Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[TemplarKormac]

To the first part, you cannot argue a crime based on imagined intent when no such act has actually been committed. That's the same as assuming "oh here comes a black guy, he's going to rob me". Can't do that. Far as I know (and I've probably read more stories on this than anybody even translating some from German) there has been no report that Dede had taken something in the garage, or that he had taken something from some other garage or any other place, ever. And we do have descriptions; he had nothing but his cell phone, which was sprawled on the floor. So predicting what his next move "would have" been is a fool's errand.

In the court of law, the intent to commit a crime and commission of the crime are practically the same thing. He didn't need to take the purse, he had to intend to take the purse. That's all it takes. You cannot speak for our justice system, Pogo, you cannot assume to make the law what you want it to be. The law is clear, trespassing with the intent to commit theft is what we call burglary.

This is Trayvon Martin v.2. This time the kid barged into someone else's property and paid a terrible price. Your "he had nothing but his cell phone, which was sprawled on the floor" is nothing but a plea of sympathy for someone who committed a criminal act, which itself smacks of desperation.

Such intent is not established. Is "garage hopping" burglary?

As posted earlier, I garage hopped as a kid. Never took anything though.

You can't run on speculation of what somebody "would have" done "if" he were still alive. Now if the kid had the purse in his hand you might have a different result. If he took the purse and ran off with it you definitely would. But none of that happened.

Matter of fact we also know the GF put stuff in her bait that she documented, so that it could be traced later. That was a wise thing to do. But that plan never got a chance to manifest due to a hotheaded hair-trigger act.

When there is an object of intrinsic value, when there is someone trespassing on the property and in close proximity to the object of intrinsic value, we must deduce that he was there to take the object of intrinsic value. It's not hard. Whether or not she baited him is inconsequential.

 

[Pogo]

You can give all the background you want, still doesn't change the fact he committed a crime, Pogo. Case in point.

we're watching Skull dig deeper...


Lemme ask you this -- what do you think the point of that post was?

I'm just wondering if it's obvious or really obscure...

Well... presuming that this conversation took place well over 4 hours ago, I can say he most likely stopped digging. Your post employed a giant bandwagon fallacy, with a no true scotsman fallacy built in. "You can't assume to speak for the people of Missoula" well no, but that is beside the point. Some kid committed a crime and was killed in the process. You imply that no true Missoulan would ever be the gun nut SkullPilot thinks they should be. Just how can you presume to speak for them all as well? Do you live there?

You asked, I answered.

Thanks for that. I can see my point was missed then.

What the people of Missoula think has been hypothesized by various wags on the kill-em-all side; I was the only poster AFAIK to post actual sentiments of the citizens there. But that's not the point of the post at all; that's just a side benefit.

The point is in the phrase "piece of shit", which was SkullPilot's description of the deceased. He admitted he didn't know the person but just made that blanket judgment on his own, given nothing but a few news articles.

He did that, and several other posters did something similar, to dehumanize the deceased into a figure to be despised, castigated, condemned, but under no circumstances understood or ever EVER seen as a human being. They have to do that in order to divide characters into "good and evil" caricatures for the morality play they're enslaved to. It's the only way they can avoid dealing with him as a human being, which they're apparently terrified to do.

So the point of my post was to give Diren Dede his humanity back. The humanity they deprived him of with this callous dismissiveness. To demonstrate the hundreds and thousands who actually did know him, who turned out in droves to mourn his loss, proving that he actually was (who knew) a human being. People at the high school; people in Missoula; people in Hamburg. Such a story could not have been written, and such pictures could not have been taken, for a "piece of shit". No one would have cared. It puts the lie to the dehumanizers who have been pummeling this guy for four hundred posts because the thought of seeing and regarding him as a human being is just not one they can handle.

That's what dehumanizing does; creates a rationalization for hate. On the grand scale it was used in slavery and the Holocaust. On the small scale it's used here in the Politics forum every day; paint your opponent as subhuman and therefore "wrong". Perhaps Mr. Kaarma used it too. Only he knows.

Anyway that's the reason for going to the trouble to translate this article and show some pictures of real reactions in the real world, to counterbalance the fantasy one of Internet Tough Guys. The whole point of that post was to make the point that what was taken was a human life -- not a "piece of shit".


