castle doctrine case in montana: do traps count as self defense?

b_dubz · Dec 24, 2014

The question under the circumstances he found himself in is; Were his actions reasonable? Or if you will; Would a reasonable person act the same way under those circumstances?

Well sort of... and the OBVIOUS answer is no.

Really the question is did he have reasonable suspicion that a forcible felony was about to happen against someone on his property. The obvious answer, is again, no. He had absolutely no reason to think a forcible felony was about to happen. What he did have was very strong desire to shoot a kid in his garage, and he did just that...

Of course a reasonable person would act the same way.
A known criminal invader is in the garage. A metallic noise emanated from that known threat.
No person should have to wait to find out if that criminal was about to commit a forcible felony on them.
There is no requirement that he wait, and under the circumstances his actions were reasonable.

Well your not a very reasonable person if that's what you think. A reasonable person would confront the invader in a safe manor, protect themselves in the event they where armed. A insane person would do what you described.

Shooting firstand asking questions later is what a ***** would do. If he was so scared of the tiniest possibility of being shot he should have called the cops, and not confronted the man at all.

There is a legal requirement to know a forcible felony is about to happen. Again your just wrong...

You think wrong then. Of course he knew he was fireing at the person in his garage.

No he really didn't. How did he know the guy didn't move? He could have been shooting thin air...

Unfortunately after being shot the first time it is likely he shot again knowing full well he hit according to the evidence.

Wrong. The person is already a threat as they invaded the home.
What you don't do is assume a criminal is not armed.

No as I said before countless times they could just be confused.

Well if you are going to shoot people breaking into your home you better make sure they are armed and about to use it unless you want to be in his situation.

As already pointed out, you are wrong as you have not proven that he didn't hear any noise.
And yes, hearing that noise does make it reasonable to think the person was going to commit a forcible felony against him.

No they have not proved it. It is by far the most likely scenario. He lied.

No it does not. Hearing a noise is not proof that a forcible felony is about to happen.

:naughty
Stop being dishonest. I said no such thing.
His being found guilty is a travesty though.

Learn to read.

I said thats the one thing your right about HOWEVER...

Everything after however is something I am saying, which is obvious because of me saying however....

Wrong as usual and just continuing to show you do not know the evidence or how the law is applied.
The noise was known about from the get.
And yes it is enough to reasonable assume the criminal was about to commit forcible felony of which he needed to defend himself.

No it was not, he added it, it also does not fit with the rest of the scenario, and no one else heard it. Not to mention investigators couldn't figure out what it was.

No it certainly is not. Not in any court of law anyway...

Lastly I read two things today.

One they are going to go back to their old castle doctrine which is more restrictive (thank god) so that this sort of thing isn't even a question of guilt, and two That the coroner said he probably survived the first shot, which would mean kaarma basically executed him...

Somerville · Dec 24, 2014

Way back in post #9, an article from the local newspaper had the following statement

At about 12:30 a.m. Sunday, Kaarma and Pflager were watching television in the living room when they heard a sensor alert indicating someone was in the driveway and then another that someone was in the garage, which is connected to the home.

Pflager pulled up images from the baby monitor and saw a male inside the garage, then took screen shots of the images on her phone.

Kaarma left his seat on the couch and grabbed a shotgun left near the dining room. He went out the front door of the house and walked in between a truck, which was parked in the driveway, and a car, which was parked in the garage.

“He stated he heard a noise that sounded like metal on metal and he was afraid that the intruder would exit the garage and harm him,” the affidavit stated. “It was dark and he could not see into the garage.

My emphasis on the two points which may have contributed to the guilty verdict. There was enough light for a "baby monitor" video camera to see there was a "male" in the garage, not just a person but a male. Then the perp says it was too dark to see inside the garage contradicting his wife's statement about photographing the monitor images.

b_dubz · Dec 24, 2014

Somerville said:
Way back in post #9, an article from the local newspaper had the following statement

My emphasis on the two points which may have contributed to the guilty verdict. There was enough light for a "baby monitor" video camera to see there was a "male" in the garage, not just a person but a male. Then the perp says it was too dark to see inside the garage contradicting his wife's statement about photographing the monitor images.

The monitor clearly shows Dede holding a flashlight to...

Its also that his wife changed her testimony vs what she initially said, and that he fairly obviously lied his butt off...

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
The noise simply does not fit, and was not in his initial statement.

Wrong on both counts.
It was known from the get and does fit.

b_dubz said:
A noise does not go to defense. He could have tripped, or as I said it could have been a child.

Wrong again.
The noise does go to the situation at hand. It leads one to reasonable believe that the known criminal threat is about to commit a forcible felony against you. And as such, you have every right to react.

And stop with this absurdity of injecting children.
It could not have been a small child. So stop with that nonsense.

b_dubz said:
Kaarma lied multiple times. He lied about the noise. He lied about not seeing a person who was holding a lit flashlight. He lied about not talking to him. He lied about not setting a trap, and your willfully ignorant about it. He lied about pausing to readjust. He lied about thinking Dede would throw a axe at him. Basically, he lied more than he told the truth, and his wide did in a much more obvious manner.

Nothing you just said is true, and none of it can you back up with factual evidence.
You are just making things up that you want to believe.
Yes he said he heard a metallic noise. That could have been the flashlight.
But instead you want to say he lied. Your position is nonsense.

Nor does the image show a lit flashlight.
It shows a reflection from the camera.
This is why you also see a reflection from the bikes headlamp/reflector. Are you going to argue that was on too? iLOL Don't even try.
And while a flashlight was recovered it wasn't found on. Was it?

Nor did he set a trap. Period.
Nothing you say changes that fact. Your continuing to say otherwise is a lie.
Nor was the girlfriend setting a purse out that couldn't be seen from outside a trap. It simply wasn't.
And your continued insistence of bringing this up is absurdity at it's best, as the criminal entered the garage of his own volition to steal alcohol. Not because if some fictitious trap.

Not remembering something is not lying. Get that through your head.

And supposing what the metallic noise indicated to him is not lying either. Duh!

You are simply not employing any logic in this case at all.

b_dubz said:
You believe in laws that make it possible to shoot first and ask questions later.

Duh! iLOL Self defense laws are like that. If your actions are reasonable you get to shoot first. Period.
In this case by the evidence his actions were reasonable and justified.
Again. No one should be required to wait to find out exactly what that metallic noise coming from a criminal home invader was. Period.
And thank god there is no requirement that a person ask questions first, and there never should be.
You simply do not understand the dynamics of such a situation.

b_dubz said:
Hopefully they go back to their old castle doctrine law so there will be no question of guilt.

