. exist.

 

[jc456]

I worry about the gene pool, but it's obviously too late.

Holy crap did he just make our point or what?

It's only a threat if it exists, well, wasn't the kid present therefore he existed in the garage. So by his own logic he was a threat. nice contradiction eh?

"Existence" is in no way a threat. You and I both exist; that doesn't make either one of us "threats".

This is a really head-exploding concept, but in order for something to exist, it must.................. exist.

yes it is.

 

[Kondor3]

...Trying to parse 'perceived' versus "imaginary" isn't going to get traction...

None underway, and none needed. The law provides all the distinction that is necessary, in the form of the word 'believe' (perceive, in this context).

...External stimuli... none are threats...

Correct. Various external stimuli, acting upon the human mind, create the perception of threat; regardless of whether the threat is real or not. The test is: what constitutes a perception of threat that a reasonable person would believe to be operative.

Here is the Castle Doctrine, as enacted in Montana:

----------

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

( BTW... turns out the garage is attached, and is, therefore, part of the 'occupied structure' )

----------

Note the recurring theme within: 'believes' (perceives)...

Perception in this context is based upon a combination of external stimuli and internalization (conscious thought, hunches, instinct, analysis, conclusions, etc.).

Yielding the perception (belief) that a threat exists.

Your Honor, the Pointless-Squabbling-Over-Synonyms Defense rests.

----------

...Reasonable...

...This is going to be center stage....

Agreed.

...Is it "reasonable" to react to a trespasser by trapping him "like a caged animal" (Kaarma's words) and strafe everything, all the while having no idea what -- or what else -- one may be aiming at...

Doubtful. Is that what happened? Do we know that the shooter 'trapped' the burglar?

Did conditions warrant pumping several rounds into that darkened garage? I dunno.

...Is it "reasonable" to tell people you're sitting up with a baited trap and a shotgun to "kill some fucking kid" (again, Kaarma's own words) several days before doing exactly that, and then claim "defense"?...

No.

The shooter bragged about the possibility some days prior; nolo contendere.

Is that what happened on the night of the shooting, however, or, when push-came-to-shove, did the shooter chicken-out, and just scatter-shot the whole frigging garage in a panic, during the initial burst of firing?

We already know that he was in the house, rather than lying outside in a pre-planned and secure position to lie-in-wait, and that he only picked up his gun and ran outside once the motion-sensors had gone off.

If true, and if it's as simple as that, then, that, too, is a rather far cry from the scenario he bragged about some days earlier.

There appear to be several inconsistencies between the guy's bragging and what actually unfolded that night; enough to make me wonder about malice aforethought. I could be wrong, but I'm reserving judgment on that one.

And, finally, even if he was, indeed, lying in wait (which he apparently was not), then, does it really matter? If his trap-setting resulted in a situation wherein his (or his family's) safety was reasonably perceived to be at-risk, then, even the setting-a-trap piece may not signify.

Police bait traps all the time, while taking just enough care so that they cannot be openly accused of entrapment in a court of law. Sometimes, idiots fall for those traps, sometimes they don't.

Doesn't stop the police from prosecuting the idiots who fell into the traps, though; they were stupid enough to fall for the trap and to commit a crime, they must pay the forfeit.

...Is it even "reasonable" to be shooting into your own house, penetrating your own walls, leaving a 10-month-old baby alone in that same house? Is it "reasonable" to have assumed a sniper position that would only, if not effective, send said intruder INTO said house? Indeed, are ANY of these actions "reasonable"?...

I dunno.

I don't have a schematic of their house, and a diagram of the shooting, to be able to say, with any reliable confidence.

What does this have to do with whether the shooter perceived that a threat existed at the time he pulled the trigger?

...That's what I'd be pounding if I were the Prosecution...

Given how easily some of those points are deflected, you might want to stay out of the criminal defense business.

...Yet it's exactly the pretext you're going with here. The whole purpose of that phrase is to expose the silliness of the logic therein...