And frankly this is why I keep noting the callous disregard for the sanctity of human life. It would seem having the opportunity to blow people away with guns is more important to some wags than human life is. And I just find that value system bizarre.

 

[Pogo]

In the court of law, the intent to commit a crime and commission of the crime are practically the same thing. He didn't need to take the purse, he had to intend to take the purse. That's all it takes. You cannot speak for our justice system, Pogo, you cannot assume to make the law what you want it to be. The law is clear, trespassing with the intent to commit theft is what we call burglary.

This is Trayvon Martin v.2. This time the kid barged into someone else's property and paid a terrible price. Your "he had nothing but his cell phone, which was sprawled on the floor" is nothing but a plea of sympathy for someone who committed a criminal act, which itself smacks of desperation.

Such intent is not established. Is "garage hopping" burglary?

As posted earlier, I garage hopped as a kid. Never took anything though.

You can't run on speculation of what somebody "would have" done "if" he were still alive. Now if the kid had the purse in his hand you might have a different result. If he took the purse and ran off with it you definitely would. But none of that happened.

Matter of fact we also know the GF put stuff in her bait that she documented, so that it could be traced later. That was a wise thing to do. But that plan never got a chance to manifest due to a hotheaded hair-trigger act.

When there is an object of intrinsic value, when there is someone trespassing on the property and in close proximity to the object of intrinsic value, we must deduce that he was there to take the object of intrinsic value. It's not hard. Whether or not she baited him is inconsequential.

Agreed, whether she baited him is irrelevant. That's not the point. The point is he never actually took anything. Moreover, "intrinsic value" is in the eye of the beholder, innit? The previous burglar had taken a bhong and a pot stash. Stuff that had value to him.

Perhaps he would have, given time. Perhaps not. We'll never know. But by all means, let us know the next time you get arrested for what you were "probably about to do".

 

[Kondor3]

...So the point of my post was to give Diren Dede his humanity back. The humanity they deprived him of with this callous dismissiveness...

Oh, Pogo, you're such a good and saintly soul... when I grow up, I wanna be just like you.

Puh-leeeezzze!

...It puts the lie to the dehumanizers who have been pummeling this guy for four hundred posts because the thought of seeing a human being is just not one they can handle...

Yer a funny little feller when you get all pompous and self-important.

...That's what dehumanizing does; creates a rationalization for hate. On the grand scale it was used in slavery and the Holocaust...

So, now those who fail to sympathize with a burglar and diss him are on a par with the Nazis?

I just knew if you looked hard enough you'd find a Godwin-ism in there someplace. You get a cookie for that one.

...On the small scale it's used here in the Politics forum every day; paint your opponent as subhuman and therefore "wrong". Perhaps Mr. Kaarma used it too. Only he knows...

"Now hear this... now hear this... all hands... stand by, to repel juicy rationalization, starboard!"

Not to mention really threadbare segues to emotionalism and putting words into other people's mouths again.

...Anyway that's the reason for going to the trouble to translate this post and show some pictures of real reactions in the real world...

We could have been looking at his school-mates and their parents, and a handful of teachers and the staff of the local pizza delivery store.

Hell, it could have been a photo-op for the coffin, and every Gun-Grabbing Liberal in Missoula County... all 75 of them... who knows?

That doesn't prove a blessed thing.

Other than the tragedy hit-home for a number of good folks, who felt badly enough about it to show-up for a send-off for the casket.

Within a day or two of the incident, and long before the details of the case had been made public.

Did they know at the time of their appearance for that photo-op that the boy had been killed while in the process of committing a felony (burglary)?

Did they know at the time that the boy's accomplice had confessed to intent to commit that very crime?

Did they know at the time that this was not the first time that this boy had gone garage-hopping?

Did they know at the time that the shooter had been victimized by two other recent and similar incidents and that his wife and baby were nearby and potentially at-risk?

Did they know at the time that a photo of them undertaking a show of common decency in the immediate wake of tragedy would be used as propaganda by Gun-Grabbers and their fellow travelers, even after some of the teen-condemning particulars of the case were revealed later?

Would they have assembled - even as a modest-sized collection of supporters - had these things been known in advance of their attendance?

