'Stand your ground' defense fails in Montana murder trial

[007]

Mont. (AP) — Just days before he shot to death a 17-year-old German exchange student, Markus Kaarma told hair stylists he had been waiting up to shoot some kids who were burglarizing homes.
He told them they would see it on the news.

Kaarma hoped to bait an intruder by leaving his garage door partially open and placing a purse inside, prosecutors said. And when he did, a motion detector alerted him early April 27. Kaarma took a shotgun outside and almost immediately fired four blasts into the garage. Diren Dede, unarmed, was hit twice. He died after the final shot hit him in the head.

For those reasons, Kaarma's "castle doctrine" defense, which allows people to use deadly force to protect their home and family, failed him Wednesday. A Missoula jury convicted him of deliberate homicide.

Stand your ground defense fails in Montana murder trial - Yahoo News

he set a trap ....and killed someone for a non capital crime....i think it was murder

The guy was a dumbass, and deserved to be convicted.

 

[martybegan]

The people who skim the headlines are the ones who determine elections, and elections determine laws. Next time someone going for gun control references these cases as "stand your ground" and the "evils" of such a policy, they would be lying, but Mr. low information voter won't notice that. he will remember the kid in the garage and the black kid with Skittles being killed due to Stand your Ground, when the truth is it had NOTHING to do with it.

Determining elections -- or whatever, forming an opinion --- on the basis of headlines, let alone without vetting the story and the source, would be irresponsible. That's on the reader.

Apparently you want to blame the murder on the gun and not the shooter.

See how that works?

It's on the reader, but he influences elections. And it seems most of these "Narrative" mistakes by the media seem to favor a more progressive bent.

Isn't that fucking interesting.

Exactly how is substituting SYG for CD "favoring a progressive bent", whatever that means?

All of this makes guns look bad, and making guns look bad is what progressives love to do.

Progressives also don't like people being able to defend themselves effectively, and thus if they can lump more cases like this into "Stand Your Ground" they can make a better case to repeal the laws.

The Narrative in full effect.

The perp made guns look bad.

He made himself look bad. But the progressive media hates private ownership of firearms, so any Narrative that helps with their cause is molded to fit the message.

 

[007]

Determining elections -- or whatever, forming an opinion --- on the basis of headlines, let alone without vetting the story and the source, would be irresponsible. That's on the reader.

Apparently you want to blame the murder on the gun and not the shooter.

See how that works?

It's on the reader, but he influences elections. And it seems most of these "Narrative" mistakes by the media seem to favor a more progressive bent.

Isn't that fucking interesting.

Exactly how is substituting SYG for CD "favoring a progressive bent", whatever that means?

All of this makes guns look bad, and making guns look bad is what progressives love to do.

Progressives also don't like people being able to defend themselves effectively, and thus if they can lump more cases like this into "Stand Your Ground" they can make a better case to repeal the laws.

The Narrative in full effect.

The perp made guns look bad.

He made himself look bad. But the progressive media hates private ownership of firearms, so any Narrative that helps with their cause is molded to fit the message.

Yup... "Rules for Radicals"...

 

[Pogo]

I agree with you that it's technically inaccurate. But the accurate story is in the text.

Now if some skimmer-reader were to read the headline only and not see the text, they might get that impression, yes. But by virtue of not reading the story they would be misinformed on it. More likely, their not reading the story means they're simply not interested.

As already noted, what's important here is the judgment on this case. We could go find another headline that doesn't mention either concept, and that story remains the same. Headlines are by definition short capsules and as such, teasers. They're not intended to be history.

The people who skim the headlines are the ones who determine elections, and elections determine laws. Next time someone going for gun control references these cases as "stand your ground" and the "evils" of such a policy, they would be lying, but Mr. low information voter won't notice that. he will remember the kid in the garage and the black kid with Skittles being killed due to Stand your Ground, when the truth is it had NOTHING to do with it.