Relevant statute in most US States which have a Castle Doctrine -sympathetic law utilize the words 'believe' or 'perceive' to describe the assessing of a potential threat.

There is no disconnect between logic and the use of 'perception' or 'belief' over and over again, amongst the States, and there is no disconnect between logic and a separating of "Imagined threat" from "Perceived threat". Sorry. No budge there.

...The proverbial child is afraid of the dark because of what he IMAGINES out of the unknown. Which is exactly what Kaarma did...

Nope.

His property had been violated twice before in recent times, and the police had done nothing.

His property was violated a third time, that night, his motion sensors and cameras had picked something up, and there was a racket coming out of the darkened garage aperture at the time the trigger was pulled.

That's just a wee bit above the nature of a childhood fear of the dark.

That dog just ain't gonna hunt, Pogo.

...unless of course the whole thing was a vengeance homicide, which is what the circumstances point to, which is why he's charged with that crime.

The circumstances point to no such thing, and neither does the published criminal complaint.

...No quibbles with any of that except the last line where you demonstrate a dogged determination to trivialize a human life into an infield single...

"Ties go to the homeowner-shooter".

Translation: when there is a modicum of reasonable doubt in connection with the shooter and how he reacted to the intruder and/or the situation, that benefit of a doubt goes to the homeowner-shooter.

Spare me your accusations of trivializing human life, when, in fact, I am merely simplifying the language into common metaphorical vernacular.

It's your right to walk through life with your bleeding heart on your sleeve.

I (and most folks, I daresay) get along just fine without doing so, and still manage to function as good, decent human beings.

Despite your admonitions and finger-wagging and tongue-clucking to the contrary.

...Therefore there IS nothing left as a catalyst except Kaarma's own imagination...

Immaterial. All that signifies here is whether a reasonable man would have believed (perceived) that a threat existed, which merited opening fire, at the time the trigger was pulled.

That's the law.

See above.

...Oh wait, that's why I put the inconvenient analogy about witches and holocausts...

Disconnected melodrama merely gets in the way.

...which is a way of awarding a "get out of murder free" card. All you have to do is say you perceived (imagined) a threat. "There's a black guy across the street; I 'perceive' a threat! I hear somebody speaking Arabic -- I 'perceive' a threat!"...

The perception (belief) must be reasonable. See Montana law, above. The jury decides.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is investigating a deadly home invasion that left a north side homeowner dead in his garage.

Man killed in home invasion on city?s north side | Fox 59 News ? fox59.com

Those things don't exist. They are just made up by FOX news, haven't you heard?

The libtards told me so.

 

[Pogo]

I'm gonna need to shorten this and excise all but the important points. Don't worry, there will be something left. Not much but something...

...Is it "reasonable" to tell people you're sitting up with a baited trap and a shotgun to "kill some fucking kid" (again, Kaarma's own words) several days before doing exactly that, and then claim "defense"?...

No.

The shooter bragged about the possibility some days prior; nolo contendere.

There you go again, morphing the known into the preferred.

The shooter spoke of no "possibilities"; he stated exactly what he was engaged in: staying up with a shotgun waiting to shoot "some fucking kid". There wasn't a question of "IF" it would happen; it was more like a vow: "I’m not fucking kidding. You’ll see this on the fucking news. I’m going to fucking kill ‘em.” Forgive me if I see nothing conditional in that language. No IFs involved, drop the pretense and stop insulting my intelligence.

We already know that he was in the house, rather than lying outside in a pre-planned and secure position to lie-in-wait, and that he only picked up his gun and ran outside once the motion-sensors had gone off.

Irrelevant. At that point it was at least seven days since Kaarma claimed to have been sitttiing up waiting; even if we took that literally nobody could do that for 168 hours. When you have motion sensors and baby monitors you're employing exactly the technology that sits up and waits FOR you, 24/7. And he had his shotgun right there at the ready, as he advertised.