Good question.

And I'm not sure we have the answer to that one.

...to counterbalance the fantasy one of Internet Tough Guys...

Pogo, old chap, the only one I see engaging in 'fantasy' here is you, with your excitable clarion calls to change hearts and minds, so that lions and the lambs will lie down together (presumably, after the Gun-Grabbers have completed their task).

...The whole point of that post was to make the point that what was taken was a human life -- not a "piece of shit"...

Everybody knows and understands that.

No need to restate the glaringly obvious.

The routinely obvious will do quite nicely, thank you.

Most folks feel badly that the idiot-teen was killed.

But most folks also harden their hearts sufficiently to recognize that he brought his death upon himself by his foolhardy and illegal actions.

You can twist in the wind and squirm and wiggle on the hook all you like over that one, old boy, but it doesn't change the fact that his death is on his own head.

People quickly lose their sympathy in such cases when it becomes clear that the dead were engaged in criminal behavior.

What we see with you is heart-on-the-sleeve emotionalism, ala Saint Skittles.

It's usually perceived as weak and whiny and grows tiresome very, very quickly.

...And frankly this is why I keep noting the callous disregard for the sanctity of human life...

This is why you keep trying to (unsuccessfully) PITCH it as callous disregard, anyway.

In case you hadn't noticed, the tactic has backfired on you several times during the short life-cycle of this thread, and will, no doubt, backfire upon you again and again, if you fail to learn from your failures here to date.

...It would seem having the opportunity to blow people away with guns is more important to some wags than human life is...

Hardly. A self-serving and juvenile summation. But defending the Right to Bear Arms, against Gun-Grabbers (both open, and less-blatant) is paramount, in the larger scheme of things.

Something you could hardly be expected to grasp, on a level allowing you to actually buy into the idea.

Impasse.

...And I just find that value system bizarre.

If would be, if the values at-issue were as you portray, in order to attempt to reinforce your points and further your agenda.

Fortunately, however, that value system is not what you attempt (and fail) to portray it as, so it's all good, and your observations in that vein can be set aside with prejudice, rendered harmless, having burned themselves out; spent ammunition that failed to hit is mark.

 

[Pogo]

Cliff's Notes Version:

Real reactions from real people must be suppressed. WE will decide what they think!


Sorry you had to go through all that effort; that was simply an explanation of the point of the prior post. Now if you're saying this was not my point, well don't bogart that joint, mah friend...


Say what is this, seven times now you've tried to morph this thread into a gun control laws topic? Is it eight? I can't keep up. Really desperate to make this into something it isn't huh? This thread has been replete with revisionism, morphing a single event into multiples... changing the position of the shooter... "breaking in" through the force field of an open door... purporting to predict what was about to happen next ... I tell ya I haven't seen this much bullshit revisionism since Hitler got elected head of the Democratic Party and proceeded to invent the slave trade.

As for everything else...

 

[Kondor3]

Cliff's Notes Version:

Real reactions from real people must be suppressed. WE will decide what they think!


Sorry you had to go through all that effort; that was simply an explanation of the point of the prior post. Now if you're saying this was not my point, well don't bogart that joint, mah friend...


Say what is this, seven times now you've tried to morph this thread into a gun control laws topic? Is it eight? I can't keep up. Really desperate to make this into something it isn't huh? This thread has been replete with revisionism, morphing a single event into multiples... changing the position of the shooter... "breaking in" through the force field of an open door... purporting to predict what was about to happen next ... I tell ya I haven't seen this much bullshit revisionism since Hitler got elected head of the Democratic Party and proceeded to invent the slave trade.

As for everything else...

You're truly a legend in your own mind, tonight, mine good colleague.

'This' is about a myriad of things, centered around Gun-Control; not just our particular and modest and rather un-challenging dialogue, but about the whole range of linked issues, as evidenced by much of the conversation taking place in this thread in those (rare) times when you were not trying to hog the stage and pretend like you were in-charge and that your opinion mattered more than anybody else's.

It is what happens when people begin opening-up sidebars and exploring those, in connection with the main theme.

If you seek someone requiring the assistance of vaseline, you'll find a quick glance in the mirror to be far more profitable.