No they wont. The law is fine as it is.
They might make it a little more easier for the actual occupant to use force though.
Their is almost no circumstances where he would have been found not guilty. He would need a different, crazy, jury. He had a fine lawyer, not amazing, but not sub par.

b_dubz said:
For the last time blowing off steam and then acting IS motive and premeditation.

iLO :doh
For the last time, no it doesn't. Especially as they were separated by time and that he didn't just go out there firing his weapon.
The fact that the didn't just go out there firing his weapon and only reacted when he heard the noise only shows that he did not have such premeditation.

b_dubz said:
For all he knew the guy had palsy, or was just old...

:doh When are you going to get it through your head that it doesn't matter what ailment a criminal intruder has. The person is still a criminal intruder and it can be assumed they have nefarious intent.

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Furthermore seeing him without a gun on the video would corroborate no reason to shoot.

Further more nothing. :doh
That video in no way confirms that he did not have a firearm.

b_dubz said:
What's ridiculous and insane is your opinion that killing a unarmed kid just because he's on your property. Its insane and savagery.

What is insane is saying that is what is being argued. Which is again showing you just make things up and have no valid argument.

b_dubz said:
How did he know he did not have cerebral palsy? Or was mentally handicapped in some other way? Or old and confused? Or a really big thirteen year old? He didn't...

Blah, blah, blah. Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what ailment a criminal intruder has. The person is still a criminal intruder and it can be assumed they have nefarious intent.

b_dubz said:
Says the man that things shooting people before you have any idea what they are doing...

No, all you did was show, and continue to show, that you have no valid argument.
You do not have to know what a criminal intruder is doing in your garage. What about that do you not understand?
The law gives the person every right to use deadly force

b_dubz said:
I bet you where hunky doory with that black girl that got shot in the face in Detroit for knocking on a racists door at 4am to because she crashed...

The fact that you have to spin the fact that she was actually banging and trying to get in, says all I need to know about your position on that case.

b_dubz said:
Yea I'm not paying attention to the law right... Do you know how to comprehend what a law says? Apparently not... Either that or you really don't understand what a forcible felony is...

:doh. You have not demonstrated any actual knowledge of the law.
You can repeat what a law says, But you clearly do not understand.

b_dubz said:
He was in a fairly simply situation. You have your wife turn the light on and jump out, or you go next to the garage door and say "come out with your hands up or I will blow your head off!" Or a thousand other things... You do not kill in that situation...

:doh:lamo
He is not required to do any such thing. Do you really not understand that?

b_dubz said:
I spose the judge paid no attention to the law as well when he heard the case? And the prosecutor when he decided to prosecute? What a joke...

None of this is relevant to our discussion of the evidence or to what you were replying to.
We are discussing the evidence and what it signifies or doesn't, post conviction.
Had Kaarma not blown off steam days earlier he would not have been convicted by the evidence alone. He very well may never have been charged absent that fact.

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
The monitor clearly shows Dede holding a flashlight to...

http://ktmf.images.worldnow.com/images/3611470_G.jpg[IMG]http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/general-political-discussion/

Its also that his wife changed her testimony vs what she initially said, and that he fairly obviously lied his butt off...[/QUOTE]Wrong on all accounts.

As provided long ago in another thread.

Do you honestly think these other items have lights on as well?
I hope not.
The only likely conclusion one can draw from what is seen is that what ever is in his hand is not on, and is only generating a reflection as the bike and vehicle is.

[IMG]http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii500/Ex-convict/Whereisthefl.jpg

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Well sort of... and the OBVIOUS answer is no.

Wrong as anybody who found themselves in the same circumstance would reasonably assume the same.

b_dubz said:
Really the question is did he have reasonable suspicion that a forcible felony was about to happen against someone on his property. The obvious answer, is again, no. He had absolutely no reason to think a forcible felony was about to happen. What he did have was very strong desire to shoot a kid in his garage, and he did just that...

Wrong.
He absolutely did have a reasonable belief of such.
It is reasonable to assume a criminal intruder has nefarious purposes.
Combined with the metallic noise he heard, it is reasonable to believe that the force was necessary to prevent an assault or forcible feloney.
You continually fail to understand that you do not wait to find out in such circumstances. It is reasonable to act first.

b_dubz said:
Well your not a very reasonable person if that's what you think.

Wrong.
That goes to your unreasonableness.

b_dubz said:
A reasonable person would confront the invader in a safe manor, protect themselves in the event they where armed.

Wrong. That is not being reasonable but being careless and insane with your own life.

b_dubz said:
A insane person would do what you described.

Said the one with the insane idea. D'oh!

b_dubz said:
Shooting firstand asking questions later is what a ***** would do.

Signifying that you lost the argument and know you lost.

b_dubz said:
If he was so scared of the tiniest possibility of being shot he should have called the cops, and not confronted the man at all.

Wrong. And no such requirement exists.

b_dubz said:
There is a legal requirement to know a forcible felony is about to happen. Again your just wrong...

Wrong. Again your just insanely wrong... No such requirement exists.

b_dubz said:
No he really didn't. How did he know the guy didn't move? He could have been shooting thin air...

:doh
1. It was a confined space. Period.
2. He fired in the direction the intruder was seen.
That is not firing blindly. Your claim was absurd.

b_dubz said:
Unfortunately after being shot the first time it is likely he shot again knowing full well he hit according to the evidence.

You are again speaking nonsense.

b_dubz said:
No as I said before countless times they could just be confused.

iLOL :doh A possibility of being confused matters not to what can be assumed of a criminal intruder.

b_dubz said:
Well if you are going to shoot people breaking into your home you better make sure they are armed and about to use it unless you want to be in his situation.

No such requirement exists. Nor would it land you in a situation like this.

b_dubz said:
No they have not proved it. It is by far the most likely scenario. He lied.

Wrong.
And again, It has not been proven a lie, nor could you do so. All you have is make believe nonsense.

b_dubz said:
No it does not. Hearing a noise is not proof that a forcible felony is about to happen.

You do not have to have proof. Duh! Only a reasonable belief. Duh!
And under the known circumstances it is reasonable to belief that the noise herd was the known criminal threat getting ready to assault or commit a forcible felony. You can not change that.

b_dubz said:
Learn to read.

Already have. When are you going to follow suit?
Here is some advice for when you do learn, also learn how to comprehend what it is you read.

For example. You have been nonsensically saying that the law requires a forcible felony when it doesn't. It requires a reasonable belief that one is going to be committed.

b_dubz said:
I said thats the one thing your right about HOWEVER...

You were being dishonest as I never said that. What about that do you not understand?

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
No it was not, he added it,

Wrong. It was known from the get.

b_dubz said:
it also does not fit with the rest of the scenario,

:doh Yes it does.

b_dubz said:
and no one else heard it.

Irrelevant. No one else was as close as he was.

b_dubz said:
Not to mention investigators couldn't figure out what it was.

Cops playing stupid is all that was.
He supposedly had a flashlight and phone. And they couldn't figure out that the noise came from one of those devices? Suurrrrweeee! You will buy anything, wont you?

b_dubz said:
No it certainly is not. Not in any court of law anyway...

