okay gun folks...is this homeowner guilty or not guilty ??

[Primus]

Completely agree.
You can't leave safety (Castle) and then claim that as a defense for shooting back into it.

Good point. Agreed.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[onus]

I eagerly await all of the evidence coming out. I would like to know why the teenager was inside the garage because it makes me think about a story when I was younger....

One day when I was about 14 my friend and I walked to our local park and played football. On the way home we were throwing the football back and forth to each other. At one point I "went long" and my friend threw the ball wide and it rolled into someones yard and into their open garage. I didn't hesitate for one second to walk into their open garage to go retrieve my ball.

When I got into the garage I couldn't immediately find it. The ball had rolled behind some stuff. After I picked it up and was walking out, the homeowner came around the side of the house (they were gardening) and asked why I was in their garage. I showed her my ball and she laughed and said "oh, I was hoping you were here to help me carry some of the fertilizer".

My friend and myself carried two bags of fertilizer for the lady to her back yard.

 

[dorangolv]

Wifey, wife

“I’m just waiting to shoot some (expletive) kid,” Kaarma allegedly told stylists at the Missoula salon.

Said the affidavit: “He told (the stylist) that he had been burglarized a few times, that was why he was waiting up at night to catch someone and shoot them. (She) reported that the defendant was being extremely vulgar and belligerant. She asked the defendant to quit swearing and he said he could say ‘whatever the (expletive)’ he wanted.”

This guy is a real piece of work.
I hope he makes someone a good wife someday in prison.

 

[dorangolv]

"He took the steps that no one wants to take and shot,” Ryan said. “It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.”

If he didn't know who was there, then why did he shoot?
If he didn't know where the person was, why did he shoot?

This lawyer is losing the case in his opening comments.

"The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death."

1. It was not forcible entry. They left the garage door opened.
2. It was not within his home. The garage is not where he lives.
3. If he claims he was at risk of serious bodily injury or death,
a. Why did he leave his home where he was safe?
b. He already claimed he didn't know who was in there, where they were or what they had in their hands. He can't say on the one hand 'I didn't know what was going on' and then on the other say 'I was afraid because I didn't know what was going on.'
He's trying to plead ignorance to counter the claim that he set a trap to lure them in and kill them.

This guys defense is stepping all over itself with contradictions and ignorance of the law.

 

[onus]

"He took the steps that no one wants to take and shot,” Ryan said. “It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.”

If he didn't know who was there, then why did he shoot?
If he didn't know where the person was, why did he shoot?

This lawyer is losing the case in his opening comments.

"The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death."

1. It was not forcible entry. They left the garage door opened.
2. It was not within his home. The garage is not where he lives.
3. If he claims he was at risk of serious bodily injury or death,
a. Why did he leave his home where he was safe?
b. He already claimed he didn't know who was in there, where they were or what they had in their hands. He can't say 'I didn't know what was going on' and then say 'I was afraid because I didn't know what was going on.'

This guys defense is stepping all over itself with contradictions and ignorance of the law.

I agree with all of your points except (2). I believe under Montana law the garage is covered under the Castle Doctrine.

(47) "Occupied structure" means any building, vehicle, or other place suitable for human occupancy or night lodging of persons or for carrying on business, whether or not a person is actually present, including any outbuilding that is immediately adjacent to or in close proximity to an occupied structure and that is habitually used for personal use or employment. Each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or occupied is a separate occupied structure.

 

[Freedom1Man]

http://missoulian.com/news/local/up...cle_f7551102-cf0e-11e3-9619-001a4bcf887a.html


Murder or self defense ?

Neither.

 

[Freedom1Man]

To me this guy baited to hunt a PERSON. If he was worried about being ripped off, he COULD have SHOULD have tightened his security to the garage. He shouldn't have left the door open and a pocket book laying out. We as responsible gun owners and protectors of ourselves and family don't go out and bait people. From what I read, it's an unjustified homicide. If they wanted to trap a suspect, then install the garage door opener INSIDE the house. When the suspects walk in, then shut the door. Average dummie wouldn't think to open the safety in the overhead to get out. They'd be locked in a dark garage, and waiting for a cop. That is a better trap for a perp/suspect/dumb kid. And his "gun control" was attrocious...Spray and pray, and no clue who was in there.

You should never walk through a bad neighbor hood to avoid being mugged too.