Determining elections -- or whatever, forming an opinion --- on the basis of headlines, let alone without vetting the story and the source, would be irresponsible. That's on the reader.

Apparently you want to blame the murder on the gun and not the shooter.

See how that works?

It's on the reader, but he influences elections. And it seems most of these "Narrative" mistakes by the media seem to favor a more progressive bent.

Isn't that fucking interesting.

Exactly how is substituting SYG for CD "favoring a progressive bent", whatever that means?

All of this makes guns look bad, and making guns look bad is what progressives love to do.

Progressives also don't like people being able to defend themselves effectively, and thus if they can lump more cases like this into "Stand Your Ground" they can make a better case to repeal the laws.

The Narrative in full effect.

You're flailing. Failing too.
How is SYG worse for gun nuts than CD is? That is the question. You're suggesting that some agenda prefers to substitute one for the other -- which must therefore mean one is more advantageous to that agenda than the other.

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm suggesting it's probably done for simplicity. Or perhaps careless oversight.

In other words where I'm suggesting the practical/realistic you're suggesting the conspiratorial. Except yours doesn't make rational sense.

 

[martybegan]

The people who skim the headlines are the ones who determine elections, and elections determine laws. Next time someone going for gun control references these cases as "stand your ground" and the "evils" of such a policy, they would be lying, but Mr. low information voter won't notice that. he will remember the kid in the garage and the black kid with Skittles being killed due to Stand your Ground, when the truth is it had NOTHING to do with it.

Determining elections -- or whatever, forming an opinion --- on the basis of headlines, let alone without vetting the story and the source, would be irresponsible. That's on the reader.

Apparently you want to blame the murder on the gun and not the shooter.

See how that works?

It's on the reader, but he influences elections. And it seems most of these "Narrative" mistakes by the media seem to favor a more progressive bent.

Isn't that fucking interesting.

Exactly how is substituting SYG for CD "favoring a progressive bent", whatever that means?

All of this makes guns look bad, and making guns look bad is what progressives love to do.

Progressives also don't like people being able to defend themselves effectively, and thus if they can lump more cases like this into "Stand Your Ground" they can make a better case to repeal the laws.

The Narrative in full effect.

You're flailing. Failing too.
How is SYG worse for gun nuts than CD is? That is the question. You're suggesting that some agenda prefers to substitute one for the other -- which must therefore mean one is more advantageous to that agenda than the other.

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm suggesting it's probably done for simplicity. Or perhaps careless oversight.

In other words where I'm suggesting the practical/realistic you're suggesting the conspiratorial. Except yours doesn't make rational sense.

Does the media overall support or oppose gun rights, yes or no?
And don't brush me with the conspiracy stain, Journalists control the message, and most journalists today are of a progressive bent. Denying that is more conspiratorial than thinking progressives don't like guns.

And SYG is "low hanging fruit." Ask most people if shooting someone entering your home illegally is OK and most would say yes. Take it to an open area and say someone has to at least try to escape before shooting them and you create doubt in people.

You need to get rid of SYG before you get rid of the CD.

 

[Ravi]

Determining elections -- or whatever, forming an opinion --- on the basis of headlines, let alone without vetting the story and the source, would be irresponsible. That's on the reader.

Apparently you want to blame the murder on the gun and not the shooter.

See how that works?

It's on the reader, but he influences elections. And it seems most of these "Narrative" mistakes by the media seem to favor a more progressive bent.

Isn't that fucking interesting.

Exactly how is substituting SYG for CD "favoring a progressive bent", whatever that means?

All of this makes guns look bad, and making guns look bad is what progressives love to do.

Progressives also don't like people being able to defend themselves effectively, and thus if they can lump more cases like this into "Stand Your Ground" they can make a better case to repeal the laws.

The Narrative in full effect.

The perp made guns look bad.

He made himself look bad. But the progressive media hates private ownership of firearms, so any Narrative that helps with their cause is molded to fit the message.

