'Stand your ground' defense fails in Montana murder trial

[Anathema]

Unfortunately, just as with most other dumb animals, most States will not allow you to hunt criminals using "bait" of any kind.

 

[Brain357]

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

Good. This guy should go to jail.

 

[Stephanie]

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

Stand yer ground is only an effective defense if the defendant is lighter in complexion than the victim.

oh brother. that's sick and twisted

 

[Pogo]

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

This would be a case about the "Castle Doctrine" not stand your ground. That being said the act of luring definitely makes the Castle Doctrine less likely to be believed. So yahoo news is wrong on the title.

yahoo news has become joke

The headline is in no way the point. It may be technically flawed but the point here is the verdict. There are those among us who would have us distract ourselves from that but pick another news source and the verdict is going to be the same.

 

[R.D.]

 

[Pogo]

Looks like Ardie's gazing admiringly at my post.

Ahem, thangyew, thangyew. You're too kind.

 

[martybegan]

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

This would be a case about the "Castle Doctrine" not stand your ground. That being said the act of luring definitely makes the Castle Doctrine less likely to be believed. So yahoo news is wrong on the title.

yahoo news has become joke

The headline is in no way the point. It may be technically flawed but the point here is the verdict. There are those among us who would have us distract ourselves from that but pick another news source and the verdict is going to be the same.

Words mean things. I guess again the Narrative is more important that actually getting facts straight.

 

[Pogo]

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

This would be a case about the "Castle Doctrine" not stand your ground. That being said the act of luring definitely makes the Castle Doctrine less likely to be believed. So yahoo news is wrong on the title.

yahoo news has become joke

The headline is in no way the point. It may be technically flawed but the point here is the verdict. There are those among us who would have us distract ourselves from that but pick another news source and the verdict is going to be the same.

Words mean things. I guess again the Narrative is more important that actually getting facts straight.

The narrative IS getting the facts straight. The story's in the story, not the headline. Your observation of the title is a correct one. But it misses the forest for a single tree.

I don't know why it's phrased as such but if I had to guess I'd venture that the editor figured more readers would understand "stand your ground" than "castle doctrine". The latter would have to be explained in subtext whereas the former speaks for itself.

 

[Ravi]

Kaarma. Great name.

 

[martybegan]

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

This would be a case about the "Castle Doctrine" not stand your ground. That being said the act of luring definitely makes the Castle Doctrine less likely to be believed. So yahoo news is wrong on the title.

yahoo news has become joke

The headline is in no way the point. It may be technically flawed but the point here is the verdict. There are those among us who would have us distract ourselves from that but pick another news source and the verdict is going to be the same.

Words mean things. I guess again the Narrative is more important that actually getting facts straight.

The narrative IS getting the facts straight. The story's in the story, not the headline. Your observation of the title is a correct one. But it misses the forest for a single tree.

I don't know why it's phrased as such but if I had to guess I'd venture that the editor figured more readers would understand "stand your ground" than "castle doctrine". The latter would have to be explained in subtext whereas the former speaks for itself.

But it's not the truth. For people who just read the headline they associate this with Stand your ground, and they will be WRONG. Then, years from now, when an ACTUAL stand your ground case comes up, they will remember this, and think it was another example.

We saw this in the Zimmerman Case. At the point martin got shot, he was already engaged in a physical altercation with Zimmerman. The case was actually an open shut self defense issue, the only point of law being if Zimmerman feared for his life. Yet people still remember it as a "Stand your Ground" case.

 

[Pogo]

This would be a case about the "Castle Doctrine" not stand your ground. That being said the act of luring definitely makes the Castle Doctrine less likely to be believed. So yahoo news is wrong on the title.

yahoo news has become joke

The headline is in no way the point. It may be technically flawed but the point here is the verdict. There are those among us who would have us distract ourselves from that but pick another news source and the verdict is going to be the same.

Words mean things. I guess again the Narrative is more important that actually getting facts straight.

The narrative IS getting the facts straight. The story's in the story, not the headline. Your observation of the title is a correct one. But it misses the forest for a single tree.

I don't know why it's phrased as such but if I had to guess I'd venture that the editor figured more readers would understand "stand your ground" than "castle doctrine". The latter would have to be explained in subtext whereas the former speaks for itself.

But it's not the truth. For people who just read the headline they associate this with Stand your ground, and they will be WRONG. Then, years from now, when an ACTUAL stand your ground case comes up, they will remember this, and think it was another example.

We saw this in the Zimmerman Case. At the point martin got shot, he was already engaged in a physical altercation with Zimmerman. The case was actually an open shut self defense issue, the only point of law being if Zimmerman feared for his life. Yet people still remember it as a "Stand your Ground" case.

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.

In other words I think the distinction between SYG and the CD is far less significant than you do. They are after all two sides of the same coin.

