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

[Bob Blaylock]

If so, then he got his Darwin Award.



Seriously... any 12yo should know, especially if they live in a Southern or Midwestern state, that illegally entering someone else's home is an invitation to get shot dead.

Anyone, anywhere should know that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If it had been your kid killed would you feel the same?

Alas, I have no children, and it now appears unlikely that I ever will, but if I did, I would hope to be able to raise them well enough for this not to be a concern.

It would be a source of deep shame for my wife and me to have a child who would break into other people's homes and steal. We were both certainly raised better than that, and surely we would have raised any of our own children better than that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So is having a child a hypothetical to you at this point in your life? No disrespect intended, but If one of my boys were gunned downed, for granted being stupid and doing something illegal, the shooter would have reason to fear for his life if he walked. Theft out of an intentionally left open garage =/= to a death sentence.

So, you would take it out on the intended victim of your criminal child's crime, for the blame that rightfully belongs to yourself for having raised a criminal? If it were to come to that, then I can only hope that you would soon enough meet the same fate as your criminal child when you tried to act on that threat.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And this is the attitude that will kill Castle Doctrines/Stand Your Ground laws across the country. It's not in proportion, though I do wish there was a law where we could have open season on the CEOs of investment banks for the **** they stole.

It is people like you, who favor the “rights” of criminals over honest citizens who will help drive the movement to expand and strengthen laws protecting the rights of the latter to defend themselves and their homes from the former.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My sympathies don't lie with the homeowner in the LEAST.

Yes, you've made that clear enough. You're on the side of the criminal, and not on the side of his intended victim.

 

[Jerry]

this is the orign of this case .

Missoula teenager shot, killed in Grant Creek garage

and this is how the shooting story has developed

Missoula teen's killing could test 'castle doctrine'

Father of dead Missoula exchange student slams gun culture

this case is going to get ugly.

I'm seeing the use of a shotgun, not a trap.

 

[Jerry]

some more details about the story

Charging document: Missoula man waited up to shoot 'kid'

thought?

I think that's illegal.

 

[Jerry]

How is someone who enters someone's home uninvited, to steal stuff, not a criminal?

He's dead. How long would you like his body to be in prison for?

 

[Excon]

Just an update, trial is over, Jury took 8-9 hrs to reach a verdict, doesn't surprise me given the circumstances.



Markus Kaarma guilty of German student's homicide; parents will address court Thursday

Sad day for Justice.

 

[Winchester]

Sad day for Justice.

No, not really.

 

[Winchester]

It is people like you, who favor the “rights” of criminals over honest citizens who will help drive the movement to expand and strengthen laws protecting the rights of the latter to defend themselves and their homes from the former.

Oh please... It's people like you that are going to drive the movement to have firearms banned from honest citizens.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Sad day for Justice.

Really I think this verdict will be appealed and probably overturned based on the wording of Montana self-defense law, however in my opinion this was not a self-defense slaying. Carmel was not inside the building at the time it was invaded. nor was he assaulted after confronting the home invader from outside the house. Now if you had confronted this German student and the student punched him or assaulted him or something like that, self-defense, however opening up on someone Who walked inside a door you left open to trap that person, is not self-defense

 

[Jerry]

Sad day for Justice.

I think the "male resident" stepped over bounds here. You're not supposed to set up situations for people.

Now if the house was locked up and the guy broke in, weapons free IMO, take him down. But that's not what happened here.

 

[Cryptic]

So, you would take it out on the intended victim of your criminal child's crime, for the blame that rightfully belongs to yourself for having raised a criminal? If it were to come to that, then I can only hope that you would soon enough meet the same fate as your criminal child when you tried to act on that threat.

So is having a child a hypothetical to you at this point in your life? No disrespect intended, but If one of my boys were gunned downed, for granted being stupid and doing something illegal, the shooter would have reason to fear for his life if he walked. Theft out of an intentionally left open garage =/= to a death sentence.

This is an interesting concept. Given the totality of the circumstances: placing a lure, trapping the thief in the garage and then killing him, shooting him while he was cornored and pleading for his life, the thief was not a life long criminal etc, my guess is that the social conventions of 1880s Appalachia would support the vengeance killing of the shooter (or sadly, his son) by a male relative of the deceased thief.

1890s Kentucky also placed a premium on weapons ownership and defense of property. At the same time, the possibility of blood vengeance kept some lines from being crossed. My guess is that baiting a thief in a poor community, trapping and killing him would be such a line.

 

[Goshin]

Just an update, trial is over, Jury took 8-9 hrs to reach a verdict, doesn't surprise me given the circumstances.



Markus Kaarma guilty of German student's homicide; parents will address court Thursday

As I said, wait and see what happens before (as some did) crying out to change "Castle Doctrine".

Per the facts that came out, this was NOT in any way self-defense. It could maybe be construed as "defense of property" but even that is rendered questionable by leaving the garage door wide open and trapping the thief inside by going out and blocking his escape, then shooting without any hint of threat or even proximity, and the self-confessed premeditation to kill.

The male resident was an idiot asshole and most likely got what he deserved.

Where I differ with others is I assert that the thief was also an idiot and arguably deserved what HE got too. You don't go into strangers' houses and take their stuff; that is self-evidently a good way to get killed.

 

[radcen]

As I said, wait and see what happens before (as some did) crying out to change "Castle Doctrine".

Per the facts that came out, this was NOT in any way self-defense. It could maybe be construed as "defense of property" but even that is rendered questionable by leaving the garage door wide open and trapping the thief inside by going out and blocking his escape, then shooting without any hint of threat or even proximity, and the self-confessed premeditation to kill.

The male resident was an idiot asshole and most likely got what he deserved.

Where I differ with others is I assert that the thief was also an idiot and arguably deserved what HE got too. You don't go into strangers' houses and take their stuff; that is self-evidently a good way to get killed.

Agreed, and well said.

 

[Excon]

I think the "male resident" stepped over bounds here. You're not supposed to set up situations for people.

Now if the house was locked up and the guy broke in, weapons free IMO, take him down. But that's not what happened here.

Your statement is not based on the factual evidence.
He did not "set up" any scenario.

 

[Excon]

Sad day for Justice.

No, not really.

Yes really.
It was nothing more than an emotive decision.

---

Really I think this verdict will be appealed and probably overturned based on the wording of Montana self-defense law,

The article provided says they are going to appeal.
But chances that an appeal would be successful are slim.
Unless a jury speaks out and shows they based their decision outside of the law, it is pretty much a done deal.

however in my opinion this was not a self-defense slaying.

In defense of home, yeah it pretty much was.
Which is what is allowed.

So whether or not a person agrees that a person should be able to do so, it is legal and should not be held against him.

Carmel was not inside the building at the time it was invaded.

What?
Carmel?
Kaarma was sitting inside watching television like they normally do when the home was entered.

nor was he assaulted after confronting the home invader from outside the house. Now if you had confronted this German student and the student punched him or assaulted him or something like that, self-defense, however opening up on someone Who walked inside a door you left open to trap that person, is not self-defense

One does not need an assault.
The criminal was inside the darkened garage (home) when he was confronted.
Kaarma heard a metallic sounding noise coming from the darkened garage where the criminal was. Any person confronted with such a situation should legally be able to shoot before finding out if the metallic sound was a gun or not.

 

[Jerry]

Placing a purse into the garage containing inventoried items to help catch the thief should they take it, is not baiting to kill someone.
Setting detection devices to help catch the individual is not trapping them.
Being prepared to confront an intruder/thief if they should present their self is not baiting or trapping.
Going about your normal activities, like watching a movie on the couch, and then getting up when the alarms go off, grabbing his firearm and then going outside to confront the person, is not laying in wait or ambushing.

Umm, yes, yes it is, and the jury agreed.

Guilty.

 

[Excon]

Umm, yes, yes it is, and the jury agreed.

Really? iLOL :doh Show what the Jury thought of each piece of information they received.
I will be patiently waiting.

And no Jerry, simply placing a purse in the garage with items inventoried so the thief could be more easily identified "if taken" is not setting up a trap to kill someone.
It is providing a means to better being able to catch the thief. Which is what the intent was behind her doing so.
And that was her who did that, not him. Just as setting up all the surveillance equipment was her and not him. He even had taken it down which she put right back up.
She did those things, so the Prosecutor arguing that he intended anything from her actions is ludicrous.

 

[b_dubz]

Your statement is not based on the factual evidence.
He did not "set up" any scenario.

Yea he did. He left his garage door half up, and a purse in plain view. This was a big part of the prosecutions argument...

 

[Jerry]

iLOL

iKEK :2wave:

And no Jerry, simply placing a purse in the garage with items inventoried so the thief could be more easily identified "if taken" is not setting up a trap to kill someone.

It's setting up the situation and you can never use lethal force if you caused the confrontation to occur.

 

[Excon]

Yea he did. He left his garage door half up, and a purse in plain view. This was a big part of the prosecutions argument...

Oh look another one who doesn't know the evidence.
:doh
No he didn't.

 

[Excon]

iKEK :2wave:


It's setting up the situation and you can never use lethal force if you caused the confrontation to occur.

1. That is not true.
2. He didn't set anything up.
3. That item was not able to be seen from outside. So no one enticed anyone into the garage. He entered of his own free criminal volition.

 

[Jerry]

1. That is not true.
2. He didn't set anything up.
3. That item was not able to be seen from outside. So no one enticed anyone into the garage. He entered of his own free criminal volition.

You can keep denying it all you want but that's what happened and the guy was found guilty.

I don't see what there is to debate.