Wrong.
Yes the noise under such circumstances was enough to reasonable assume the criminal was about to commit an assault or forcible felony of which he needed to defend himself.

b_dubz said:
One they are going to go back to their old castle doctrine which is more restrictive (thank god)

Is that what you read?
iLOL :doh
Unlikely they will be.

b_dubz said:
the coroner said he probably survived the first shot, which would mean kaarma basically executed him...

What the coroner thinks is irrelevant. There is no way to confirm that or not.
Secondly what the coroner said is irrelevant to a person acting in self defense.

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

Somerville said:
Way back in post #9, an article from the local newspaper had the following statement

At about 12:30 a.m. Sunday, Kaarma and Pflager were watching television in the living room when they heard a sensor alert indicating someone was in the driveway and then another that someone was in the garage, which is connected to the home.

Pflager pulled up images from the baby monitor and saw a male inside the garage, then took screen shots of the images on her phone.

Kaarma left his seat on the couch and grabbed a shotgun left near the dining room. He went out the front door of the house and walked in between a truck, which was parked in the driveway, and a car, which was parked in the garage.

“He stated he heard a noise that sounded like metal on metal and he was afraid that the intruder would exit the garage and harm him,” the affidavit stated. “It was dark and he could not see into the garage.

Click to expand...

My emphasis on the two points which may have contributed to the guilty verdict. There was enough light for a "baby monitor" video camera to see there was a "male" in the garage, not just a person but a male. Then the perp says it was too dark to see inside the garage contradicting his wife's statement about photographing the monitor images.

Baby monitors may be IR.
Was this?
The b/w image do look as if they are. If so, it would explain the reflections from the bike and vehicle.

But it would not suggest their was enough light to see for unadapted eyes as his would be.
So there would be no contradiction regardless if this was an IR image or just low light image.

To your conclusion. If either of the points I made are true and his lawyers didn't make the relevant info known, he got a ****ty defense.

Btw: The last emboldened line shows that b_dubz doesn't know the actual evidence.

b_dubz · Dec 25, 2014

Excon said:
Wrong on both counts.
It was known from the get and does fit.

The initial officer on the scene seems to disagree... Idk how or why you know better than him...

Wrong again.
The noise does go to the situation at hand. It leads one to reasonable believe that the known criminal threat is about to commit a forcible felony against you. And as such, you have every right to react.

Click to expand...

No it does not. At all. A gun racking would mean that, not a metallic noise. Big diff...

Furthermore what made the noise? Dede didn't have anything metallic, and kaarma COULD SEE HIM. So really h knew one was not about to be committed. He just wanted to shoot somebody...

And stop with this absurdity of injecting children.
It could not have been a small child. So stop with that nonsense.

Click to expand...

Really he could tell it wasn't a big 12 or 13 yr on the baby monitor? That's a interesting and horribly flawed notion...

Nothing you just said is true, and none of it can you back up with factual evidence.
You are just making things up that you want to believe.
Yes he said he heard a metallic noise. That could have been the flashlight.
But instead you want to say he lied. Your position is nonsense.

Click to expand...

Your the one twisting the facts, not me...

No he said he heard a metallic noise after the initial interview, and the metallic noise does not fit in the timeline. Furthermore how does a flashlight make a metallic noise? What's he scraping it on the ground? And if you admit he had a flashlight, then you are also admitting kaarma could see him, and that kaarmq new there was no threat...

Nor does the image show a lit flashlight.
It shows a reflection from the camera.
This is why you also see a reflection from the bikes headlamp/reflector. Are you going to argue that was on too? iLOL Don't even try.
And while a flashlight was recovered it wasn't found on. Was it?

Click to expand...

It shows clearly a lit flashlight in his hand. That line about a reflection is hilarious bs.

So what is dede holding to reflect that much in his hand?

You need a physics class man...

Nor did he set a trap. Period.
Nothing you say changes that fact. Your continuing to say otherwise is a lie.
Nor was the girlfriend setting a purse out that couldn't be seen from outside a trap. It simply wasn't.
And your continued insistence of bringing this up is absurdity at it's best, as the criminal entered the garage of his own volition to steal alcohol. Not because if some fictitious trap.

Click to expand...

Your right he asked his wife to set a trap, but a trap was set none the less.

It could be seen from the outside. Your just bsing more there.

Stop making stuff up dude...

Not remembering something is not lying. Get that through your head.

Click to expand...

Its lying by omision. And she changed her story drastically, so yea she lied.

And supposing what the metallic noise indicated to him is not lying either. Duh!

Click to expand...

What? That sentence makes no sense...

You are simply not employing any logic in this case at all.

Click to expand...

Yea because I'm the one that thinks its fine to shoot people with zero provocation when you know they are unarmed... Right...

Duh! iLOL Self defense laws are like that. If your actions are reasonable you get to shoot first. Period.
In this case by the evidence his actions were reasonable and justified.
Again. No one should be required to wait to find out exactly what that metallic noise coming from a criminal home invader was. Period.
And thank god there is no requirement that a person ask questions first, and there never should be.
You simply do not understand the dynamics of such a situation.

Click to expand...

No he shot a teenager he knew was unarmed, then he basically executed him. That is not "reasonable" where I come from.

You simply do not understand. Only a giant ***** would not make sure someone is armed before shooting them... If you cannot take these steps you have no business owning w gun.

No they wont. The law is fine as it is.
They might make it a little more easier for the actual occupant to use force though.
Their is almost no circumstances where he would have been found not guilty. He would need a different, crazy, jury. He had a fine lawyer, not amazing, but not sub par.

Click to expand...

Hahahahah your sooooooooo ignorant to fact!

"It's a terrible idea that has tragic consequences where we see people shooting first and asking questions later with immunity," said Missoula Democrat Ellie Boldman-Hill.

Click to expand...

Sooooo yea, they are already trying to switch it back to the old castle doctrine law, that was more restrictive, not less...

Click to expand...

b_dubz · Dec 25, 2014

iLO :doh
For the last time, no it doesn't. Especially as they were separated by time and that he didn't just go out there firing his weapon.
The fact that the didn't just go out there firing his weapon and only reacted when he heard the noise only shows that he did not have such premeditation.

But you totally ignore the fact he could see dede was still unarmed and still fired. Not to mention that he basically executed the kid.

So you don't Know what the word premeditation means do you... Saying "I wanna shoot a kid in my garage" and then doing so certainly counts. It shows he thought about it before hand, and then did so.

:doh When are you going to get it through your head that it doesn't matter what ailment a criminal intruder has. The person is still a criminal intruder and it can be assumed they have nefarious intent.

That's not true, and is a very dubious and scared mentality.

If someone is out of their head, and has no criminal intent, they can hardly be called a criminal intruder.

Furthermore in Montana your not allowed to just go shooting criminal intruders willy nilly. They mist be about to commit a forcible felony, and karma new he was not.

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Excon said:

Wrong on both counts.
It was known from the get and does fit.