If true, and if it's as simple as that, then, that, too, is a rather far cry from the scenario he bragged about some days earlier.

If "far cry" means "matches exactly", then yes.

There appear to be several inconsistencies between the guy's bragging and what actually unfolded that night; enough to make me wonder about malice aforethought. I could be wrong, but I'm reserving judgment on that one.

Inconsistencies? Like what?

And, finally, even if he was, indeed, lying in wait (which he apparently was not), then, does it really matter? If his trap-setting resulted in a situation wherein his (or his family's) safety was reasonably perceived to be at-risk, then, even the setting-a-trap piece may not signify.

The significance is that it completely undermines a claim to be on "defense"... when you are clearly and demonstrably on "offense".

Police bait traps all the time, while taking just enough care so that they cannot be openly accused of entrapment in a court of law. Sometimes, idiots fall for those traps, sometimes they don't.

Doesn't stop the police from prosecuting the idiots who fell into the traps, though; they were stupid enough to fall for the trap and to commit a crime, they must pay the forfeit.

Actually yeah it does. If entrapment is found the case has to be tossed. You can't do that.

What does this have to do with whether the shooter perceived that a threat existed at the time he pulled the trigger?

It has to do with exactly what preceded that passage in the post: the word Reasonably in the law. We both agreed it was going to be a big player. Well here it is. The word reasonably is vague and not quantified; the case cannot proceed until it's established what is "reasonable" and what is not.

Given how easily some of those points are deflected, you might want to stay out of the criminal defense business.

Given your penchant for morphing the real into the preferred, it's understandable that your power of self-flattery follows the same pattern...

There is no disconnect between logic and the use of 'perception' or 'belief' over and over again, amongst the States, and there is no disconnect between logic and a separating of "Imagined threat" from "Perceived threat". Sorry. No budge there.

Unfortunately the words mean two different things in English, so no budge necessary. If there is no disconnection ("disconnect" is a verb) between the perceived and the imaginary, then nothing is real and let me take you down to Strawberry Fields because we're no longer on Earth.

...The proverbial child is afraid of the dark because of what he IMAGINES out of the unknown. Which is exactly what Kaarma did...

His property had been violated twice before in recent times, and the police had done nothing.

Not true. This is only Kaarma's description.

In reality, the first burglary was never reported. Most likely because it involved a cannabis stash and a bhong pipe for smoking it. The second theft involved a credit card, which was reported, which was investigated, and in fact the police arrested two other completely unrelated kids in that theft. They were not acquainted with Dede and/or Pazmino. It's not clear or established whether the same two kids were involved in the pot/bhong theft. But in any case two things are clear: one, the Kaarma garage was apparently always open and notorious as a pot smoking area (it being the first thing stolen); and two, the police, contrary to what Kaarma said, DID do their job.

His property was violated a third time, that night, his motion sensors and cameras had picked something up, and there was a racket coming out of the darkened garage aperture at the time the trigger was pulled.

That's just a wee bit above the nature of a childhood fear of the dark.

Not at all. The proverbial child may not have had his bhong stolen but he still has the common theme: the fear of the unknown under the bed, because you can't see down there, and that's when the imagination plugs in. Especially if it's been baited with suggestions in advance. And that's the reason for all those examples in my post, conveniently excised from your retort (presumably also 'inconvenient' -- because they illustrate exactly the same fallacy and the consequences thereof.

...unless of course the whole thing was a vengeance homicide, which is what the circumstances point to, which is why he's charged with that crime.

The circumstances point to no such thing, and neither does the published criminal complaint.

Oh COME ON.

It's exactly what the criminal complaint is about! That's why the excerpt from Felene Sherbondy is in there; it would have no other function. It's there exactly because it establishes premeditation and intent.

If you're going to deny this, you might as well join that other wag and maintain that existence doesn't exist.

...Therefore there IS nothing left as a catalyst except Kaarma's own imagination...