 

[Pogo]

Cliff's Notes Version:

Real reactions from real people must be suppressed. WE will decide what they think!


Sorry you had to go through all that effort; that was simply an explanation of the point of the prior post. Now if you're saying this was not my point, well don't bogart that joint, mah friend...


Say what is this, seven times now you've tried to morph this thread into a gun control laws topic? Is it eight? I can't keep up. Really desperate to make this into something it isn't huh? This thread has been replete with revisionism, morphing a single event into multiples... changing the position of the shooter... "breaking in" through the force field of an open door... purporting to predict what was about to happen next ... I tell ya I haven't seen this much bullshit revisionism since Hitler got elected head of the Democratic Party and proceeded to invent the slave trade.

You're truly a legend in your own mind, tonight, mine good colleague.

'This' is about a myriad of things, centered around Gun-Control; not just our particular and modest and rather un-challenging dialogue, but about the whole range of linked issues, as evidenced by much of the conversation taking place in this thread in those (rare) times when you were not trying to hog the stage and pretend like you were in-charge and that your opinion mattered more than anybody else's.

Wha??
Where have I said, implied, intimated, hinted at, suggested, insert entire thesaurus here, anything of the sort?

Which one of us pumps his fonts up to super size?

OK then.

I fixed this one (again). You're welcome.

It is what happens when people begin opening-up sidebars and exploring those, in connection with the main theme.

Aw shucks, it was nothin'. You're welcome again. I am nothing if not comprehensive.

If you seek someone requiring the assistance of vaseline, you'll find a quick glance in the mirror to be far more profitable.

Not necessary; I prefer to stay grounded on something solid. That's why I call out bullshit when people post it. And in a thread like this, that keeps me more than busy.

And no, wish as ye might, this never was about "gun control". If it was I wouldn't be here.

 

[Esmeralda]

Nope, that would be physically impossible. Nobody disagrees with that.

Are we saying that this guy just regularly gets up during a TV commercial, bored, and strafes his own garage rather than simply closing the door -- just in case there's anybody in there, and this time there just happened to be a human?




Wrong on multiple levels.

Did the German kid brag to his hairdresser a week ahead that he was going to go garage hopping and dodge bullets? More to the point -- is there any reason in the world to expect that being in somebody else's garage would result in shotgun spray from the outside?

Exactly how is advancing to the adversary's only exit and opening fire from the outside (<< meaning, from the outside), in any way "defensive"? There are only two possible results from that scenario: depending on the intruder's position you either obliterate him or you drive him further into your property. Think about it.

If you're attacked at home by a knife-wielding maniac, is your objective to drive the maniac away, or to drive him further into your own house?



It does indeed, if his attorney plans to argue "self-defense". Clearly there's enough in the statements taken in the complaint to kick all the legs out from under that one.

Obviously Kaarma doesn't want to do the time and needs to come up with something in the way of defense. But trying to make "self-defense" out of this is making a mockery of the law.



All evidence tells us the deceased IS guilty of illegal trespass. Again, that's not in question. Kaarma is guilty of something far more serious than trespassing. Trespassing does not cause death.

We're not saying that at all. He had a baby monitor and motion detectors in the garage and knew there was an intruder in his residence.
We have yet to establish just how dark it was in the garage. Was there a street light nearby? Obviously there was enough light to discern a figure moving around in the garage but likely not enough light to be certain the figure was not a threat. The homeowner responded legally and appropriately to that threat.

The amount of light is described in the criminal complaint -- it was too dark to see what was going on, and when the GF put the outside house light on it made it worse (putting the scene in more shadow). The shooter's action confirms this, as he sprayed laterally across the facing of the garage opening, obviously an attempt to cover everything. He even lied to the police about his own aiming, apparently trying to minimize his intent.

Again! If the kid had not entered the garage, he would be alive. He instigated his own demise.

What the kid "instigated" was illegal trespass, for which he could have been charged with a misdemeanor. That is, if he'd been given a chance for the law to run its course. That was circumvented by Kaarma. Who now has to deal with his own karma.

Again, still looking for that hamlet where illegal trespass is punishable by death. Not finding any.