Click to expand...

The initial officer on the scene seems to disagree... Idk how or why you know better than him...

You again appear not to know what you are talking about.

It was known from the get.
You can't change that, so stop trying.

b_dubz said:
No it does not. At all. A gun racking would mean that, not a metallic noise. Big diff...

Stop being obtuse here. You have no idea what it sounded like. A metallic noise is a reason to be fearful of an attack. Period.

b_dubz said:
Furthermore what made the noise? Dede didn't have anything metallic, and kaarma COULD SEE HIM. So really h knew one was not about to be committed. He just wanted to shoot somebody...

Irrelevant to the fact that it was heard and what it could mean under the circumstances.
He could very well have brushed passed something that dropped or was pushed up against another metal object.
It could have been made by the criminal's phone physically coming into contact with something or by a noise noise coming from the phone, or even the flashlight.
So just stop this nonsense. He heard a noise that could have been anything, especially an assault about to take place.

b_dubz said:
And stop with this absurdity of injecting children.
It could not have been a small child. So stop with that nonsense.

Click to expand...

Really he could tell it wasn't a big 12 or 13 yr on the baby monitor? That's a interesting and horribly flawed notion...

What is terribly flawed is you continually injecting children into the scenario when you have already seen the very same image he saw.

b_dubz said:
Your the one twisting the facts, not me...

No he said he heard a metallic noise after the initial interview, and the metallic noise does not fit in the timeline. Furthermore how does a flashlight make a metallic noise? What's he scraping it on the ground? And if you admit he had a flashlight, then you are also admitting kaarma could see him, and that kaarmq new there was no threat...

No, that would be you making things up to believe.
What an absurd thing to say. Of course it fits into the time line.
You have had more than ample opportunity to prove your idiotic assertion and have yet failed to do so. The only reason you have failed is that you can't. He told the investigators about the noise from the get. Period.

b_dubz said:
It shows clearly a lit flashlight in his hand. That line about a reflection is hilarious bs.

So what is dede holding to reflect that much in his hand?

Wrong.

Is the bike light on too? No it is not. D'oh!
Are the bike's reflectors on too? No they are not. D'oh!

Where is the reflected light from the flashlight if it is on? It's not there. D'oh!

Nor is there any observable ambient light from the so-called flashlight. D'oh!

You clearly have no clue.

It is a reflection of the camera's IR source just as the other reflections are. Nothing more.
What is hilarious is your denial of the obvious. You clearly can not be objective towards evidence.

b_dubz said:
You need a physics class man...

That would be who needs such, but it wouldn't help with the way you think about things.

b_dubz said:
Your right he asked his wife to set a trap, but a trap was set none the less.

There you go again trying to say I said something I clearly didn't say.

He did not ask his wife to do any such thing. Matter of fact he removed what she had put up at one time only to have her put it up again.
So stop making things up.

Secondly, there was no trap set. The purse was not in view from the outside to even act as a trap. So stop spouting nonsense.

And more importantly there was no trap acted on. He did not act on seeing any purse. The criminal entered the garage on his own volition to steal alcohol.
Even if a trap had been set (which it wasn't) he was not enticed by any trap. So it is irrelevant.

b_dubz said:
It could be seen from the outside. Your just bsing more there.

Stop making stuff up dude...

This is you again making things up.
The purse could not be seen from the outside.
Nor does the purse matter one bit.

b_dubz said:
Its lying by omision. And she changed her story drastically, so yea she lied.

More nonsense and making things up.
Not remembering is not lying by omission.

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
And supposing what the metallic noise indicated to him is not lying either. Duh!

Click to expand...

What? That sentence makes no sense...

Of course it doesn't make sense to you, as the **** you were supposing didn't make sense to begin with.

b_dubz said:
You are simply not employing any logic in this case at all.

Click to expand...

Yea because I'm the one that thinks its fine to shoot people with zero provocation when you know they are unarmed... Right...

Yep! Still not making any sense at all.

b_dubz said:
No he shot a teenager he knew was unarmed,

This is a lie. Just another of the things you made up.
He had no way to know if he was armed or not.

b_dubz said:
then he basically executed him.

No he didn't. He killed him. That is what he did.
By the evidence, justifiably.

b_dubz said:
That is not "reasonable" where I come from.

And as we have already seen, nothing you have said is reasonable.
Suggesting he ask questions, or find out exactly what the noise was first, is not reasonable. So you do not know what reasonable is.

b_dubz said:
You simply do not understand.

iLOL I have no reason to understand your train of thought as it is unreasonable.

b_dubz said:
Only a giant ***** would not make sure someone is armed before shooting them...

If you cannot take these steps you have no business owning w gun.

There is that unreasonableness again.

Thankfully you are wrong.

:laughat:

b_dubz said:
Hahahahah your sooooooooo ignorant to fact!
Sooooo yea, they are already trying to switch it back to the old castle doctrine law, that was more restrictive, not less...

:2rofll: That would be you who has been shown to be ignorant of the facts, as shown over and over again.
In this instance this is what you wrongly asserted the first time.

b_dubz said:
they are going to go back to their old castle doctrine

They are not going back to anything.
Now you changed it up to deflect from being wrong to say they are "trying to switch it back". Which is two different things.
And the supposed change to the legislation was made back in May. Has the law changed yet? What was that? It hasn't? Go figure.

Stop making things up.

b_dubz said:
But you totally ignore the fact he could see dede was still unarmed and still fired.

Wrong, he saw no such thing.
This is again you making things up.

b_dubz said:
Not to mention that he basically executed the kid.

No he didn't.
He killed him.
Had he just went out and started blasting you would have a point, but he didn't.
He reacted to the noise he heard in reasonable belief to protect himself.

b_dubz said:
So you don't Know what the word premeditation means do you... Saying "I wanna shoot a kid in my garage" and then doing so certainly counts. It shows he thought about it before hand, and then did so.

Blowing off steam in such a fashion is normal and does not count as premeditation.

And as he reacted to the noise, it clearly wasn't premeditation.

b_dubz said:
:doh When are you going to get it through your head that it doesn't matter what ailment a criminal intruder has. The person is still a criminal intruder and it can be assumed they have nefarious intent.

Click to expand...

That's not true,

Yes it is true.
But since you don't think so. Show me the law that says otherwise. Can you do that? No you can't, because it is true. There exists no special exemption if they are feeble minded, retarded, suffering from ALS, Alzheimer's or for age.

b_dubz said:
If someone is out of their head, and has no criminal intent, they can hardly be called a criminal intruder.

Wrong.
An intruder is an intruder is a criminal, and nefarious intent can be assumed.

And your argument is so out of place that it is pathetic. He entered with the intent to steal. He was a criminal intruder.

b_dubz said:
Furthermore in Montana your not allowed to just go shooting criminal intruders willy nilly. They mist be about to commit a forcible felony, and karma new he was not.

No one said anything about shooting willy nilly. So stop with the absurdities.
And no, Kaarma did not know any such thing, nor could he know, as he is not a mind reader.
But people are allowed to assume nefarious intent of an intruder. And combined with the metallic noise, it is reasonable to assume the criminal intruder was about to assault him.

b_dubz · Dec 25, 2014

Excon said:
Of course it doesn't make sense to you, as the **** you were supposing didn't make sense to begin with.

But shooting unarmed people makes sense to you? Yeaaaaa your logic is really screwy...

Yep! Still not making any sense at all.

What does not make sense? Shooting unarmed people? God your insane if you think that way!

This is a lie. Just another of the things you made up.
He had no way to know if he was armed or not.

Yea I'm the one making things up, right... [emoji19]

And he saw him on the monitor, and in the garage. So how did he not know he was unarmed? That's what I thought... You have no argument...

No he didn't. He killed him. That is what he did.
By the evidence, justifiably.

Actually he readjusted his shot between three and four after already hitting him once. So that's more of a execution...

And if you think it was justifiable, again your just insane and ignoring the evidence.

And as we have already seen, nothing you have said is reasonable.
Suggesting he ask questions, or find out exactly what the noise was first, is not reasonable. So you do not know what reasonable is.

No shooting people without ANY justification is unreasonable.

Your claiming its reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later with no evidence of a threat!

He did not here a noise, and even if he did, that's not a justification.

iLOL I have no reason to understand your train of thought as it is unreasonable.

Is this all your argument is?

Look if you want to shoot people in your house without provocation or reason to believe they are about to assault you that's your business. Just don't be mad when you get convicted.

There is that unreasonableness again.

So that really is your whole argument huh?

Again what's unreasonable is shooting first and asking questions later.

Thankfully you are wrong.

What it doesn't take a giant ***** to shoot first and ask questions later?

I swear they should test your iq before they let you get a gun...

:laughat::2rofll: That would be you who has been shown to be ignorant of the facts, as shown over and over again.
In this instance this is what you wrongly asserted the first time.

They are not going back to anything.
Now you changed it up to deflect from being wrong to say they are "trying to switch it back". Which is two different things.
And the supposed change to the legislation was made back in May. Has the law changed yet? What was that? It hasn't? Go figure.

Really so saying trying to switch it back and going back to the old one are two different things now? What planet do you live on??

Well its in light of this case they are going to switch it back, and these things take time soooooo....

I don't see how when the change to the law was is relevant at all...

Your the one trying to deflect...

Stop making things up.

I'm not you are.

Like saying there was no trap set...

Wrong, he saw no such thing.
This is again you making things up.

So you can't see someone holding a lit flashlight? I don't believe you or him...

No he didn't.
He killed him.
Had he just went out and started blasting you would have a point, but he didn't.
He reacted to the noise he heard in reasonable belief to protect himself.

He did just go out and start blasting. Then he readjusted and executed him.

There was no noise stop bringing it up like evidence, if you read two articles on the topic you would realize its not.

Click to expand...

b_dubz · Dec 25, 2014

Blowing off steam in such a fashion is normal and does not count as premeditation.

Dumbest argument ever.

Yes it does. If I say I sooooo angry with my gf, and I feel like killing her, and then I go out and kill her, the person I said it to could testify I said it, and it would count as premeditation.

I don't think you understand what premeditation is...

And as he reacted to the noise, it clearly wasn't premeditation.

The nonexistent noise?

And again even if their was a noise that does not constitute probable cause of a forcible felony.

It clearly was premeditation, do you know what the word means? It has nothing to do with the action, it has to do with planning the action, and thinking about doing it prior to the crime. That is exactly what he did.

Yes it is true.
But since you don't think so. Show me the law that says otherwise. Can you do that? No you can't, because it is true. There exists no special exemption if they are feeble minded, retarded, suffering from ALS, Alzheimer's or for age.

Yes there is.

Ever heard of the insanity defense? What do you think that is?

No its not true, and assuming someone has a nefarious intent leads to terrible things. Like that girl getting her head blown off in Detroit.

Furthermore nefarious intent does not justify you shooting someone under the law. They MUST BE ABOUT TO COMMIT A FORCIBLE FELONY. you really don't seem to grasp this concept...

Wrong.
An intruder is an intruder is a criminal, and nefarious intent can be assumed.

Again that's simply untrue, and even if it was nefarious intent DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN LEGALLY SHOOT THEM.

And your argument is so out of place that it is pathetic. He entered with the intent to steal. He was a criminal intruder.

Your argument is pathetic. It basically amounts to "I should be able to shoot whoever I want as long as they are on my property"

What a joke...

No one said anything about shooting willy nilly. So stop with the absurdities.
And no, Kaarma did not know any such thing, nor could he know, as he is not a mind reader.
But people are allowed to assume nefarious intent of an intruder. And combined with the metallic noise, it is reasonable to assume the criminal intruder was about to assault him.

You have been talking about shooting intruders willy nilly this whole time...

Well then if he did not know he had no legal right to shoot. Furthermore he did know. He new it was a kid stealing beer, not a dangerous criminal as you make it sound. He also saw he was unarmed TWICE!

no under the law you are not allowed to assume, you MUST KNOW.

Furthermore nefarious intent by itself is not enough to shoot. You really need to go read the law or up your comprehension Level if you don't realize this yet...

The non existent metallic noise is totally irrelevant. You don't know someone is about to commit a forcible felony from a metallic noise, and he could see him. He saw no weapon. So its totally irrelevant.

Assumptions are not enough to shoot someone. That type of thinking will land you in prison every time.

You obviously have no understanding of this law, and think you can just shoot someone for breaking into your house... That's not how most castle doctrine laws work...

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
But shooting unarmed people makes sense to you? Yeaaaaa your logic is really screwy...

It is your logic that is screwy here.

b_dubz said:
What does not make sense? Shooting unarmed people? God your insane if you think that way!

There you go with that dishonesty again.

b_dubz said:
Yea I'm the one making things up, right...

Yes you are and continually do so, as shown multiple times now. There is no sense in you denying it.

b_dubz said:
And he saw him on the monitor, and in the garage. So how did he not know he was unarmed? That's what I thought... You have no argument...

:naughty No it is you who have no argument, and you just demonstrated that you don't.
As you have already been told there is no way to determine if he is or isn't armed from the image we saw.
You continuing to think there is, is ludicrous.

b_dubz said:
Actually he readjusted his shot between three and four after already hitting him once. So that's more of a execution...

From shooting blindly to readjusting now? Gawd you are just all over the place with the **** you make up.

b_dubz said:
And if you think it was justifiable, again your just insane and ignoring the evidence.

No your thoughts are insane and you are ignoring the evidence.
Again by the evidence it is justifiable.

b_dubz said:
No shooting people without ANY justification is unreasonable.

The circumstances and the noise makes it reasonable and therefore justifiable.

b_dubz said:
Your claiming its reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later with no evidence of a threat!

You saying no evidence of a threat is absurd. The fact that he was a criminal intruder makes him a threat.

b_dubz said:
He did not here a noise,

You really need to stop telling untruths. He did hear a noise and testified to it.

b_dubz said:
He did not here a noise, and even if he did, that's not a justification.

Given the circumstances, yes it is.
Had he not blown off steam, he would have been found not guilty. Heck, he probably wouldn't even have been charged.

b_dubz said:
Look if you want to shoot people in your house without provocation or reason to believe they are about to assault you that's your business.

This is you again being dishonest.
He had provocation.

b_dubz said:
Again what's unreasonable is shooting first and asking questions later.

Given the circumstances. Nothing is wrong with that.

b_dubz said:
What it doesn't take a giant ***** to shoot first and ask questions later?

I swear they should test your iq before they let you get a gun...

iLOL Nothing wrong with my IQ. Yours though, is in question.

b_dubz said:
Really so saying trying to switch it back and going back to the old one are two different things now? What planet do you live on??

The question is what reality do you live in where a "definitive" is the same as a "may"?
They are not the same, yet here you are trying to pass them off a such. :2rofll:

b_dubz said:
Well its in light of this case they are going to switch it back, and these things take time soooooo....

I don't see how when the change to the law was is relevant at all...

No it isn't.
The proposal was made last May. It hasn't changed.
Do you really not understand that?

b_dubz said:
Your the one trying to deflect...

NO, reality is not a deflection, but your nonsense is and continues to be.

b_dubz said:
I'm not you are.

Like saying there was no trap set...

Yes you are. When you say a trap was set by him when he set no trap was set by hi,mm let alone any trap set. You are making things up.

b_dubz said:
So you can't see someone holding a lit flashlight? I don't believe you or him...

1. You are assuming the reflection is a flashlight.
2. Then you are also assuming that flashlight is on. All from a reflection.

What you see is an image from a baby monitor. Do you really not understand that?
Baby monitors can come with IR capabilities. Do you really not understand that?
The image looks like such an IR image.
There in no ambient or reflected light from the so-called flashlight which indicates that it is not on.
So again to the questions you did not answer.
Is the bike light hanging from the ceiling on too?
Are the bike's reflectors on too?
Of course they aren't. So that only leaves an IR source.

b_dubz said:
There was no noise stop bringing it up like evidence, if you read two articles on the topic you would realize its not.

Stop making things up. There are no articles to read that say he didn't hear a noise.
He heard a noise and testified to it.

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Dumbest argument ever.

Yes that is what your arguments have been, made up dumb bs.

b_dubz said:
Yes it does. If I say I sooooo angry with my gf, and I feel like killing her, and then I go out and kill her, the person I said it to could testify I said it, and it would count as premeditation.

Not even the same thing. Nor did nto say he wasnted to kill someone.

And again. Had he just gone out and blew him away you would have a point. But he didn't.
And blowing off steam is not premeditation.

He reacted to the noise he heard, and as such it was not premeditation.

So to your gf scenario.

Lets say you blew off steam and said you wanted to kill your gf when you really didn't mean you wanted to? You would understand that does not show premeditation.
And then while cleaning your gun, it went off and hit your gf in the brain-pan killing her instantly.
You would also know you didn't intent that to happen just as you know you were only blowing off steam earlier.

So you are then charged with murder when you know it was an accident.

The prosecutor is still going to argue premeditation even though you know that isn't true, because you were just blowing off steam without any intent to do so.

If you do not understand that scenario there is no help for you.
Premeditation indicated that you intended to do something anfd though about it before you did it.

In this case he reacted to the noise. That is not acting on any preconceived thoughts. Do you really not understand that?

b_dubz said:
I don't think you understand what premeditation is...

That clearly is you.
You do not seem to understand that premeditation shows intent to do something.
Blowing off steam does not show intent.
It shows frustration.

b_dubz said:
The nonexistent noise?

Stop telling untruths.
He heard a noise and testified to it.

b_dubz said:
And again even if their was a noise that does not constitute probable cause of a forcible felony.

:doh
And again. Under the circumstances at hand it was reasonable to assume from hearing such a noise that he was going to be assaulted.
You just can't get around that.

b_dubz said:
It clearly was premeditation,

Not!

b_dubz said:
do you know what the word means?

Far better than you do.

b_dubz said:
It has nothing to do with the action, it has to do with planning the action, and thinking about doing it prior to the crime. That is exactly what he did.

His blowing off steam does not show that.

b_dubz said:
Yes there is.

Ever heard of the insanity defense? What do you think that is?

:2rofll:
I am laughing so hard at your ignorance.
Two separate issues which do not apply to each other.
You can shoot a sane intruder and an insane intruder just the same and under the law. It makes no exceptions.
You might want to try reading the statute again and under what conditions you can use deadly force.
As you were already told, there exists no special exemption if they are feeble minded, retarded, suffering from ALS, Alzheimer's or for age.

b_dubz said:
No its not true, and assuming someone has a nefarious intent leads to terrible things. Like that girl getting her head blown off in Detroit.

Different state. Different laws and a different topic. Do try and stay focused.

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Furthermore nefarious intent does not justify you shooting someone under the law. They MUST BE ABOUT TO COMMIT A FORCIBLE FELONY. you really don't seem to grasp this concept...

You do not seem to be able to grasp the fact that it is not just one thing but the circumstances in total that justifies the use of deadly force.
The noise was just the final piece that allows him to reasonably think he was going to be assaulted. Under such circumstances that justifies his shooting.

And your continued harping about forcible felony is wrong. And as it is, you are also showing that you do not understand the reasonable man standard employed in such cases.

So again the relevant portion of the law under discussion.

(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.

I doubt you noticed it, but we will see.

b_dubz said:
Again that's simply untrue, and even if it was nefarious intent DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN LEGALLY SHOOT THEM.

ANd again showing you do not understand.
It is the totality of the circumstances.
They can be assumed to have nefarious intent. And then coupled with the noise, it is reasonable to believe he is about to be assulted.
Why you fail to understand that it isn't just one thing but the totality, is beyond me.

b_dubz said:
Your argument is pathetic. It basically amounts to "I should be able to shoot whoever I want as long as they are on my property"

What a joke...

Wrong. Your argument was so out of place that it was pathetic. He did enter with the intent to steal. He was a criminal intruder.
And as I never indicated any such thing, your argument is as dishonest as it was pathetic. And that is no joke.

b_dubz said:
You have been talking about shooting intruders willy nilly this whole time...

Dishonesty at it's best.
As you were told; Stop with the absurdities.
No one said anything about shooting willy nilly.

b_dubz said:
Well then if he did not know he had no legal right to shoot.

Wrong.
Not knowing if a criminal intruder is armed or not does not suggest any such thing. It is absurd for you even to suggest such nonsense.
It can be and should be assumed an intruder is armed.

b_dubz said:
lets theFurthermore he did know. He new it was a kid stealing beer, not a dangerous criminal as you make it sound. He also saw he was unarmed TWICE!

Wrong. He had no idea if he was armed or not and did not know what this person wanted.
Again you assume the person has nefarious intent.

b_dubz said:
no under the law you are not allowed to assume, you MUST KNOW.

Wrong.
No law says you must know. You have to have reasonable belief. That is all.

b_dubz said:
Furthermore nefarious intent by itself is not enough to shoot. You really need to go read the law or up your comprehension Level if you don't realize this yet...

You have a real problem understanding. Did I say that and only that was required? What was that? I didn't? I keep saying the circumstances. Well golly fella you need to pay better attention and stop making these false arguments.

b_dubz said:
The non existent metallic noise is totally irrelevant.

It is not nonexistent. He stated it from the get and testified to such.
You saying it is nonexistent is a lie.

b_dubz said:
You don't know someone is about to commit a forcible felony from a metallic noise, and he could see him. He saw no weapon. So its totally irrelevant.

Wrong on all counts.
And again the requirement is a "reasonable belief" which the noise goes to. One should not have to wait to see if such a noise under the circumstances was actually the criminal intruder preparing to attack him. It is reasonable to assume it is an attack about to happen.

b_dubz said:
Assumptions are not enough to shoot someone. That type of thinking will land you in prison every time.

Wrong on both as reasonable assumptions are enough under the law.

b_dubz said:
You obviously have no understanding of this law,

That would be you. As shown.

b_dubz said:
and think you can just shoot someone for breaking into your house...

stop with this dishonesty, that is not what has been argued.

b_dubz · Dec 25, 2014

Excon said:
It is your logic that is screwy here.

There you go with that dishonesty again.

Yes you are and continually do so, as shown multiple times now. There is no sense in you denying it.

:naughty No it is you who have no argument, and you just demonstrated that you don't.
As you have already been told there is no way to determine if he is or isn't armed from the image we saw.
You continuing to think there is, is ludicrous.

From shooting blindly to readjusting now? Gawd you are just all over the place with the **** you make up.

No your thoughts are insane and you are ignoring the evidence.
Again by the evidence it is justifiable.

The circumstances and the noise makes it reasonable and therefore justifiable.

You saying no evidence of a threat is absurd. The fact that he was a criminal intruder makes him a threat.

You really need to stop telling untruths. He did hear a noise and testified to it.

Given the circumstances, yes it is.
Had he not blown off steam, he would have been found not guilty. Heck, he probably wouldn't even have been charged.

This is you again being dishonest.
He had provocation.

Given the circumstances. Nothing is wrong with that.

iLOL Nothing wrong with my IQ. Yours though, is in question.

The question is what reality do you live in where a "definitive" is the same as a "may"?
They are not the same, yet here you are trying to pass them off a such. :2rofll:

No it isn't.
The proposal was made last May. It hasn't changed.
Do you really not understand that?

NO, reality is not a deflection, but your nonsense is and continues to be.

Yes you are. When you say a trap was set by him when he set no trap was set by hi,mm let alone any trap set. You are making things up.

1. You are assuming the reflection is a flashlight.
2. Then you are also assuming that flashlight is on. All from a reflection.

What you see is an image from a baby monitor. Do you really not understand that?
Baby monitors can come with IR capabilities. Do you really not understand that?
The image looks like such an IR image.
There in no ambient or reflected light from the so-called flashlight which indicates that it is not on.
So again to the questions you did not answer.
Is the bike light hanging from the ceiling on too?
Are the bike's reflectors on too?
Of course they aren't. So that only leaves an IR source.

Stop making things up. There are no articles to read that say he didn't hear a noise.
He heard a noise and testified to it.

OK I'm done with you your obviously to indoctrinated to grasp what transpired here and you continually just spew the defenses comically flawed arguments...

I will say, in that picture, he is obviously holding a lit flashlight.

I hope no one ever breaks into your house, because you will likely go to jail when you shoot them regardless if they pose a threat...

No a assumption is not enough to shoot someone. You must have suspicion. Which would mean some sort of real threat, not just "I heard a noise"

You see in the law where it says "reasonable belief"? That's what Kaarma was lacking, and you have failed numerous times at proving... He had no reasonable belief, in fact he almost certainly knew he was in no danger from dede.

Oh and your the only one being dishonest...

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
OK I'm done with you your obviously to indoctrinated to grasp what transpired here and you continually just spew the defenses comically flawed arguments...

:lamo
Said the guy with the non-factual comical arguments that he couldn't even attempt to back up as they were untrue.

b_dubz said:
I will say, in that picture, he is obviously holding a lit flashlight.

Yeah, we already know that is what you think, which is really ridiculous considering the fact that no ambient or reflected light comes from it.
I suppose you also ridiculously believe that the bike light is on. :doh

Way to show everybody you choose to ignore reality!
:thumbs:

b_dubz said:
I hope no one ever breaks into your house, because you will likely go to jail when you shoot them regardless if they pose a threat...

More absurd nonsense. You obviously just can't help yourself.

b_dubz said:
No a assumption is not enough to shoot someone. You must have suspicion. Which would mean some sort of real threat, not just "I heard a noise"

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Just stop digging your hole further.
You have to have a reasonable belief, which he had.

b_dubz said:
You see in the law where it says "reasonable belief"? That's what Kaarma was lacking,

Wrong.

b_dubz said:
and you have failed numerous times at proving...

Wrong.

b_dubz said:
He had no reasonable belief,

Wrong

b_dubz said:
in fact he almost certainly knew he was in no danger from dede.

Wrong. You know no such thing.

b_dubz said:
Oh and your the only one being dishonest...

You are the only one who has shown they are dishonest.

b_dubz · Dec 25, 2014

Excon said:
Yeah, we already know that is what you think, which is really ridiculous considering the fact that no ambient or reflected light comes from it.
I suppose you also ridiculously believe that the bike light is on. :doh

Yes because that picture looks soooooo much much like ambient or reflected light in that picture...

In reality its obviously a lit flashlight...

Way to show everybody you choose to ignore reality!
:thumbs:

No I have not.

You on the other hand have done a damn good job of it.

You are the only one who has shown they are dishonest.

No, that would be you. With such lies like he didn't set a trap, what a joke...

Excon · Dec 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Yes because that picture looks soooooo much much like ambient or reflected light in that picture...

In reality its obviously a lit flashlight...

And of course you totally miss the point that there is no reflected light from it hitting any other surface.
And there is no ambient light from it hitting any other surface,
It is not casting any light of it's own. Duh!

Just like there is no such light from the headlight either. Do you really not understand what you are looking at?
Forget I asked. You obviously don't.

b_dubz said:
No I have not.

Yes you have. Multiple times now.

b_dubz said:
You on the other hand have done a damn good job of it.

See. There you go again ignoring reality and telling untruths.

b_dubz said:
No, that would be you. With such lies like he didn't set a trap, what a joke...

There was no trap set. That is not a lie.
You on the other hand saying a trap was set is a lie.

So please tell every one how a purse that can not be seen from outside is a trap?
How is a purse placed off to the side with inventoried items to help catch the thief "if" taken a trap?
Reality and honesty dictates that it is not a trap.
Delusion and deceit would dictate that it was.

Funny thing was you arguing it was a trap set by him when he had nothing to do with it, and you not realizing it mattered not one bit as the criminal intruder came in to steal alcohol, not some purse he couldn't even see from outside.

b_dubz · Dec 26, 2014

Excon said:
And of course you totally miss the point that there is no reflected light from it hitting any other surface.
And there is no ambient light from it hitting any other surface,
It is not casting any light of it's own. Duh!

Just like there is no such light from the headlight either. Do you really not understand what you are looking at?
Forget I asked. You obviously don't.

Yes you have. Multiple times now.

See. There you go again ignoring reality and telling untruths.

There was no trap set. That is not a lie.
You on the other hand saying a trap was set is a lie.

So please tell every one how a purse that can not be seen from outside is a trap?
How is a purse placed off to the side with inventoried items to help catch the thief "if" taken a trap?
Reality and honesty dictates that it is not a trap.
Delusion and deceit would dictate that it was.

Funny thing was you arguing it was a trap set by him when he had nothing to do with it, and you not realizing it mattered not one bit as the criminal intruder came in to steal alcohol, not some purse he couldn't even see from outside.

The way he is holding the flashlight the points of reflected light would be out of view of the camera. Duh...

You obviously don't under stand the simple physics of light going in a straight line.

Also what was he holding then?

No your the one that has lied multiple times now. Like about the purse not being in view...

The purse was in view. A trap was set. He told his wife to set a trap. End of story.

The fact he set a trap shows intention of ill will. Just like him saying he wanted to shoot somebody.

I wouldint expect you to understand a thing as complex as premeditation, you have proven yourself incapable.

Excon · Dec 26, 2014

b_dubz said:
The way he is holding the flashlight the points of reflected light would be out of view of the camera. Duh...

Wrong. You would see the light cast and reflected off of the edge of the vehicle and the table/shelf just forward and right of him.
That whole area in from of him would have a greater illumination than the surrounding area if a light was on.
It is not "on" in that image.
It is nothing more than the monitor's IR reflection.

But let me guess. Since you continually ignore the fact the the bikes headlamp is not on, and it's reflectors clearly can't be either, let me ask... The light emanating from his eye, do you also think he has lights on in his eyeballs?
Or do you not understand that is also a reflection from the IR source?

b_dubz said:
You obviously don't under stand the simple physics of light going in a straight line.

As shown by you, that would be you.

b_dubz said:
Also what was he holding then?

This is you showing you have not been reading that which you reply to.
Your problem. Not mine.

b_dubz said:
No your the one that has lied multiple times now. Like about the purse not being in view...

:naughty No. that would be you who is telling untruths as shown multiple times now. The prime example of your untruths is the purse as it could not be seen from outside the garage.

Support your claim that it could be.
You can't. No such information exists.

b_dubz said:
The purse was in view. A trap was set. He told his wife to set a trap. End of story.

You are doing nothing but telling lies on each point.
You should really stop as you are only embarrassing yourself by showing everybody you have no clue as to what you speak.
And your argument style and wording is very familiar... and with a recent join date .. yeah, I know what you are. Good luck with that. I doubt it will last much longer.

b_dubz said:
The fact he set a trap shows intention of ill will. Just like him saying he wanted to shoot somebody.

No trap was set. That is nothing but a lie which you continue to spout without any actual evidence that it was. And you have absolutely nothing that says he asked his gf to do anything.
Especially as he didn't and even took down things she put up only to have her put them back up.
What there is independent evidence of is that she put the purse out so "if" taken, to help "catch" the thief, not as a trap.
You are again simply showing you do not know the evidence and make false things up.

b_dubz said:
I wouldint expect you to understand a thing as complex as premeditation, you have proven yourself incapable.

Wrong. I clearly know the difference between real premeditation and that which is only alleged. You clearly do not.

b_dubz · Dec 26, 2014

Excon said:
Wrong. You would see the light cast and reflected off of the edge of the vehicle and the table/shelf just forward and right of him.
That whole area in from of him would have a greater illumination than the surrounding area if a light was on.
It is not "on" in that image.
It is nothing more than the monitor's IR reflection.

As shown by you, that would be you.

This is you showing you have not been reading that which you reply to.
Your problem. Not mine.

:naughty No. that would be you who is telling untruths as shown multiple times now. The prime example of your untruths is the purse as it could not be seen from outside the garage.

Support your claim that it could be.
You can't. No such information exists.

You are doing nothing but telling lies on each point.
You should really stop as you are only embarrassing yourself by showing everybody you have no clue as to what you speak.
And your argument style and wording is very familiar... and with a recent join date .. yeah, I know what you are. Good luck with that. I doubt it will last much longer.

No trap was set. That is nothing but a lie which you continue to spout without any actual evidence that it was. And you have absolutely nothing that says he asked his gf to do anything.
Especially as he didn't and even took down things she put up only to have her put them back up.
What there is independent evidence of is that she put the purse out so "if" taken, to help "catch" the thief, not as a trap.
You are again simply showing you do not know the evidence and make false things up.

Wrong. I clearly know the difference between real premeditation and that which is only alleged. You clearly do not.

No it wouldn't. Light travels in straight lines. Again you don't seem to understand simple physics.

And there is still the matter of what he was holding, which was a flashlight, and you fail to address...

No again you lied multiple times...

No agin, you have not adressed that. Your the one that seems incapable of reading what's on the web about this case.

Yes it could. Show me a factual article that says it could not be seen.

Your the one that made a claim contrary to every article I have read on the web. Burden of proof is clearly with you...

Haha now your guessing that I am a former member? Hilarious, and incorrect.

So the LA times is lying?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-montana-shooting-20141217-story.html

How about the daily news?

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime...-suspect-broke-garage-article-1.1772463#bmb=1

And ABC?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/montana-man-markus-kaarma-found-guilty-slaying-german/story?id=27658993

For the love of god his neighbors testified about his burglar trap...

Im pretty sure you don't know what the word premeditation means...

What is "real premeditation" then? This should be funny...

castle doctrine case in montana: do traps count as self defense?

b_dubz

Well-known member

Somerville

b_dubz

Well-known member

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

b_dubz

Well-known member

b_dubz

Well-known member

Excon

Excon

b_dubz

Well-known member

b_dubz

Well-known member

Excon

Excon

Excon

b_dubz

Well-known member

Excon

b_dubz

Well-known member

Excon

b_dubz

Well-known member

Excon

b_dubz

Well-known member