 

[martybegan]

yahoo news has become joke

The headline is in no way the point. It may be technically flawed but the point here is the verdict. There are those among us who would have us distract ourselves from that but pick another news source and the verdict is going to be the same.

Words mean things. I guess again the Narrative is more important that actually getting facts straight.

The narrative IS getting the facts straight. The story's in the story, not the headline. Your observation of the title is a correct one. But it misses the forest for a single tree.

I don't know why it's phrased as such but if I had to guess I'd venture that the editor figured more readers would understand "stand your ground" than "castle doctrine". The latter would have to be explained in subtext whereas the former speaks for itself.

But it's not the truth. For people who just read the headline they associate this with Stand your ground, and they will be WRONG. Then, years from now, when an ACTUAL stand your ground case comes up, they will remember this, and think it was another example.

We saw this in the Zimmerman Case. At the point martin got shot, he was already engaged in a physical altercation with Zimmerman. The case was actually an open shut self defense issue, the only point of law being if Zimmerman feared for his life. Yet people still remember it as a "Stand your Ground" case.

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

I remember the case from when it happened. It's a sad case of two morons meeting. The German had no business in his garage and the occupant ran his mouth about luring someone in so it is premeditated. That's what hung him. He would have gotten off if he hadn't blabbed about it before hand.

 

[Pogo]

The headline is in no way the point. It may be technically flawed but the point here is the verdict. There are those among us who would have us distract ourselves from that but pick another news source and the verdict is going to be the same.

Words mean things. I guess again the Narrative is more important that actually getting facts straight.

The narrative IS getting the facts straight. The story's in the story, not the headline. Your observation of the title is a correct one. But it misses the forest for a single tree.

I don't know why it's phrased as such but if I had to guess I'd venture that the editor figured more readers would understand "stand your ground" than "castle doctrine". The latter would have to be explained in subtext whereas the former speaks for itself.

But it's not the truth. For people who just read the headline they associate this with Stand your ground, and they will be WRONG. Then, years from now, when an ACTUAL stand your ground case comes up, they will remember this, and think it was another example.

We saw this in the Zimmerman Case. At the point martin got shot, he was already engaged in a physical altercation with Zimmerman. The case was actually an open shut self defense issue, the only point of law being if Zimmerman feared for his life. Yet people still remember it as a "Stand your Ground" case.

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?

 

[Ravi]

syg is just an extension of castle doctrine....

 

[martybegan]

Words mean things. I guess again the Narrative is more important that actually getting facts straight.

The narrative IS getting the facts straight. The story's in the story, not the headline. Your observation of the title is a correct one. But it misses the forest for a single tree.

I don't know why it's phrased as such but if I had to guess I'd venture that the editor figured more readers would understand "stand your ground" than "castle doctrine". The latter would have to be explained in subtext whereas the former speaks for itself.

But it's not the truth. For people who just read the headline they associate this with Stand your ground, and they will be WRONG. Then, years from now, when an ACTUAL stand your ground case comes up, they will remember this, and think it was another example.

We saw this in the Zimmerman Case. At the point martin got shot, he was already engaged in a physical altercation with Zimmerman. The case was actually an open shut self defense issue, the only point of law being if Zimmerman feared for his life. Yet people still remember it as a "Stand your Ground" case.

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.

 

[Pogo]

The narrative IS getting the facts straight. The story's in the story, not the headline. Your observation of the title is a correct one. But it misses the forest for a single tree.

I don't know why it's phrased as such but if I had to guess I'd venture that the editor figured more readers would understand "stand your ground" than "castle doctrine". The latter would have to be explained in subtext whereas the former speaks for itself.

But it's not the truth. For people who just read the headline they associate this with Stand your ground, and they will be WRONG. Then, years from now, when an ACTUAL stand your ground case comes up, they will remember this, and think it was another example.

We saw this in the Zimmerman Case. At the point martin got shot, he was already engaged in a physical altercation with Zimmerman. The case was actually an open shut self defense issue, the only point of law being if Zimmerman feared for his life. Yet people still remember it as a "Stand your Ground" case.

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?

 

[martybegan]

But it's not the truth. For people who just read the headline they associate this with Stand your ground, and they will be WRONG. Then, years from now, when an ACTUAL stand your ground case comes up, they will remember this, and think it was another example.

We saw this in the Zimmerman Case. At the point martin got shot, he was already engaged in a physical altercation with Zimmerman. The case was actually an open shut self defense issue, the only point of law being if Zimmerman feared for his life. Yet people still remember it as a "Stand your Ground" case.

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.

 

[007]

I remember the case from when it happened. It's a sad case of two morons meeting. The German had no business in his garage and the occupant ran his mouth about luring someone in so it is premeditated. That's what hung him. He would have gotten off if he hadn't blabbed about it before hand.

"Lose lips sink ships."

 

[Ravi]

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.

The perp made guns look bad.