Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Kondor3]

So you have the right to use deadly force if you "don't have time".

Thanks for clearing that up. Time is money.

Not "time", as in an inconvenience.

But "time", as in the split-second that can mean the difference between a live family and a dead one, when a member of that family moves to defend them, in a darkened setting.

When it comes down to "crunch time", and my family is at stake: "Shoot first, apologize later."

Don't want to get shot? Then stay the phukk off my land and stay out of the structures I've erected on that land.

Fail to observe that bit of common sense, and you may find yourself on a steel table sporting a toe-tag.

Your choice, not mine.

It's really no more complicated than that.

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

Nature has de-selected him.

Next slide, please.

 

[M14 Shooter]

MT law:

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.
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

Further, the state has the burdern to prove that the use of force was not justified.
http://votesmart.org/static/billtext/24745.pdf
Passed into law 4-27-2009
Montana HB 228 - Amending Concealed Weapons and Self-Defense Statutes - Key Vote - Project Vote Smart

And so, it is self-defense until proven otherwise - no matter how much -you- may disagree.

 

[Dr Grump]

So you have the right to use deadly force if you "don't have time".

Thanks for clearing that up. Time is money.

Not "time", as in an inconvenience.

But "time", as in the split-second that can mean the difference between a live family and a dead one, when a member of that family moves to defend them, in a darkened setting.

When it comes down to "crunch time", and my family is at stake: "Shoot first, apologize later."

Don't want to get shot? Then stay the phukk off my land and stay out of the structures I've erected on that land.

Fail to observe that bit of common sense, and you may find yourself on a steel table sporting a toe-tag.

Your choice, not mine.

It's really no more complicated than that.

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

Nature has de-selected him.

Next slide, please.

Love the third-world attitude...

 

[Kondor3]

So you have the right to use deadly force if you "don't have time".

Thanks for clearing that up. Time is money.

Not "time", as in an inconvenience.

But "time", as in the split-second that can mean the difference between a live family and a dead one, when a member of that family moves to defend them, in a darkened setting.

When it comes down to "crunch time", and my family is at stake: "Shoot first, apologize later."

Don't want to get shot? Then stay the phukk off my land and stay out of the structures I've erected on that land.

Fail to observe that bit of common sense, and you may find yourself on a steel table sporting a toe-tag.

Your choice, not mine.

It's really no more complicated than that.

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

Nature has de-selected him.

Next slide, please.

Love the third-world attitude...

No extra charge... all part of the friendly service... courtesy of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you have the right to use deadly force if you "don't have time".

Thanks for clearing that up. Time is money.

Not "time", as in an inconvenience.

But "time", as in the split-second that can mean the difference between a live family and a dead one, when a member of that family moves to defend them, in a darkened setting.

When it comes down to "crunch time", and my family is at stake: "Shoot first, apologize later."

Don't want to get shot? Then stay the phukk off my land and stay out of the structures I've erected on that land.

Fail to observe that bit of common sense, and you may find yourself on a steel table sporting a toe-tag.

Your choice, not mine.

It's really no more complicated than that.

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

Nature has de-selected him.

Next slide, please.

Love the third-world attitude...

Darwin in action is 3rd world?

 

[Dr Grump]

Darwin in action is 3rd world?

No, thinking it okay - in fact encouraging somebody - to shoot and kill somebody is.

Somebody walks onto your property with a firearm and you defend yourself? I get that. Or you catch somebody attempting to rape your wife or daughter? I get that.

But in this circumstance with the OP? No, I don't get that. It is pathetic and why the US is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to firearms.

The irony in all of this - in every argument the gun nuts have - is that they some how thinks it makes your society more free. Not only that, they shake their heads in wonder at Europe, Canada, NZ and Australia - which have strict gun controls - and how they are under the yoke of despotism for having such laws.

Yet from the outside looking in, there is definitely a Western society shackled to the chains of its guns and the bight they are on a culture, and the society sits smack bang between the borders of Canada and Mexico. And the weird thing is, there was a time when I used to think other than currency and some cultural quirks, the US had a lot more in common with its northerly neighbour. These days, it has a lot more in common with that to its south - and not in a good way....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Darwin in action is 3rd world?

No, thinking it okay - in fact encouraging somebody - to shoot and kill somebody is.

Somebody walks onto your property with a firearm and you defend yourself? I get that. Or you catch somebody attempting to rape your wife or daughter? I get that.

But in this circumstance with the OP? No, I don't get that. It is pathetic and why the US is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to firearms.

You know that the issue here isn't firearms, but self-defense. Right?
In that, the US has it right and the rest of the world is laughable.

