Vigilante

[Seth]

Not that I recall ever going into apoplexy over the words "set gun", but why would you think my use of the term "Shithawk" refers to you?


Setting a shotgun to fire unattended or remotely is ipso facto premeditation, on par with setting ambush or an IED. That's how the jury will hear it from the prosecution if you ever use one.

No shit, Sherlock. I see you still haven't read the post. There was no set gun involved in this incident, you dunce.

[JimC]

Not that I recall ever going into apoplexy over the words "set gun", but why would you think my use of the term "Shithawk" refers to you?


Setting a shotgun to fire unattended or remotely is ipso facto premeditation, on par with setting ambush or an IED. That's how the jury will hear it from the prosecution if you ever use one.

Seth's post did rule that out, and basically said a set-gun would definitely be pre-meditated homicide...

However, back to the case of the man who gunned down the 2 teenagers - he obviously planned and set up for it, so I suspect he will be going to the Big House...

[piscator]

Not that I recall ever going into apoplexy over the words "set gun", but why would you think my use of the term "Shithawk" refers to you?


Setting a shotgun to fire unattended or remotely is ipso facto premeditation, on par with setting ambush or an IED. That's how the jury will hear it from the prosecution if you ever use one.

Seth's post did rule that out, and basically said a set-gun would definitely be pre-meditated homicide...

However, back to the case of the man who gunned down the 2 teenagers - he obviously planned and set up for it, so I suspect he will be going to the Big House...

This isnt' about shooting at passing cars, this is about shooting at two intruders inside the man's home.

Funny how nobody has anything to say about the intruders such as, "what the fuck were they doing in someone else's garage in the middle of the night?"

Seminary student my ass.

Don't want to get shot, don't invade people's homes. Pretty simple really.

The fact that he showed premeditation is irrelevant. ...

But the fact that he showed premeditation in setting an instrument of death like an improvised claymore isn't. "Setting an ambush is purely and simply premeditated murder", US Army training maxim.
Killing a man to protect your fucking lawnmower is a great thing to be remembered for, BTW.

[FBM]

Not exactly a vigilante, but a Good Samaritan (with vid):

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Armed-go ... 91061.html

[Seth]

But the fact that he showed premeditation in setting an instrument of death like an improvised claymore isn't. "Setting an ambush is purely and simply premeditated murder", US Army training maxim.
Killing a man to protect your fucking lawnmower is a great thing to be remembered for, BTW.

Hey, jackass, go read the story. In the Montana case there was no "trap" set, there was no set-gun, there were motion detectors and surveillance cameras which detected the intrusion, at which point the homeowner went outside with his shotgun and ended up firing into his own garage.

His claim is that it was dark, the suspects didn't surrender and he was afraid they were going to attack him out of the dark, so he fired. Whether that passes legal muster is up to a jury.

But there was no set gun "trap" at all.

Sheesh!

[Gallstones]

But the fact that he showed premeditation in setting an instrument of death like an improvised claymore isn't. "Setting an ambush is purely and simply premeditated murder", US Army training maxim.
Killing a man to protect your fucking lawnmower is a great thing to be remembered for, BTW.

Hey, jackass, go read the story. In the Montana case there was no "trap" set, there was no set-gun, there were motion detectors and surveillance cameras which detected the intrusion, at which point the homeowner went outside with his shotgun and ended up firing into his own garage.

His claim is that it was dark, the suspects didn't surrender and he was afraid they were going to attack him out of the dark, so he fired. Whether that passes legal muster is up to a jury.

But there was no set gun "trap" at all.

Sheesh!

Kaarma himself admits to having set up a trap to lure in "some kid" and intending to shoot the kid when he entered the trap. He talked about doing this for days prior. It's why he left the garage door open and why his wife placed a purse in view. He and his wife left the safety of their house--leaving their 10 month old alone, presumably at the mercy of danger--to walk to the garage. They went between their two vehicles, one of which (the truck) would have afforded cover if they were afraid of attack . Kaarma himself says he couldn't see into the garage, he just started shooting and sweeping the muzzle of the shotgun. The wife turned on lights after. They called 911 after.

This wasn't in the rural backcountry where he would be on his own and have to wait a long time for law enforcement to back him up, it was in Missoula a city of 68K people.

We don't know why Dede entered the garage. And in doing that he did trespass. He also picked the worse garage to do it in. But Kaarma won't be able to defend having shot Dede.

A reading of Montana law--House Bill 288, and MCA pertaining to Montana self defense and castle law puts Kaarma's behavior outside the protection of those laws. He is guilty of deliberate homicide. He's going to be convicted and he's going to prison. I predict the wife will be convicted too but given a lessor sentence.

He violated more than one rule of safe firearm handling that every competent and responsible gun owner understands, teaches and practices. He should be condemned for that alone. He is an appalling example of a gun owner.

Kaarma has fueled efforts by prohibitionists to not only repeal self protection law in Montana, but disable Second Amendment protections. This is not a good thing or an acceptable thing he did. I condemn him for it.

And he'd barely lived in the state for three months. He hadn't yet earned being a Montanian, but we are all being associated with him.

[Svartalf]

You forget about the jury exonerating him... he'd be stupid to plead guilty, and there's always the chance the jury will let him walk.

[Gallstones]

You forget about the jury exonerating him... he'd be stupid to plead guilty, and there's always the chance the jury will let him walk.

Who are you referring to?

[Gallstones]

BTW, Kaarma's jury will be pulled from Missoula. Missoula politics tend to be very liberal---we call them granolas--the Missoula vote went for Obama. I'm pretty sure this will matter.

[Svartalf]

I did mean Kaarma being exonerated, and I'm sure his lawyers will do their best to ensure that suitably self defence friendly folk will stand as jurors, even if that's not the majority of population around Missoula.

It's not like juries have never decided that they wanted to see a person who had obviously done the deed still walk free.

[Gallstones]

I did mean Kaarma being exonerated, and I'm sure his lawyers will do their best to ensure that suitably self defence friendly folk will stand as jurors, even if that's not the majority of population around Missoula.

It's not like juries have never decided that they wanted to see a person who had obviously done the deed still walk free.

I've been part of the conversation locally and I bet you money he'll be convicted. Want to take that bet?

Also, self defense friendly folk are some of those most vocal about condemning Kaarma and resenting him for tainting the rest of us. Even you assume we are a single monolithic mindset.

[Svartalf]

I did mean Kaarma being exonerated, and I'm sure his lawyers will do their best to ensure that suitably self defence friendly folk will stand as jurors, even if that's not the majority of population around Missoula.

It's not like juries have never decided that they wanted to see a person who had obviously done the deed still walk free.

I've been part of the conversation locally and I bet you money he'll be convicted. Want to take that bet?

Also, self defense friendly folk are some of those most vocal about condemning Kaarma and resenting him for tainting the rest of us. Even you assume we are a single monolithic mindset.

Not betting since I could not even manage to buy you a beer, but I'm still waiting to see how this case will wrap up if I'm ever given the opportunity to know (unlikely as I don't regularly follow CNN anymore, and given how long this is likely to take).

[Seth]

But the fact that he showed premeditation in setting an instrument of death like an improvised claymore isn't. "Setting an ambush is purely and simply premeditated murder", US Army training maxim.
Killing a man to protect your fucking lawnmower is a great thing to be remembered for, BTW.

Hey, jackass, go read the story. In the Montana case there was no "trap" set, there was no set-gun, there were motion detectors and surveillance cameras which detected the intrusion, at which point the homeowner went outside with his shotgun and ended up firing into his own garage.

His claim is that it was dark, the suspects didn't surrender and he was afraid they were going to attack him out of the dark, so he fired. Whether that passes legal muster is up to a jury.

But there was no set gun "trap" at all.

Sheesh!

Kaarma himself admits to having set up a trap to lure in "some kid" and intending to shoot the kid when he entered the trap. He talked about doing this for days prior. It's why he left the garage door open and why his wife placed a purse in view.

That's not a "trap" any more than a police officer offering drugs for sale is a trap. Did he intentionally provide an opportunity for some criminal to illegally enter his residence for the purposes of committing a crime therein? You bet he did, and there's nothing in the law that prohibits him from doing so. He can hang granny's diamonds in the window and deal with anyone who tries to steal them. There is NO burden on anyone to secure their home or belongings that gives any sort of license to anyone to enter without permission. None at all.

He and his wife left the safety of their house--leaving their 10 month old alone, presumably at the mercy of danger--to walk to the garage.

