Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[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.

Curious, did you look up the legal definition?

Pertinent information:


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



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.

Does Montana have a mindreader machine that works on the dead?

I mean since nothing was taken and nothing was in the process of being taken... nor could Kaarma see what was going on anyway... not only didn't he know who was in there or what they were doing, he in fact didn't know if anyone was in there at all. So clearly he cannot have been aware of a "burglar".

Sorry, misdemeanor. That's it. Not that it matters since the death penalty has already been administered...

 

[Esmeralda]

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, does 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.

LOL What do you think I owe you any apologies for?

 

[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.

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.

Your analysis is flawed and prejudiced. It matters not one iota.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

He shot the kid twice. The second time pretty much makes this murder.

 

[JoeB131]

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, does 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.

LOL What do you think I owe you any apologies for?

Insulting his penis surrogate!

 

[Meathead]

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.

He shot the kid twice. The second time pretty much makes this murder.

A lineup with the intellectual midgets Pogo, Esmeralda and JoeB. What could possibly go wrong?!

 

[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.

He shot the kid twice. The second time pretty much makes this murder.

No. It doesn't. When you shoot at a threat, you shoot until it is no longer a threat.

 

[Ernie S.]

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, does 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.

LOL What do you think I owe you any apologies for?

For your implication that I'm glad the kid is dead. You've made and repeated that several times and you've called me loony. What you haven't done is make a salient point in this discussion.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I see that Pogo and JoeB are still on the losing side of the argument.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

LOL What do you think I owe you any apologies for?

For your implication that I'm glad the kid is dead. You've made and repeated that several times and you've called me loony. What you haven't done is make a salient point in this discussion.

I didn't call you a loony; I said your cohorts were loonies, which they are.
I've made many salient points in this discussion though, apparently, you are incapable of appreciating them. That's not surprising.
You have repeatedly and with intensity displayed a pleasure and joy that this young man is dead. There is no getting around that.
I apologize for nothing. Whereas, you have repeatedly insulted me. If anyone should apologize, it is you.

But, I'm not going to play this silly game. Go pout if you must. You are on your own.

 

[Pogo]

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.

He shot the kid twice. The second time pretty much makes this murder.

No. It doesn't. When you shoot at a threat, you shoot until it is no longer a threat.

That would have been before he started. Hello.


Btw Ernie -- still waiting for where you got any posts of mine on Zimmerman...

 

[Kondor3]

We still splitting hairs in here that will never see the light of day in a real courtroom?

 

[Pogo]

We still splitting hairs in here that will never see the light of day in a real courtroom?

You mean you think it will never go to trial?

That's possible, for several reasons. At least possibly not in its present form.

 

[Ernie S.]

LOL What do you think I owe you any apologies for?

For your implication that I'm glad the kid is dead. You've made and repeated that several times and you've called me loony. What you haven't done is make a salient point in this discussion.

I didn't call you a loony; I said your cohorts were loonies, which they are.
I've made many salient points in this discussion though, apparently, you are incapable of appreciating them. That's not surprising.
You have repeatedly and with intensity displayed a pleasure and joy that this young man is dead. There is no getting around that.
I apologize for nothing. Whereas, you have repeatedly insulted me. If anyone should apologize, it is you.

But, I'm not going to play this silly game. Go pout if you must. You are on your own.

Why would I appreciate hyperbole and emotionalism> So far, that's all you've added here.

I have never expressed anything but regret that the young man is dead. What I do celebrate is the fact that Mr. Kaarma and his family are alive.

If by insulting you, you mean calling you out on your hyperbolic emotionalism, I'm guilty.
You keep insisting that Mr Dede's death pleases me. It's time to put up or shut up. SHOW ME where I said or implied that, or apologize, I'm done with you. At least Pogo is an adult.

 

[Ernie S.]

He shot the kid twice. The second time pretty much makes this murder.

No. It doesn't. When you shoot at a threat, you shoot until it is no longer a threat.

That would have been before he started. Hello.


Btw Ernie -- still waiting for where you got any posts of mine on Zimmerman...

An intruder who may or not be, armed) in your garage intent on stealing whatever he can find is a threat. It is prudent to assume that a criminal will use force when confronted. Kaarma, unsure of the severity of the threat he faced, acted appropriately. I'm sorry the kid is dead, but Kaarma didn't invite him into the garage. He committed burglary by entering, as I've pointed out. Mr Kaarma despite how YOU feel about the outcome, was within his rights.

As to the Zimmerman thing, I addressed that last night. Smart guy like you should be able to read my comment.

 

[Pogo]

No. It doesn't. When you shoot at a threat, you shoot until it is no longer a threat.

That would have been before he started. Hello.


Btw Ernie -- still waiting for where you got any posts of mine on Zimmerman...

An intruder who may or not be, armed) in your garage intent on stealing whatever he can find is a threat. It is prudent to assume that a criminal will use force when confronted. Kaarma, unsure of the severity of the threat he faced, acted appropriately. I'm sorry the kid is dead, but Kaarma didn't invite him into the garage. He committed burglary by entering, as I've pointed out. Mr Kaarma despite how YOU feel about the outcome, was within his rights.

We'll see about that when the trial comes. If that were deemed to be true he wouldn't be under arrest for deliberate homicide right now, would he?

It is prudent to assume that a criminal will use force when confronted.