 

[Dr Grump]

You know that the issue here isn't firearms, but self-defense. Right?
In that, the US has it right and the rest of the world is laughable.

Well, apparently you don't. Ask Zimmerman. Ask the clown in the OP. And of course there are self-defense rights in other countries. Of course the issue is firearms. This student would still be alive if this guy didn't bring out his peashooter, or confront the guy.

 

[Kondor3]

You know that the issue here isn't firearms, but self-defense. Right?
In that, the US has it right and the rest of the world is laughable.

Well, apparently you don't. Ask Zimmerman. Ask the clown in the OP. And of course there are self-defense rights in other countries. Of course the issue is firearms. This student would still be alive if this guy didn't bring out his peashooter, or confront the guy.

Someone comes on your property, and you're not supposed to confront the guy?

Is that what you're trying to pitch to the class here?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One does not have a right to enter another's property whether a door is open or not. The person in question was bent on stealing property from the house and the home owner had no idea what he intended when he entered. Further if I leave my wallet laying in MY garage that dos not permit you to take it no matter if I left the door open or not.

Entering my property in the middle of the night uninvited bent on stealing from me is a crime not a prank and it can and will get you killed if I catch you at it. My family lives here and I will protect them from any and all threats, uninvited thieves are a danger to my family. I do not have the time nor can I risk the chance they are armed to warn them or ask them nicely why they entered my property illegally.

So you have the right to use deadly force if you "don't have time".

Thanks for clearing that up. Time is money.

It is about risk. I do not have to take the risk that the perp is armed and warn him so he can fire on me

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know that the issue here isn't firearms, but self-defense. Right?
In that, the US has it right and the rest of the world is laughable.

Well, apparently you don't. Ask Zimmerman. Ask the clown in the OP. And of course there are self-defense rights in other countries. Of course the issue is firearms. This student would still be alive if this guy didn't bring out his peashooter, or confront the guy.

So, you -don't- understand the issue at hand is self-defense, not guns.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

 

[Ernie S.]

And you have all the facts? I don't live in the US, though I am an American, and this is the first time I have heard of this incident. It appears the homeowner lay in wait for this guy and then shot at him in a darkened garage, not caring if he killed him and not knowing if this kid was armed or not or meant any bodily harm to the homeowners. It's murder as far as I am concerned: not self defense or defense of your home. Material possessions are not as important as human life and this was a young kid, only 17, and unarmed.

As I said: you people simply delight in killing other people.

No one delights in killing people, well, maybe except for some liberal gangbangers. What we do delight in is living in a country where we are free to protect ourselves and our property from intruders that mean us harm.

You said it yourself. The garage was dark. How would the home owner know that the intruder was unarmed? Do you advocate waiting until an intruder shoots you before you defend yourself?
ANYONE who enters my home uninvited will be assumed armed and dangerous.

 

[Pogo]

MT law:

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.
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

Further, the state has the burdern to prove that the use of force was not justified.
http://votesmart.org/static/billtext/24745.pdf
Passed into law 4-27-2009
Montana HB 228 - Amending Concealed Weapons and Self-Defense Statutes - Key Vote - Project Vote Smart

And so, it is self-defense until proven otherwise - no matter how much -you- may disagree.

Nope. Case not proven.
In order to "self-defend" you must have something to defend against. In order to have that the latter must acually exist. Imagination doesn't quiiiiiiite meet that criterion. Nor do ghoulies and ghosties and long leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night. This guy according to the story shot into "the dark".

Is the dark a threat?

Not unless you're about three years old.

 

[Katzndogz]

Darwin in action is 3rd world?

No, thinking it okay - in fact encouraging somebody - to shoot and kill somebody is.

Somebody walks onto your property with a firearm and you defend yourself? I get that. Or you catch somebody attempting to rape your wife or daughter? I get that.

But in this circumstance with the OP? No, I don't get that. It is pathetic and why the US is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to firearms.

The irony in all of this - in every argument the gun nuts have - is that they some how thinks it makes your society more free. Not only that, they shake their heads in wonder at Europe, Canada, NZ and Australia - which have strict gun controls - and how they are under the yoke of despotism for having such laws.

Yet from the outside looking in, there is definitely a Western society shackled to the chains of its guns and the bight they are on a culture, and the society sits smack bang between the borders of Canada and Mexico. And the weird thing is, there was a time when I used to think other than currency and some cultural quirks, the US had a lot more in common with its northerly neighbour. These days, it has a lot more in common with that to its south - and not in a good way....

We have more lawless immigration from the south.

 

[Pogo]

And you have all the facts? I don't live in the US, though I am an American, and this is the first time I have heard of this incident. It appears the homeowner lay in wait for this guy and then shot at him in a darkened garage, not caring if he killed him and not knowing if this kid was armed or not or meant any bodily harm to the homeowners. It's murder as far as I am concerned: not self defense or defense of your home. Material possessions are not as important as human life and this was a young kid, only 17, and unarmed.

As I said: you people simply delight in killing other people.

No one delights in killing people, well, maybe except for some liberal gangbangers. What we do delight in is living in a country where we are free to protect ourselves and our property from intruders that mean us harm.

You said it yourself. The garage was dark. How would the home owner know that the intruder was unarmed? Do you advocate waiting until an intruder shoots you before you defend yourself?
ANYONE who enters my home uninvited will be assumed armed and dangerous.

There's the key word, in bold: "Assume".

An unidentified motion in the dark could be a rodent.

Why would a squirrel be armed?

 

[Ernie S.]

And you have all the facts? I don't live in the US, though I am an American, and this is the first time I have heard of this incident. It appears the homeowner lay in wait for this guy and then shot at him in a darkened garage, not caring if he killed him and not knowing if this kid was armed or not or meant any bodily harm to the homeowners. It's murder as far as I am concerned: not self defense or defense of your home. Material possessions are not as important as human life and this was a young kid, only 17, and unarmed.

As I said: you people simply delight in killing other people.

Homeowners do not exist so that they can be prey for anyone who wants to steal from them. The student had a choice. He could not steal. Because stealing had been successful in the past (this student had stolen from this homeowner twice before) he expected that he could take anything he wanted. He was wrong. The world has lost a thief. That's no real loss.

Death is not the punishment for housebreaking or theft. You are happy he is dead. That makes you a very sick person.

No one is happy the kid is dead. I am extremely happy the home owner, his wife and his child are not dead. I am overjoyed that the deceased will never break into another home.
The story could have had a far better outcome, namely the homeowner, his family and possessions intact, AND the student could have lived, had he NOT entered a private dwelling without permission.

 

[Ernie S.]

after the teen broke into his garage.

Got what he deserved. In America we enjoy being able to protect our property. You break in my home I am not gonna ask you if you intend to harm me. By breaking in you have already made yourself a threat to me and my family.

Riiiight, because walking into an open garage is the same thing as murder.

Not at all! Shooting someone who has broken into your home is NOT murder.

 

[Pogo]

Involuntary Manslaughter: Definition
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

Elements of the Offense
Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Charges of involuntary manslaughter often come in the wake of a deadly car crash caused by a motorist under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. While the motorist never intended to kill anyone, his or her negligence in operating a car while impaired is enough to meet the requirements of the charge.

(Findlaw)​

Clearly all three criteria are more than met.

Second Degree Murder: Definition
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.​

(Findlaw)

Voluntary Manslaughter: Definition
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought (aka, murder) and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense. (Findlaw)​

Prosecutor's choice here.

 

[Dr Grump]

You know that the issue here isn't firearms, but self-defense. Right?
In that, the US has it right and the rest of the world is laughable.

Well, apparently you don't. Ask Zimmerman. Ask the clown in the OP. And of course there are self-defense rights in other countries. Of course the issue is firearms. This student would still be alive if this guy didn't bring out his peashooter, or confront the guy.

Someone comes on your property, and you're not supposed to confront the guy?

Is that what you're trying to pitch to the class here?

No, I'm trying to pitch that each scenario needs to be treated differently. An armed guy walks up your driveway with a hoodie on, and you have a shotgun at your disposal? All bets are off. Some 17 year old kid running around in your garage - and you know somebody is there, but you don't know who - grab your gun, call the cops and wait. If he breaks into the house, all bets are off... see how that works? Your attitude seems to be "shoot first ask, questions later"..to which I say bollocks.

 

[Esmeralda]

Homeowners do not exist so that they can be prey for anyone who wants to steal from them. The student had a choice. He could not steal. Because stealing had been successful in the past (this student had stolen from this homeowner twice before) he expected that he could take anything he wanted. He was wrong. The world has lost a thief. That's no real loss.

Death is not the punishment for housebreaking or theft. You are happy he is dead. That makes you a very sick person.

No one is happy the kid is dead. I am extremely happy the home owner, his wife and his child are not dead. I am overjoyed that the deceased will never break into another home.
The story could have had a far better outcome, namely the homeowner, his family and possessions intact, AND the student could have lived, had he NOT entered a private dwelling without permission.

Overjoyed? This was a 17 year old kid who was not familiar with the US gun culture, was doing a prank (probably involved in this due to peer pressure and wanting to be included as he was new to the country and the school), who never intended to harm anyone, who had no weapons (was unarmed), who walked into a garage that was open to the street. And you are overjoyed. You're sick.