My brother watch a mugging in Bellevue Washington one night one his walk home from work. He thought he was in the good part of town.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Based on just the information in the linked article:

What imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury was this guy facing when inside his house looking at the baby monitor screen?

The law gives homeowners some leeway in setting traps to catch folks who try to steal from them, but pretty much draws the line at going from the safety of your home to arming up, going outside, and shooting pretty much blindly into your garage. "I heard a noise" is not going to stand up once the fact is introduced - and hammered away at - that the guy left the safety of his home to go shoot somebody - anybody - because he was tired of getting ripped off.

“It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.” Tell me another fairy story. He knew there was someone in the garage and he took a gun to go look for that person when there was no imminent threat to himself or his wife. What was he going to do - shoot to wound someone? And why would he even shoot to wound if he did not know what was in someone's hands?

I feel sorry for the guy. I am greatly puzzled why a German exchange student who is reported to be such a goody-two-shoes would be out burglarizing a garage.

But most of all I am saddened to read how many would approve of what this guy did. He just became the next poster boy of the anti-gun crowd that will be used to show that we are all just waiting to shoot someone.

The only reluctance I would have as a juror at his trial would be knowing that the judge will not allow me to chew him out.

stay safe.

Montana law is what he will judged under specifically MCA 45-3-103

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 will walk maybe even before trial IMHO.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

When I got into the garage I couldn't immediately find it. <snip>

Well, if you were doing the above late at night the homeowner may have shot you because they could claim that they did not know what was in your hand and feared for their safety. This is the holy grail of justifications that is routinely used by LE and citizens alike. Unfortunately, LE is believed out of hand, citizens, on the other hand are not afforded the same consideration by default.

 

[MontanaResident]

From what I know of this case, the guy had better lawyer up real good.

 

[onus]

Montana law is what he will judged under specifically MCA 45-3-103

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 will walk maybe even before trial IMHO.

Well he isn't walking because he is charged with murder.

For this defense to be raised and accepted under 2(a) there must be TWO elements, first that entry was made AND the shooter used force to prevent an assault.

The shooter himself said that he fired into a dark garage and couldn't even see the person he was shooting at.

This case is going to be decided by a jury. If I sat on the jury, based on what we know right now, I would vote guilty.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Well he isn't walking because he is charged with murder.

For this defense to be raised and accepted under 2(a) there must be TWO elements, first that entry was made AND the shooter used force to prevent an assault.

The shooter himself said that he fired into a dark garage and couldn't even see the person he was shooting at.

This case is going to be decided by a jury. If I sat on the jury, based on what we know right now, I would vote guilty.

Well, if he could not see anything, why could he not think that the guy was advancing upon him?

In any event, I would find him not guilty. I think that if you go on someone's land, you take the risk of being shot.
I know many folks who shoot at people just for being on their land. I think its a mindset most prevalent in some mountain-folks.

 

[OC for ME]

Based on just the information in the linked article:

What imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury was this guy facing when inside his house looking at the baby monitor screen?

The law gives homeowners some leeway in setting traps to catch folks who try to steal from them, but pretty much draws the line at going from the safety of your home to arming up, going outside, and shooting pretty much blindly into your garage. "I heard a noise" is not going to stand up once the fact is introduced - and hammered away at - that the guy left the safety of his home to go shoot somebody - anybody - because he was tired of getting ripped off.

“It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.” Tell me another fairy story. He knew there was someone in the garage and he took a gun to go look for that person when there was no imminent threat to himself or his wife. What was he going to do - shoot to wound someone? And why would he even shoot to wound if he did not know what was in someone's hands?

I feel sorry for the guy. I am greatly puzzled why a German exchange student who is reported to be such a goody-two-shoes would be out burglarizing a garage.

But most of all I am saddened to read how many would approve of what this guy did. He just became the next poster boy of the anti-gun crowd that will be used to show that we are all just waiting to shoot someone.

The only reluctance I would have as a juror at his trial would be knowing that the judge will not allow me to chew him out.

stay safe.

Well, were we, any of us, in the criminals head. I could argue that they were going to burn the house down around the homeowners by igniting combustibles found in the garage.

Not guilty only because we are all being peanut gallery lawyers.

MontanaResident and notalawyer nailed it.

notalawyer: I plan to shoot anyone that comes into my house uninvited. Is that premeditation?

Of course it is. What responsible homeowner would not be prepared to shoot a criminal and defend their family and themselves when their home is forcibly entered into? Unless the homeowner believes that criminals only break into homes to steal stuff.