This "self-defense" song and dance is rendered mute by Kaarma's actions and plans before the fact. You don't "defend" with offense. If you're legitimately in a position of self-defense, you don't know about it and predict it a week in advance.

Exactly. The punishment for trespassing is not death. Not in this country.

Also interesting: http://missoulian.com/news/local/ge...cle_d8f7cc4a-e5d9-11e3-889a-0019bb2963f4.html

Under German law, crimes committed against German citizens abroad are subject to prosecution in German courts. However, it is unclear if the German government would attempt to exercise that law if they are unsatisfied with the outcome of Kaarma&#8217;s trial.

Missoula County prosecutors ... paint Kaarma as irrational, angry and violent.

According to the 19-page revised affidavit, Kaarma had several instances of road rage the day before the shooting. And on April 23, he allegedly told his hairdresser that he was waiting up late at night to &#8220;shoot some (expletive) kid.&#8221;

According to court documents, Dede and exchange student Robby Pazmino, of Ecuador, were on the hunt for alcohol when Dede entered Kaarma&#8217;s garage in the early morning hours of April 27. Dede lived a few doors down from Kaarma in the home of Kate Walker and Randy Smith, his host parents.

In interviews with police, Pazmino said the teens had gone &#8220;garage hopping,&#8221; an activity that involves entering garages in search of alcohol, several times before with American students, but they had never gone inside the garages.

That night, however, Dede decided to take a chance.

Pazmino watched Dede from the middle of the street as he wordlessly went into Kaarma&#8217;s garage.

He said he heard a strange voice say &#8220;I see you there,&#8221; and ran when Kaarma fired the first shot.

Pazmino returned to Ecuador a week after the shooting.

Also that week, Missoula police interviewed two Missoula males, ages 18 and 16, who confessed to burglarizing Kaarma&#8217;s home, taking credit cards, an iPhone, two wallets, marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Tristan Staber, 18, has been charged with burglary and is held in Missoula County jail pending a $10,000 bond.

The 16-year-old&#8217;s case will be handled in Youth Court. His name hasn&#8217;t been released to the press.

Both suspects denied any association with Dede and Pazmino, the affidavit stated.

It was not Dede who had burglarized the home before; it was other people. He had not stolen anything other and beer. He did not deserve to die, not by any means. He was involved in pranking, not burglarizing.

If this has been posted before, I apologize. There are a lot of detailed posts in the thread and I haven't read them all thoroughly.

 

[Politico]

Oh I see. so he should have said hey are the guy who was here before? No? Okay then go on your way.

 

[Kondor3]

Cliff's Notes Version:

Real reactions from real people must be suppressed. WE will decide what they think!

Sorry you had to go through all that effort; that was simply an explanation of the point of the prior post. Now if you're saying this was not my point, well don't bogart that joint, mah friend...

Say what is this, seven times now you've tried to morph this thread into a gun control laws topic? Is it eight? I can't keep up. Really desperate to make this into something it isn't huh? This thread has been replete with revisionism, morphing a single event into multiples... changing the position of the shooter... "breaking in" through the force field of an open door... purporting to predict what was about to happen next ... I tell ya I haven't seen this much bullshit revisionism since Hitler got elected head of the Democratic Party and proceeded to invent the slave trade.

You're truly a legend in your own mind, tonight, mine good colleague.

'This' is about a myriad of things, centered around Gun-Control; not just our particular and modest and rather un-challenging dialogue, but about the whole range of linked issues, as evidenced by much of the conversation taking place in this thread in those (rare) times when you were not trying to hog the stage and pretend like you were in-charge and that your opinion mattered more than anybody else's.

Wha?? Where have I said, implied, intimated, hinted at, suggested, insert entire thesaurus here, anything of the sort?...

You and what you've said have nothing to do with this. At-issue is the range of related and linked issues that have been served-up by everyone who has participated in the thread.

...Which one of us pumps his fonts up to super size? OK then. I fixed this one (again). You're welcome...

Non sequitur, and resolving nothing.

It is what happens when people begin opening-up sidebars and exploring those, in connection with the main theme.

Aw shucks, it was nothin'. You're welcome again. I am nothing if not comprehensive.

A disconnected and meaningless response.

If you seek someone requiring the assistance of vaseline, you'll find a quick glance in the mirror to be far more profitable.

