• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trial ongoing for Montana garage shooter

Cryptic

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
3,955
Reaction score
1,342
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Evidently, the trial started four days ago. As a side note, not only did thh shooter's wife testify against him today, despite not being obligated to, but she might of had a falling out with her husband. Not only is she testifying, but her testimony makes the killing seem far more deliberate.

Montana teens testify in murder trial of exchange student - NY Daily News
 
Evidently, the trial started four days ago. As a side note, not only did thh shooter's wife testify against him today, despite not being obligated to, but she might of had a falling out with her husband. Not only is she testifying, but her testimony makes the killing seem far more deliberate.

Montana teens testify in murder trial of exchange student - NY Daily News

I feel uncomfortable with the idea that a wife should testify, if there has been a falling out.

But, what was the kid doing in the garage at night? That was rather a stupid thing to do. But it was also stupid of the shooter not to be wearing a bodcam, if he wanted to be above suspicion.
 
I feel uncomfortable with the idea that a wife should testify, if there has been a falling out.

But, what was the kid doing in the garage at night? That was rather a stupid thing to do. But it was also stupid of the shooter not to be wearing a bodcam, if he wanted to be above suspicion.

I think it is almost impossible to prevent a witness from testifying should they choose to do so. Rather, all the defense can do is present evidence to damage her credibility (possibility of a falling out with husband).

As to the shooting, one needs to try very hard in Montana to cross the line between self defense in your home to murder. My bet is that with the totality of the circumstances (stated pre intent to kill an intruder regardless of the circumstances, baiting a potential intruder, and then deliberatly killing him after having cornored him and fired at him) will lead the jury to conclude that he crossed that line.
 
Last edited:
I think it is almost impossible to prevent a witness from testifying should they choose to do so. Rather, all the defense can do is present evidence to damage her credibility (possibility of a falling out with husband).

As to shooting, one needs to try very hard in Montana to cross the line between self defense in your home to murder. My bet is that with the totality of the circumstances (stated pre intent to kill an intruder regardless of the circumstances, baiting a potential intruder, and then deliberatly killing him after having cornored him and fired at him) will lead the jury to conclude that he crossed that line.

Generally it takes the defendant spouse to waive the privilege, not the one who wants to testify, except when he/she is the victim of the defendant.
 
Generally it takes the defendant spouse to waive the privilege, not the one who wants to testify, except when he/she is the victim of the defendant.

So that would mean that she needed to actively make the decision to testify.

This, and the fact that the spin she is placing on her testiomony (testified that her husband killed the student after having cornored him, and that her husband has a pre conceived intent to kill any intruder regardless of the circumstances) really point towards a falling out.
 
I think it is almost impossible to prevent a witness from testifying should they choose to do so. Rather, all the defense can do is present evidence to damage her credibility (possibility of a falling out with husband).

As to the shooting, one needs to try very hard in Montana to cross the line between self defense in your home to murder. My bet is that with the totality of the circumstances (stated pre intent to kill an intruder regardless of the circumstances, baiting a potential intruder, and then deliberatly killing him after having cornored him and fired at him) will lead the jury to conclude that he crossed that line.

He really did go further than I feel comfortable with.
 
So that would mean that she needed to actively make the decision to testify.

This, and the fact that the spin she is placing on her testiomony (testified that her husband killed the student after having cornored him, and that her husband has a pre conceived intent to kill any intruder regardless of the circumstances) really point towards a falling out.

Don't know. Just in my state the privilege belongs to the accused spouse except in domestic dispute cases. Of course, if there are other people present, it isn't privileged, but that is a whole different issue. I was just commenting on the comment, not the story itself.
 
It doesn't really need to be a "falling out," maybe she realizes that her husband freaking executed a human being and needs to pay for it.
 
Evidently, the trial started four days ago. As a side note, not only did thh shooter's wife testify against him today, despite not being obligated to, but she might of had a falling out with her husband. Not only is she testifying, but her testimony makes the killing seem far more deliberate.

Montana teens testify in murder trial of exchange student - NY Daily News
Testified against him?
How do you figure that?
What exactly did she say that was against him?

In addition, Pflager is his partner, not wife, which your own article reports.
 
Testified against him?
How do you figure that?
What exactly did she say that was against him?

Well, for starters, she testified that he killed the teen while he was repeatedly begging for his life. While that testimony may arouse some, it could well alienate jurors.
 
Well, for starters, she testified that he shot the teen while he was repeatedly begging for his life. While that testimony may arouse some, it might also alienate other jurors.
For starters, no she didn't.
For starters she had told the police that, and testified that she had made that up.
Get your facts straight.
 
Back
Top Bottom