Which they have a right to do.

They went between their two vehicles, one of which (the truck) would have afforded cover if they were afraid of attack .

There's no retreat to the wall statute in Montana that I'm aware of. He and his wife had every right to go anywhere on their property they wanted to go without having to fear being attacked.

Kaarma himself says he couldn't see into the garage, he just started shooting and sweeping the muzzle of the shotgun. The wife turned on lights after. They called 911 after.

This is the aspect of the case that will be considered by a jury most likely. Was his belief that he was in danger "reasonable" under the existing circumstances. Note that nothing in the law requires him to turn on lights, or avoid going to his garage or doing any other lawful thing on his own property and in his own home. If he had opted to switch on the lights that would have required him or his wife to approach the garage and find the switch, which is not a good tactical move. Also, doing so would illuminate him and his wife, thereby giving an advantage to an armed criminal hiding behind cover or concealment in the garage. So he had no duty to do so.

This wasn't in the rural backcountry where he would be on his own and have to wait a long time for law enforcement to back him up, it was in Missoula a city of 68K people.

So what? Who cares? He's not under any obligation to refrain from acting in his own defense, or from exercising his rightful authority to investigate and even arrest a person illegally on his property.

We don't know why Dede entered the garage. And in doing that he did trespass. He also picked the worse garage to do it in. But Kaarma won't be able to defend having shot Dede.

Sure he will. There was an intruder in his garage, which is his home. The law says that the homeowner need only "reasonably believe" he might be assaulted" in order to justify deadly force.

A reading of Montana law--House Bill 288, and MCA pertaining to Montana self defense and castle law puts Kaarma's behavior outside the protection of those laws. He is guilty of deliberate homicide. He's going to be convicted and he's going to prison. I predict the wife will be convicted too but given a lessor sentence.

Under the law, I see only two avenues of attack on his Castle Doctrine rights: First, was his belief he might be assaulted "reasonable" to a jury given the totality of the circumstances; second, was he "then in the occupied structure" at the moment he fired, or was he outside the occupied structure, and if so was his fear of possible assault on his child, who was then in the occupied structure reasonable?

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.

He violated more than one rule of safe firearm handling that every competent and responsible gun owner understands, teaches and practices. He should be condemned for that alone. He is an appalling example of a gun owner.

Yes, he did, but in self defense situations punctilious observation of all of the gun safety laws may take a back seat to the actual act of self defense. It's not like he shot some innocent passerby or lawful occupant of the structure, he shot burglars. Burglars give up their rights when they burgle, which is the point of the law.

Kaarma has fueled efforts by prohibitionists to not only repeal self protection law in Montana, but disable Second Amendment protections. This is not a good thing or an acceptable thing he did. I condemn him for it.

I think he was stupid and shortsighted and obviously frustrated with the inability of the local police to protect his property, but I also think he was very likely within the four corners of the statute, although a jury may see it differently.

And he'd barely lived in the state for three months. He hadn't yet earned being a Montanian, but we are all being associated with him.

Um, you don't "earn" being a Montanian, you become a Montana citizen by establishing residency, which he did.

[Seth]

BTW, Kaarma's jury will be pulled from Missoula. Missoula politics tend to be very liberal---we call them granolas--the Missoula vote went for Obama. I'm pretty sure this will matter.

Unless he gets a change of venue, which would be the first thing his lawyers ought to ask for....

[Gallstones]

Search warrant: Missoula man may have been high when German student shot

Markus Kaarma may have been under the influence of marijuana when he shot and killed German exchange student Diren Dede, according to a search warrant requested by Missoula police.

The search warrant also indicates that during previous burglaries of the Missoula home, unknown suspects had taken all the marijuana and marijuana pipes out of the garage.
...

Subsequent searches of the Grant Creek home revealed Kaarma kept a mason-style glass jar containing marijuana in a kitchen pantry, and a neighbor told police that Kaarma smoked marijuana in the garage.

A neighbor also informed police that burglars had taken marijuana and marijuana pipes out of the garage during the previous burglary.

A search warrant requested by Missoula Police Detective Dean Chrestenson and signed by District Court Judge Karen Townsend allowed law enforcement to take a blood sample from Kaarma on April 28, while he was in the Missoula County jail pending bail.

So the property that Kaarma was so desperate to protect from theft was not legal for him to have.