 

[onus]

Well, if he could not see anything, why could he not think that the guy was advancing upon him?

In any event, I would find him not guilty. I think that if you go on someone's land, you take the risk of being shot.
I know many folks who shoot at people just for being on their land. I think its a mindset most prevalent in some mountain-folks.

If you chose to find the homeowner not guilty because "if you go on someone's land you risk being shot" then that's your right as a juror. However, it wouldn't be basing your decision on the law.

The law says the homeowner must have a reasonable fear for his life.

From what I have heard so far the victim did nothing to give the homeowner a reasonable fear for his life.

 

[OC for ME]

Cops have been relieved of criminal liability for doing virtually the same thing.

Two wrongs don't make a right? BS!! This case is another example of a stupid citizen being held to a different standard than a stupid cop.

 

[Aknazer]

Ignoring some of the other comments for a moment, this is my take on it all.

I would find him not guilty. The deceased was inside of the person's garage late at night. The person had been burglarized multiple times before. This makes the deceased look like a (or the) burglar. The homeowner has no way to know if they "just" plan to burglarize the garage or try to move it into the house. It was dark, and thus once confronted, any sort of movement by the deceased could be taken as a hostile/aggressive action. Also I would consider a garage that is attached to the house as part of the house much like any other room of the house.

Now with his comments things get murky. The statement about staying up to shoot someone does NOT look good. Likewise neither does the statement about not being scared. I would need more information about these statements. Saying that one wants to shoot whoever keeps breaking into their house (as I said before, I consider an attached garage as part of the house) wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to say imo (though I do think it isn't the wisest of things to voice in our society). The real issue is why didn't he feel threatened? Was it because he had a gun and thus felt like he had the power in the situation, or did he truly not feel threatened by the deceased? If it is the first reason then that has more to do with the faulty logic of the "magical talisman" of the gun, while the second reason makes it look more like plain murder (you're not a threat but I'm going to shoot you anyways).


All of that said, I disagree with his actions. But I just can't say guilty/not guilty with what information has been presented. For me it really comes down to his state-of-mind when the shooting happened and we don't have a proper picture of that.

 

[Lord Sega]

Montana law is what he will judged under specifically MCA 45-3-103

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 will walk maybe even before trial IMHO.

Ok...

1) Use of force to prevent or end unlawful entry of a occupied structure... Yes (if Onus in reply #25 is correct, then garage = outbuilding adjacent to the home)
2) Use of deadly force, IF:
2a) entry or attempted entry (Yes) AND reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent assault (Maybe, needs to convince jury of fear of assault); OR
2b) reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent forcible felony (Maybe... no breaking just entering, attempted burglary, and again fear of assault... are any of those or other possibilities both forcible AND felony(s)???

Without more details, I'm at a big maybe (as per law).

I think that leaving the (relative safety) house to investigate or confront the person combined with his statements about being unable to see in the dark garage, shooting at an unknown target somewhere in the garage, with no obvious threat (i.e. he charged me out of the dark, or I saw a glint of metal in his hand, etc) the homeowner is going to have a hard time with the "reasonably believes deadly force is necessary" part. Use of force, Yes... Use of Deadly force, not so much.

 

[onus]

new information released today.....

The friend of the deceased told police that both of them had previously entered the garages and homes of multiple residents prior to the shooting. The purpose was usually theft and thrill.

The friend is also an exchange student from Ecuador and has since fled Montana and gone back to his native country.

Prediction : no way will the homeowner be convicted now.

 

[MontanaResident]

new information released today.....

The friend of the deceased told police that both of them had previously entered the garages and homes of multiple residents prior to the shooting. The purpose was usually theft and thrill.

The friend is also an exchange student from Ecuador and has since fled Montana and gone back to his native country.

Prediction : no way will the homeowner be convicted now.

Perhaps. When I first heard of this case, I was not in doubt that the killed University Student was there to rob the garage, and had very likely done so previously. The case is about intent to kill prior to the actual killing. The owner is going to be portrayed as a bait hunter of a human being.

 

[Primus]

Perhaps. When I first heard of this case, I was not in doubt that the killed University Student was there to rob the garage, and had very likely done so previously. The case is about intent to kill prior to the actual killing. The owner is going to be portrayed as a bait hunter of a human being.

That's exactly what he is, a bait hunter. He made it nuclear he intended to kill someone. He made the circumstances so he could. Damn near premeditated murder.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk