Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

No. Let's be reasonable. Breaking into someone's garage is not a capitol offense.
It should get prison time though.
UNLESS the perp is unlucky enough to come face to face with an occupant of the home with the God given and Constitutionally permitted right to defend his home.

What Ms. Hyperbole, Mr. Bullshit and Mr. Hyprbolic-Bullshit fail to recognize id that Mr. Dede unlawfully entered an occupied residence under cover of darkness without the owner's consent. He was engaged in a felony and could reasonably be expected to commit another, more violent felony if given the opportunity.
Mr Kaarma was well within his rights to defend his home and his family.
What he may have said to a couple hairdressers about future break-ins or cops is irrelevant. Should he have said it? Probably not. Did it rise to premeditation? Where did he name a specific target?

Trespassing is not a felony.
What he said to the hairdressers is not irrelevant, nor are the road rage incidents.
Nor is the fact that instead of calling the police, he went out and shot blindly into the dark at the person in his garage.

None of that is irrelevant.

You can't very well "specify" who's going to land in your trap. You can guess.

Actually Kaarma did estimate that the kids he was going after were "18 or 19 fucking years old" and the kids arrested for the first two thefts were 16 and 18, so there's a possible thought that Kaarma actually did know or suspect who those two (unrelated to this incident) were. And he specified "kids" -- plural.

Nobody in the prosecution suggested that AFAIK but .... it's out there. It strikes me as interesting that he couldn't have pinned down an estimated age out of a tabula rasa. Nor would you know there were two of them. Prosecution could choose to press this avenue to establish if what actually went down was that Kaarma was specifically targeting these two, assumed that leaving his garage open would attract the same guys and no one else, and that Dede was an unintended victim -- as opposed to two intended victims. Speculation, but plausible.

I'd say that's not only relevant but possibly a crucial avenue to explore.

Then there's those multiple "road rage" incidents where he's driving around the neighborhood at four miles an hour. Why would he do that? Looking for these two guys perhaps? My first question to him on this would be -- "did you have a gun with you?" Things that make a jury go hmmm...

 

[Ernie S.]

No tresspassing is not a felony. Entering with intent to steal property is not trespassing.

It's irrelevant what Dede's intentions were. The only thing relevant here is Kaarma's perception of Dede's intentions.

 

[Pogo]

By the way, an observation...

I have with my ten-year-old car, and I don't think it's uncommon, a button on the key ring that sounds an alarm. The Kaarmas have at least three vehicles sitting there. If you sense somebody's in your garage, why wouldn't you simply hit the button from the comfort of your living room and set those horns blaring? You could hit all three of them. You could hit the outside lights at the same time. Couldn't be easier, and you're completely protected inside your own walls.

That is--- you could do that IF your real goal is "defense"...

 

[Pogo]

No tresspassing is not a felony. Entering with intent to steal property is not trespassing.

It's irrelevant what Dede's intentions were. The only thing relevant here is Kaarma's perception of Dede's intentions.

Now this may be your first post here I completely agree with.

Good, we can boil it down to that and chuck the chaff. Focus on Kaarma's perceptions, and whether his actions on them were appropriate, or over the top.

 

[jc456]

I looked back, Pogo. You were very noncommital regarding Zimmerman. Likely you saw the writing on that wall. What's your problem here? Dede was breaking the law. Kaarma used legal force to protect his home and family.

He's just unreasonable. Thinks he's cute and has issues. He isn't worth your time.

 

[Ernie S.]

Futility abounds. Off to the bar.

 

[jc456]

No tresspassing is not a felony. Entering with intent to steal property is not trespassing.

It's irrelevant what Dede's intentions were. The only thing relevant here is Kaarma's perception of Dede's intentions.

Curious, did you look up the legal definition?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, posting emoticons is all you can do, because you cant think, you cant research and you cant risk disagreement with your libtard friends.

lol, you are a certified ignoramus

lol, that is all you have to resort to; empty bullshit

the joke is on you, dear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No. Let's be reasonable. Breaking into someone's garage is not a capitol offense.
It should get prison time though.
UNLESS the perp is unlucky enough to come face to face with an occupant of the home with the God given and Constitutionally permitted right to defend his home.

What Ms. Hyperbole, Mr. Bullshit and Mr. Hyprbolic-Bullshit fail to recognize id that Mr. Dede unlawfully entered an occupied residence under cover of darkness without the owner's consent. He was engaged in a felony and could reasonably be expected to commit another, more violent felony if given the opportunity.
Mr Kaarma was well within his rights to defend his home and his family.
What he may have said to a couple hairdressers about future break-ins or cops is irrelevant. Should he have said it? Probably not. Did it rise to premeditation? Where did he name a specific target?

Trespassing is not a felony.
What he said to the hairdressers is not irrelevant, nor are the road rage incidents.
Nor is the fact that instead of calling the police, he went out and shot blindly into the dark at the person in his garage.

None of that is irrelevant.

Burglary is a felony, moron.

What he is alleged to have said to some third party is irrelevant.

That you are a fascist is relevant.

 

[Meathead]

No. Let's be reasonable. Breaking into someone's garage is not a capitol offense.
It should get prison time though.
UNLESS the perp is unlucky enough to come face to face with an occupant of the home with the God given and Constitutionally permitted right to defend his home.

What Ms. Hyperbole, Mr. Bullshit and Mr. Hyprbolic-Bullshit fail to recognize id that Mr. Dede unlawfully entered an occupied residence under cover of darkness without the owner's consent. He was engaged in a felony and could reasonably be expected to commit another, more violent felony if given the opportunity.
Mr Kaarma was well within his rights to defend his home and his family.
What he may have said to a couple hairdressers about future break-ins or cops is irrelevant. Should he have said it? Probably not. Did it rise to premeditation? Where did he name a specific target?

Trespassing is not a felony.
What he said to the hairdressers is not irrelevant, nor are the road rage incidents.
Nor is the fact that instead of calling the police, he went out and shot blindly into the dark at the person in his garage.

None of that is irrelevant.

Burglary is a felony, moron.

What he is alleged to have said to some third party is irrelevant.

That you are a fascist is relevant.

But our local ding bat thinks he was just retrieving a baseball.

 

[thanatos144]

Pogo if you dont want a gun and be at the mercy of a home invader that's fine but me I will shoot a mother fucker breaking into my home . I have a wife and daughter and son to protect and a real man protects his family!

 

[Ernie S.]

By the way, an observation...

I have with my ten-year-old car, and I don't think it's uncommon, a button on the key ring that sounds an alarm. The Kaarmas have at least three vehicles sitting there. If you sense somebody's in your garage, why wouldn't you simply hit the button from the comfort of your living room and set those horns blaring? You could hit all three of them. You could hit the outside lights at the same time. Couldn't be easier, and you're completely protected inside your own walls.

That is--- you could do that IF your real goal is "defense"...

Could have, I suppose, or legally, he could do what he did.

 

[Ernie S.]

No tresspassing is not a felony. Entering with intent to steal property is not trespassing.

It's irrelevant what Dede's intentions were. The only thing relevant here is Kaarma's perception of Dede's intentions.

Now this may be your first post here I completely agree with.

Good, we can boil it down to that and chuck the chaff. Focus on Kaarma's perceptions, and whether his actions on them were appropriate, or over the top.

Kaarma's perception is all that matters. Not what you, Ezmeralda or JoeB perceive his intentions to be.
The case boils down to how 12 people without prejudices perceive Montana's Castle Doctrine.

 

[Ernie S.]

I looked back, Pogo. You were very noncommital regarding Zimmerman. Likely you saw the writing on that wall. What's your problem here? Dede was breaking the law. Kaarma used legal force to protect his home and family.

He's just unreasonable. Thinks he's cute and has issues. He isn't worth your time.

I like Pogo. I always have. He is one of the more reasonable Liberals on the board, BUT I tend to agree. He just can't see how a man would feel obligated to defend his home from a burglar who's intentions and tactical position are unknown.

 

[Esmeralda]

No tresspassing is not a felony. Entering with intent to steal property is not trespassing.

It's irrelevant what Dede's intentions were. The only thing relevant here is Kaarma's perception of Dede's intentions.

Now this may be your first post here I completely agree with.

Good, we can boil it down to that and chuck the chaff. Focus on Kaarma's perceptions, and whether his actions on them were appropriate, or over the top.

Kaarma's perception is all that matters. Not what you, Ezmeralda or JoeB perceive his intentions to be.
The case boils down to how 12 people without prejudices perceive Montana's Castle Doctrine.

Not 'Kaarma's perception' but what the jury deems as a reasonable perception. It doesn't just boil down to what Kaarma says he felt; it boils down to if what he felt, the fear he felt, was reasonable and whether his response to the situation was reasonable. He can say he felt fear until the cows come home, but if it is not a reasonable perception, then it does him no good. As I've posted before, the Castle Doctrine, and other laws like it, do not mean to suggest that anyone can say just anything and they will not be questioned. That would be ludicrous and lead to people being able to murder their neighbors and just say they 'felt threatened.'

As well, it is not going to boil down to what you and your loony cohorts think anymore than it is going to boil down to what I, Joe or Pogo think. That works both ways, you do know that, don't you? Your assuming that because people are from Montana, they are going to see this the way you do is asinine.

 

[Pogo]

No tresspassing is not a felony. Entering with intent to steal property is not trespassing.

It's irrelevant what Dede's intentions were. The only thing relevant here is Kaarma's perception of Dede's intentions.

Now this may be your first post here I completely agree with.

Good, we can boil it down to that and chuck the chaff. Focus on Kaarma's perceptions, and whether his actions on them were appropriate, or over the top.

Kaarma's perception is all that matters. Not what you, Ezmeralda or JoeB perceive his intentions to be.
The case boils down to how 12 people without prejudices perceive Montana's Castle Doctrine.