Immaterial. All that signifies here is whether a reasonable man would have believed (perceived) that a threat existed, which merited opening fire, at the time the trigger was pulled.

Finish your own sentence: .... or whether that perception was born of his own imagination, which means it didn't. Again, "reasonable" comes into play. If it's "reasonable" to act based on nothing but imagination -- IOW if some confirmatory sensory input is not required -- then we have no laws, and the Loughners and Holmeses should be set free, since they acted on the same thing.

Is that what we want? Think about it.

...Oh wait, that's why I put the inconvenient analogy about witches and holocausts...

Disconnected melodrama merely gets in the way.

It's damned inconvenient to your point, we know. But it's reality. If my analogies are on a grandiose scale it's to make their function all the more obvious. Which is apparently why you want them to go away, because you have yet to come up with a good reason to dismiss them.

...which is a way of awarding a "get out of murder free" card. All you have to do is say you perceived (imagined) a threat. "There's a black guy across the street; I 'perceive' a threat! I hear somebody speaking Arabic -- I 'perceive' a threat!"...

The perception (belief) must be reasonable. See Montana law, above. The jury decides.

Exactly. And the ideas that Jews are destroying Germany, or heretics are cursing my cows, or this movie theater is full of Antichrists, are not reasonable. Nor is spraying buckshot into an area you can't see on the basis that something might be in there and you have no idea what it is. That's just bloody reckless.

 

[Kondor3]

...

This automatic gainsay and quibbling over verbiage isn't going anywhere. Enough.

 

[Pogo]

I presume that last is for Jc456 or one of that lot...
[MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION]: Here's a document I promised you: Affidavit and Motion for Leave to File Information

-- filed by the Deputy County Attorney May 12 -- this contains the more detailed description of events, the interviews with the two hair stylists including the "I'd be glad to shoot a cop" statement, the multiple reports of Kaarmic (heh) road rage on the same day as the shooting, details on the garage and where the buckshot penetrated etc. Also upon review it looks like the two teenagers arrested for the theft of the credit card did indeed confess to having taken the cannabis and bhong in the first event.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Just sayin'.

And Esmerelda and JoeB are your support. I'm glad you finally concede.

"Concede"?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I'll take that team over Slowie and TheNutHouse any day of any week of any year, and I'll feel guilty for beating up on you. I mean ---- just read that post above.

And if that's not silly enough, read his next one.

Esmerelda = hyperbole and Joe = bullshit. Your fantacy debate team finishes in the cellar.

I read it. POSSUM! What you feel doesn't matter one iota. What matters is the laws om Montana and 12 jurors. You will NEVER get 12 people to vote to convict. Just like Zimmerman. I believe you had HIM pegged as going to prison too.

 

[Ernie S.]

...The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be 'threatened' by the unknown...

OK, now that's just silly.

This is not about a dictionary or textbook definition of an actual threat.

This is about the perception of threat; in this legal context, would a reasonable person feel sufficiently threatened to discharge a firearm into a darkened area.

That's what I just said.



Again...



"Not imagination but perceived threat" = "not imagination but imagination". You're trrying to say the same thing in different terms and claim you've said something different. Let's take it a third way: "when you turn the light off, there are monsters under the bed".

And since none of that technological feedback indicated a threat -- it wasn't anything more than imagination. Which, once again, was obviously confirmed once the light went on. I put it to you again, as it's been left unanswered: when the lights went on and all could be seen-- what had the threat been?

Exactly. Nothing but imagination. QED.





Why? Is the analogy inconvenient? How is it "faux"? Were witch burnings and holocausts and race prejudice NOT cases of the powerful abusing their position based on nothing more than suspicions?



We agree, the shooter did not know at the time what or who he was shooting at. Which right there, on its own removed from any other circumstances, is irresponsible action. The fact remains by definition he's shooting at his imagination. Now if you're suggesting that's all that is legally required to start mowing people down, then we need to let the Loughners and Holmeses out of jail right away, because hey, that's all they were doing too. Think about it.



