Posted on 02/13/2015 8:36:34 AM PST by Oliviaforever
That's not true. In every state one of the required elements for valid self-defense is that you have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. You might defend another person, but that requirement still exists applied to the other person. There are jurisdictions where you can use force in other situations, but those aren't self-defense.
No, that’s not what happened at all. Neither Kaarma nor his girlfriend said any such thing. Go back and re-check. Kaarma’s girlfriend did call the police and even tried to revive Dede.
What was a 17-year-old exchange student doing up at 1 AM, invading people’s garages? This is acceptable behavior? Needlessly? Kaarma might even be going to jail just for beating up the intruder. Stop trying to put the last nail in the Castle Doctrine’s coffin, I suggest.
Maybe they weren’t willing to count his garage as being part of his “occupied dwelling”. There is usually a real key locked, door to the outside style, door between your house and your attached garage.
People in CO shoot folks in their house (including drunks who are just in the wrong house) all the time without being subject to criminal or civil proceedings of any kind, but the garage has to make it at least a gray area.
Then you’re OK with the states allegedly invalidating the Castle Doctrine.
An open garage at 1 am is not “bait”. And there was nobody waiting in the shadows either way—except Dede.
That provision only says you have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of your property. Nobody disputed that. It doesn’t govern when you can pull the trigger and kill someone.
I don’t mind at all that this homeowner removed a thief from our world. I do mind that he talked too much, especially in advance, and will now cost the Montana taxpayers a whole lot of money for the rest of his life. You have to know your state’s laws and follow those laws (or at least present the situation in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as following the law) in these situations.
The sentence is more than appropriate. This is not a case where the homeowner was defending his life. The death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for trespassing and it is not acceptable to set up a situation just to prove a point and exact some vigilante justice. I can’t believe anyone would think that’s okay or go further, to celebrate the fact that this guy basically murdered a 17 year old.
Exactly!
AFAIK, that usually applies to detached garages.
The MT lawmakers were rushing to repeal the “expanded castle doctrine” upon hearing of this case. So AFAICS, Kaarma was railroaded and may even be a victim of ex post facto.
There is case law, if not statutes, in every jurisdiction that determines what is included in the Castle Doctrine. I don't have my reference handy to look it for Montana right now.
But that's not enough. The Castle Doctrine is just like Stand Your Ground. It just means you don't have to run from your house. It doesn't grant authority to use force. To use force the other elements of self-defense have to be met, or there has to be a proactive law that authorizes lethal force to protect property.
Setting a trap so that Rambo here can shoot an unarmed 17 year-old is criminal and should be. You don’t have to be an angel to avoid being murdered by a jackass. I understand you may get off on shooting people but we have reasonable limits of when you can do that. Setting a trap is simply, always, criminally wrong. Every time. Everywhere.
i agree... this is not like the other Stand Your Ground cases... not at all surprised he was convicted/found guilty...
You are incorrect. Deadly force may be used in a very broad sense, at least in sane jurisdictions. There is no way the intentions of another can be telepathically determined; all we can go off of is a persons actions and the context of these actions. Some unknown invader IN YOUR DWELLING, IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT, is well beyond any reasonable person’s boundary of being a treat.
You don’t have to defend your life; defense of property applies.
1 AM, remember. That’s not murder even by the thinnest-stretched definition.
Montana lawmakers seem to be OK with teenagers “who are simply garage-hopping”, too.
There was no trap set. An open garage door at 1 am is not a trap.
Every single time a citizen defending the integrity and security of their property is prosecuted like this, the lawless left rejoice and are emboldened.
the bait was not an issue really.
the key in most states is that the thief didn’t “forcibly enter”
the use of force by the theif (kick in a door, break a window) would usually alone justify the shooting.
But leaving your door open and blasting anyone who walks through doesn’t pass muster.
If the homeowner had put the purse near a window and the theif had broken the window to get to it, and then entered, in many states the Homeowner could have then shot.
“Trespass and theft are not legal grounds for use of lethal force in any state”
Under some circumstances it is in Texas.
He told witnesses days before that he planned to kill a thief. Premeditated murder is not justified by bait.
So any stranger can legally walk into your garage at 1 am simply because the entry was not so-called “forced” due to an open door? and by extension, if you accidentally leave your house door open, whether front or back, any entrant is guaranteed safe passage in and out of your dwelling? That certainly pushes the bounds of absurdity.
Remember: 1 am. And Montana lawmakers are apparently OK with “teenagers . . . apparently garage-hopping”. And the Kaarmas were burglarized before. Who is really safe?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.