Not necessary; I prefer to stay grounded on something solid. That's why I call out bullshit when people post it. And in a thread like this, that keeps me more than busy...

Yes, Pogo, we all know...

Insisting upon a change of hearts and minds, so that the lions and lambs all lie down together, is a fine example of keeping your feet on the ground. Not.

So is harping on the idiot-teen's death while glossing over his own culpability. Not.

...And no, wish as ye might, this never was about "gun control". If it was I wouldn't be here.

From Post No. 1... the OP...

"...Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..."

Epic Fail.

 

[Esmeralda]

Oh I see. so he should have said hey are the guy who was here before? No? Okay then go on your way.

The point is that Kaarma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Kaarma spends a lot of time in prison.

 

[Esmeralda]

"...Another unarmed teenager is sacrificed to the pro-gun pit bull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..."

Epic Fail.

Not. Only a fail in the eyes of the gun nutters. In the eyes of sane, rational people, we are indeed sacrificing young people, and other innocents, for the sake an unrelenting and tenacious grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You all are happy these kids are dying. It's sickening.

 

[Politico]

Oh I see. so he should have said hey are the guy who was here before? No? Okay then go on your way.

The point is that Karma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Karma spends a lot of time in prison.

You hate guns we get it. The point is I don't care about Kharma (with an H) or whether someone in my garage is a hardcore burglar. If you are in my garage you don't belong there.

 

[Esmeralda]

Oh I see. so he should have said hey are the guy who was here before? No? Okay then go on your way.

The point is that Kaarma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Kaarma spends a lot of time in prison.

You hate guns we get it. The point is I don't care about Kharma (with an H) or whether someone in my garage is a hardcore burglar. If you are in mu garage you don't belong there.

Like I said, you people love to kill: the idea of blowing someone away with your precious guns is a wet dream for you all. It's Kaarma. I think he's going to have some kharma to deal with now.

 

[thanatos144]

Such intent is not established. Is "garage hopping" burglary?

As posted earlier, I garage hopped as a kid. Never took anything though.

You can't run on speculation of what somebody "would have" done "if" he were still alive. Now if the kid had the purse in his hand you might have a different result. If he took the purse and ran off with it you definitely would. But none of that happened.

Matter of fact we also know the GF put stuff in her bait that she documented, so that it could be traced later. That was a wise thing to do. But that plan never got a chance to manifest due to a hotheaded hair-trigger act.

When there is an object of intrinsic value, when there is someone trespassing on the property and in close proximity to the object of intrinsic value, we must deduce that he was there to take the object of intrinsic value. It's not hard. Whether or not she baited him is inconsequential.

Agreed, whether she baited him is irrelevant. That's not the point. The point is he never actually took anything. Moreover, "intrinsic value" is in the eye of the beholder, innit? The previous burglar had taken a bhong and a pot stash. Stuff that had value to him.

Perhaps he would have, given time. Perhaps not. We'll never know. But by all means, let us know the next time you get arrested for what you were "probably about to do".

No the point is he broke into a persons house and that person has the right to defend himself and family and correctly shot the punk.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Another unarmed teenager is sacrificed to the pro-gun pit bull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..."

Epic Fail.

Not. Only a fail in the eyes of the gun nutters. In the eyes of sane, rational people, we are indeed sacrificing young people, and other innocents, for the sake an unrelenting and tenacious grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You all are happy these kids are dying. It's sickening.

Please pay close attention, Esmeralda...

Our colleague Pogo put up a protest that this (the thread... it's underlying theme... and some of its sidebars) was not about gun control...

I served up a quotation (above) from your own Original Post in order to counter that assertion...

His assertion was an Epic Fail, not the subject matter...

Go back and re-read the exchange for context, if you must...

You misunderstood...

You mistook my labeling Pogo's assertion as an Epic Fail, for a condemning remark on the topic or the thread, and then you compounded the error by needlessly switching to attack-dog mode with me...

You were wrong...

Also...

Do not presume to lump me in with people who evince an actual gladness that people die in gun-related incidents...

Personally, I think it's tragic...