Not sure what you consider the progressive media. I don't think progressives in general hate private ownership of firearms but rather they hate how easy it is for nutcases to obtain firearms.

And I seriously doubt progressives don't want people to be able to defend themselves, as you stated.

Again, SYG is simply an enlargement of CD, and some of the laws are poorly written. You shouldn't be able to kill without consequence, I don't care who you are. And some of these laws allow for just that.

 

[Pogo]

Determining elections -- or whatever, forming an opinion --- on the basis of headlines, let alone without vetting the story and the source, would be irresponsible. That's on the reader.

Apparently you want to blame the murder on the gun and not the shooter.

See how that works?

It's on the reader, but he influences elections. And it seems most of these "Narrative" mistakes by the media seem to favor a more progressive bent.

Isn't that fucking interesting.

Exactly how is substituting SYG for CD "favoring a progressive bent", whatever that means?

All of this makes guns look bad, and making guns look bad is what progressives love to do.

Progressives also don't like people being able to defend themselves effectively, and thus if they can lump more cases like this into "Stand Your Ground" they can make a better case to repeal the laws.

The Narrative in full effect.

You're flailing. Failing too.
How is SYG worse for gun nuts than CD is? That is the question. You're suggesting that some agenda prefers to substitute one for the other -- which must therefore mean one is more advantageous to that agenda than the other.

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm suggesting it's probably done for simplicity. Or perhaps careless oversight.

In other words where I'm suggesting the practical/realistic you're suggesting the conspiratorial. Except yours doesn't make rational sense.

Does the media overall support or oppose gun rights, yes or no?

Neither.
If it's commercially-oriented media, it supports whatever story or angle it can sell. If it's ethical journalism, it doesn't take a side, by definition. Imagining "they're all out to get me" is more conspiratorial paranoia.

And don't brush me with the conspiracy stain, Journalists control the message, and most journalists today are of a progressive bent. Denying that is more conspiratorial than thinking progressives don't like guns.

I've asked for some definition of "progressive" the whole time I've been with this site and have yet to get one, but it doesn't matter for this purpose; the question is STILL this:

How does a reference to Gun Law 8672 instead of Gun Law 6976 change public impressions against guns?

Both laws make allowances for firearm use; it's not like 8672 does so and 6976 doesn't. Moreover neither the headline nor the story is about guns or gun laws; it's about a legal judgment on a specific action in a specific case. It makes reference, however erroneously, to the defendant's defense strategy in that they failed to prove it.

That means the law did not apply to the case -- not that the law "doesn't work". What didn't work in this case was Markus Kaarma's defense. In the next case the circumstances will vary.

You seem to be taking the view that the headline is about the law rather than the specific case.

 

[Pogo]

It's on the reader, but he influences elections. And it seems most of these "Narrative" mistakes by the media seem to favor a more progressive bent.

Isn't that fucking interesting.

Exactly how is substituting SYG for CD "favoring a progressive bent", whatever that means?

All of this makes guns look bad, and making guns look bad is what progressives love to do.

Progressives also don't like people being able to defend themselves effectively, and thus if they can lump more cases like this into "Stand Your Ground" they can make a better case to repeal the laws.

The Narrative in full effect.

The perp made guns look bad.

He made himself look bad. But the progressive media hates private ownership of firearms, so any Narrative that helps with their cause is molded to fit the message.

Not sure what you consider the progressive media. I don't think progressives in general hate private ownership of firearms but rather they hate how easy it is for nutcases to obtain firearms.

And I seriously doubt progressives don't want people to be able to defend themselves, as you stated.

Again, SYG is simply an enlargement of CD, and some of the laws are poorly written. You shouldn't be able to kill without consequence, I don't care who you are. And some of these laws allow for just that.

And indeed that's what Markus Kaarma's attorneys were banking on. Fortunately the jury demurred.