"Unless" nothing. You don't shoot into the unknown outside a war zone, ever. Period. What's in your imagination is irrelevant.



Again, this is not a game. Being out at first base cannot be compared to being shot to death.




If it's not suddenly suspended, then it still applies. You can't have it both ways....



Actually it matched the rant exactly. "He told the stylists he had been waiting up for three nights with his shotgun to 'shoot some fucking kid'" (directly from the criminal complaint). Want to find another way to state "lying in wait" and then claim it's different?





In the same rant at the hair salon he said he'd be "glad to shoot a cop". Part of his rant was that the police were ineffective (and the first burglary had taken his bhong and garage stash so it wasn't reported). That doesn't rise to the same level of commitment as waiting up for three days with a shotgun to shoot some fucking kid" in my estimation; it's just expression of a willingness to shoot a cop.

You would not believe (I don't believe myself) how many tabs I have open to try to navigate this mess in lieu of a retainer and a secretary. I'll try to look up the original comprehensive interview, which I've already read and it's out there somewhere. Found a reference to it here on a quick search but will get back to you. Or my secretary will...

Is there any reason to suspect that Kaarma was lying about the darkened garage?

That would certainly change things, but I had not heard that, either. Got a link?


His case would, indeed, suffer a 'hit', from such a revelation.

However, we both (and the rest of us, too) know that the mere fact that a room is lighted, is not ipso facto evidence that the shooter had a clear line of sight to his target, nor does it automatically and substantively prove that the shooter had definite and practical knowledge that his target was armed or unarmed.

If, for example, the target (the idiot-teen, Dede), ws hunkered-down on the other side of a car, or other object(s) in the garage, or if the view of Dede was otherwise compromised, the lit status of the garage may not prove anywhere near as problematic for the Defense as you seem to believe.

There is no reason I know of to suspect Kaarma was lying about that or that there was any light in the garage; I'm speculatiing all possible possibilities. "HAD he been able to see, then...". Meaning if my opponent in this point (Ernie) wants to take that position, then it would mean, blah blah blah. In other words "EITHER he's shooting into the unknown, or he's not, and if not, here's what it means". But there's no such indication, therefore we must, for the moment, conclude that Kaarma was, as he says, shooting into the dark. And that carries its own obvious issues.

Again... when in doubt, the tie (benefit of a doubt) goes to the homeowner.

Again, if it were a play at first base that would be the rule. While a good shortstop might be described as having a "gun" for an arm, that remains a metaphor. You can't just award "benefit of the doubt" to suspend basic rules of firearms because he's the homeowner. If being a homeowner means being a sovereign citizen to which no laws apply, then we live in anarchy.

As I pointed out, "dark" is relative.

 

[JimBowie1958]

...

This automatic gainsay and quibbling over verbiage isn't going anywhere. Enough.

Yep, Pogo is a waste of time. A thirteen year old can post more intelligently than he does.

Pogo has no integrity, is not discussing things honestly, and he is just playing games. With him there is no discussion, only him trying to show you how wrong you are by wearing you down with stupid repetition.

 

[Ernie S.]

I take anyone in my home uninvited as a threat. I HAVE to. I have a wife to protect.
The fact that Dede was found to be unarmed is irrelevant. The fact that he made himself a target by engaging in a criminal and possibly lethal act IS relevant.
Dede caused his own death.

By that logic, that woman who was raped was "just asking for it".

Ehh... no thanks.

Are you joining Esmerelda and Joe with hyperbolic bullshit? Where the fuck do you get off analogizing a burglar with a rape victim?

A rape victim is a victim, period. If anyone could be compared to a rape victim in this instance, it would be Mr. Kaarma. He created an attractive target which our rapist, Me Dede went after. Do you begrudge a rape victim defending herself?

Damn Pogo! You're better that that. I'm very disappointed.