You keep saying that. Been saying it for days if not weeks. I keep hearing "take your inconvenient facts and go away!"

We all know how the trial system works. Nobody's in dispute about that. Doesn't mean we're not allowed to analyze. Even if analysis is inconvenient.

 

[Pogo]

I looked back, Pogo. You were very noncommital regarding Zimmerman. Likely you saw the writing on that wall. What's your problem here? Dede was breaking the law. Kaarma used legal force to protect his home and family.

He's just unreasonable. Thinks he's cute and has issues. He isn't worth your time.

I like Pogo. I always have. He is one of the more reasonable Liberals on the board, BUT I tend to agree. He just can't see how a man would feel obligated to defend his home from a burglar who's intentions and tactical position are unknown.

Wrong, I see that perfectly. What I don't see is the premise you present here.
I don't see anything that smells like "defense". The facts and circumstances all contradict it. And just because his attorney takes that approach doesn't mean it's valid. That has yet to be determined. As you know.

 

[Ernie S.]

No tresspassing is not a felony. Entering with intent to steal property is not trespassing.

It's irrelevant what Dede's intentions were. The only thing relevant here is Kaarma's perception of Dede's intentions.

Curious, did you look up the legal definition?

Pertinent information:

(1) A person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon any vehicle, occupied structure, or premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. Privilege to enter or remain upon land is extended either by the explicit permission of the landowner or other authorized person or by the failure of the landowner or other authorized person to post notice denying entry onto private land. The privilege may be revoked at any time by personal communication of notice by the landowner or other authorized person to the entering person.

See bolded above and read Montana definition of "land" below.

Land is the solid material of the earth, whatever may be the ingredients of which it is composed, whether soil, rock, or other substance.

My reading is that Trespassing includes unposted land until implied permission is revoked, posted land, vehicles and buildings.

SO, Dede was trespassing.

Montana definition of robbery:

ROBBERY (Crime against Property)
The taking, or attempting to take, anything of value under confrontational circumstances from the control, custody, or care of another person by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear of immediate harm.

If the jury believes Kaarma was in fear of immediate harm, then robbery, a felony, would make Kaarma's actions permissible.

Montana definition of burglary:

45-6-204. Burglary. (1) A person commits the offense of burglary if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure and:
(a) the person has the purpose to commit an offense in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person knowingly or purposely commits any other offense within that structure.
(2) A person commits the offense of aggravated burglary if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure and:
(a) (i) the person has the purpose to commit an offense in the occupied structure; or
(ii) the person knowingly or purposely commits any other offense within that structure; and
(b) in effecting entry or in the course of committing the offense or in immediate flight after effecting entry or committing the offense:
(i) the person or another participant in the offense is armed with explosives or a weapon; or
(ii) the person purposely, knowingly, or negligently inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury upon anyone.
(3) A person convicted of the offense of burglary shall be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to exceed 20 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both. A person convicted of the offense of aggravated burglary shall be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to exceed 40 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both.

Elsewhere I read that Montana assumes that someone entering an occupied building intends to commit some additional crime.
While, not definitely aggravated burglary, what Me Dede did was burglary, another felony, permitting Me Kaarma to use deadly force.

 

[Ernie S.]

He's just unreasonable. Thinks he's cute and has issues. He isn't worth your time.

I like Pogo. I always have. He is one of the more reasonable Liberals on the board, BUT I tend to agree. He just can't see how a man would feel obligated to defend his home from a burglar who's intentions and tactical position are unknown.

Wrong, I see that perfectly. What I don't see is the premise you present here.
I don't see anything that smells like "defense". The facts and circumstances all contradict it. And just because his attorney takes that approach doesn't mean it's valid. That has yet to be determined. As you know.

Getting 12 jurors to convict here is impossible.

 

[Ernie S.]

Now this may be your first post here I completely agree with.

Good, we can boil it down to that and chuck the chaff. Focus on Kaarma's perceptions, and whether his actions on them were appropriate, or over the top.

Kaarma's perception is all that matters. Not what you, Ezmeralda or JoeB perceive his intentions to be.
The case boils down to how 12 people without prejudices perceive Montana's Castle Doctrine.

Not 'Kaarma's perception' but what the jury deems as a reasonable perception. It doesn't just boil down to what Kaarma says he felt; it boils down to if what he felt, the fear he felt, was reasonable and whether his response to the situation was reasonable. He can say he felt fear until the cows come home, but if it is not a reasonable perception, then it does him no good. As I've posted before, the Castle Doctrine, and other laws like it, do not mean to suggest that anyone can say just anything and they will not be questioned. That would be ludicrous and lead to people being able to murder their neighbors and just say they 'felt threatened.'

As well, it is not going to boil down to what you and your loony cohorts think anymore than it is going to boil down to what I, Joe or Pogo think. That works both ways, you do know that, don't you? Your assuming that because people are from Montana, they are going to see this the way you do is asinine.

Thank you for your comments, Ms Hyperbole. I will no longer reply to you until you issue the several apologies you owe. Good night.