Unfortunately dear, 'prudence' doesn't see the light of day when you've made two assumptions to get there, to wit (1) that the person in there is a 'criminal', and (2) that the person in there is armed. There's no reason (again, "reasonable") to believe out of thin air that the fact that someone is trespassing also means he's violent.

As to the Zimmerman thing, I addressed that last night. Smart guy like you should be able to read my comment.

I did read it. It said, "Just like Zimmerman. I believe you had HIM pegged as going to prison too." And I asked on what you base that belief -- seeing as how I've never posted or opined on that case, ever, anywhere any time. So ... what could possibly impart that belief?

As I said.... still waiting on that.

 

[Ernie S.]

That would have been before he started. Hello.


Btw Ernie -- still waiting for where you got any posts of mine on Zimmerman...

We'll see about that when the trial comes. If that were deemed to be true he wouldn't be under arrest for deliberate homicide right now, would he?



Unfortunately dear, 'prudence' doesn't see the light of day when you've made two assumptions to get there, to wit (1) that the person in there is a 'criminal', and (2) that the person in there is armed. There's no reason (again, "reasonable") to believe out of thin air that the fact that someone is trespassing also means he's violent.

As to the Zimmerman thing, I addressed that last night. Smart guy like you should be able to read my comment.

I did read it. It said, "Just like Zimmerman. I believe you had HIM pegged as going to prison too." And I asked on what you base that belief -- seeing as how I've never posted or opined on that case, ever, anywhere any time. So ... what could possibly impart that belief?

As I said.... still waiting on that.

It's been established that the kid was in the garage to take items that were in there. Dede's accomplice admitted they were "garage hopping", right? Wasn't it you who posted the Equadorian kid's statements?


So yes. According to Montana's definition of burglary, Dede was a burglar.

I Wondered as well why Kaarma was charged. My theory is the US State Department put pressure on the Prosecutor's Office. Yes I am blaming this on John Kerry. (he was a war hero, don't cha know)

Moving on to Zimmerman. I addressed your question regarding my comment. It's there Pogo. Look for it.

 

[Pogo]

We'll see about that when the trial comes. If that were deemed to be true he wouldn't be under arrest for deliberate homicide right now, would he?



Unfortunately dear, 'prudence' doesn't see the light of day when you've made two assumptions to get there, to wit (1) that the person in there is a 'criminal', and (2) that the person in there is armed. There's no reason (again, "reasonable") to believe out of thin air that the fact that someone is trespassing also means he's violent.



I did read it. It said, "Just like Zimmerman. I believe you had HIM pegged as going to prison too." And I asked on what you base that belief -- seeing as how I've never posted or opined on that case, ever, anywhere any time. So ... what could possibly impart that belief?

As I said.... still waiting on that.

It's been established that the kid was in the garage to take items that were in there. Dede's accomplice admitted they were "garage hopping", right? Wasn't it you who posted the Equadorian kid's statements?


So yes. According to Montana's definition of burglary, Dede was a burglar.

I Wondered as well why Kaarma was charged. My theory is the US State Department put pressure on the Prosecutor's Office. Yes I am blaming this on John Kerry. (he was a war hero, don't cha know)

Moving on to Zimmerman. I addressed your question regarding my comment. It's there Pogo. Look for it.

OK, I follow the first two lines; the next two make no sense whatsoever.

You'd actually have us believe the Secretary of State took time out to instruct (even though he has no power to do so) the Missoula Police Department to file the charges they already came up with?

And second, I hate to sound like an attorney badgering a witness but -- where did you get that idea, given absolutely nothing?

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOL What do you think I owe you any apologies for?

For your implication that I'm glad the kid is dead. You've made and repeated that several times and you've called me loony. What you haven't done is make a salient point in this discussion.

I didn't call you a loony; I said your cohorts were loonies, which they are.
I've made many salient points in this discussion though, apparently, you are incapable of appreciating them. That's not surprising.
You have repeatedly and with intensity displayed a pleasure and joy that this young man is dead. There is no getting around that.
I apologize for nothing. Whereas, you have repeatedly insulted me. If anyone should apologize, it is you.

But, I'm not going to play this silly game. Go pout if you must. You are on your own.

Lol, you are not only one of the biggest liars here, but you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no honesty, and no intelligence, and no analytical ability. All you ever do is repeat leftwing talking points and accuse people of being stupid because they don't agree with you.

Take a hike, libtard.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's been established that the kid was in the garage to take items that were in there. Dede's accomplice admitted they were "garage hopping", right? Wasn't it you who posted the Equadorian kid's statements?


So yes. According to Montana's definition of burglary, Dede was a burglar.

I Wondered as well why Kaarma was charged. My theory is the US State Department put pressure on the Prosecutor's Office. Yes I am blaming this on John Kerry. (he was a war hero, don't cha know)

Moving on to Zimmerman. I addressed your question regarding my comment. It's there Pogo. Look for it.

OK, I follow the first two lines; the next two make no sense whatsoever.

You'd actually have us believe the Secretary of State took time out to instruct (even though he has no power to do so) the Missoula Police Department to file the charges they already came up with?

And second, I hate to sound like an attorney badgering a witness but -- where did you get that idea, given absolutely nothing?

I replied to your reply to my Zimmerman comment last night. I can not make it any plainer than that, Possum.

The Kerry line is tongue in cheek. I'll remember not try satire again with you.

I wouldn't be surprised that the fact Dede is a German citizen had some bearing on bringing charges. No John Kerry had nothing to do with it. That idiot can't even find Germany on a map.