I may very well evince a hardening-of-the-heart, to defend gun-owners involved in such incidents, by helping to focus our attention upon the crimes that these people are committing, and holding that they brought such a fate upon their own heads or are 'pushing up daisies' because of their own foolhardy choice to commit a crime, but I do not demonstrate 'gladness', one cannot even rightfully infer such gladness, and it is unfair of you to pitch it that way...

You were wrong...

Again...

Don't turn your attack-dog tactics upon me...

I've never once wronged you, nor belittled you...

There is no reason for you to engage in such behavior...

Unless, of course, you insist upon demonizing defenders of the Second Amendment, because they do not think like you do, and because you cannot get much traction in your fight against them...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oh I see. so he should have said hey are the guy who was here before? No? Okay then go on your way.

The point is that Kaarma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Kaarma spends a lot of time in prison.

He was a bad guy.

By definition he was breaking the law and therefore was a criminal.

It is prudent to assume that a criminal entering your home uninvited under cover of darkness is a threat to your or your family's safety.

If he didn't enter a man's home uninvited under the cover of darkness he would not have been shot.

It really is that simple.

 

[Esmeralda]

Oh I see. so he should have said hey are the guy who was here before? No? Okay then go on your way.

The point is that Kaarma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Kaarma spends a lot of time in prison.

He was a bad guy.

By definition he was breaking the law and therefore was a criminal.

It is prudent to assume that a criminal entering your home uninvited under cover of darkness is a threat to your or your family's safety.

If he didn't enter a man's hoe uninvited under the cover of darkness he would not have been shot.

It really is that simple.

If Dede was a 'bad' guy, then Kaarma is a much, much worse one because he set a trap with the intention of shooting someone, not showing any value for human life. His intention was to kill. Dede's intention was to steal some beer.

 

[Kondor3]

The point is that Kaarma assumed, or pretended to believe, that this was some kind of hardcore burglar, someone who was a 'bad' guy. The point is not to shoot first and ask questions later. He killed an unarmed teenager who was 'pranking.' I hope Kaarma spends a lot of time in prison.

He was a bad guy.

By definition he was breaking the law and therefore was a criminal.

It is prudent to assume that a criminal entering your home uninvited under cover of darkness is a threat to your or your family's safety.

If he didn't enter a man's hoe uninvited under the cover of darkness he would not have been shot.

It really is that simple.

If Dede was a 'bad' guy, then Kaarma is a much, much worse one because he set a trap with the intention of shooting someone, not showing any value for human life. His intention was to kill. Dede's intention was to steal some beer.

Potentially a case of a Bad Guy protected by law, and a dumb-ass kid who suffered because he broke the law.

It's the chance one takes, when one engages in criminal activity, regardless of its scope.

It's not so much the dollar or other value of the intended theft, it's the intrusion into the home property of another under cover of darkness that tips the scales.

Scales that will ultimately see the shooter get off scot-free.

It doesn't much matter what you nor I think about him, and his alleged trap-setting.

What matter is that penetration onto home-residence property, by stealth, at night.

I doubt the guy will even get a slap on the wrist, judicially.

I could be wrong about that, but, I doubt it.

 

[Esmeralda]

He was a bad guy.

By definition he was breaking the law and therefore was a criminal.

It is prudent to assume that a criminal entering your home uninvited under cover of darkness is a threat to your or your family's safety.

If he didn't enter a man's hoe uninvited under the cover of darkness he would not have been shot.

It really is that simple.

If Dede was a 'bad' guy, then Kaarma is a much, much worse one because he set a trap with the intention of shooting someone, not showing any value for human life. His intention was to kill. Dede's intention was to steal some beer.

Potentially a case of a Bad Guy protected by law, and a dumb-ass kid who suffered because he broke the law.

It's the chance one takes, when one engages in criminal activity, regardless of its scope.

It's not so much the dollar or other value of the intended theft, it's the intrusion into the home property of another under cover of darkness that tips the scales.

Scales that will ultimately see the shooter get off scot-free.

It doesn't much matter what you nor I think about him, and his alleged trap-setting.

What matter is that penetration onto home-residence property, by stealth, at night.

I doubt the guy will even get a slap on the wrist, judicially.

I could be wrong about that, but, I doubt it.

I've been robbed twice, burglarized. Nothing of great value was taken though one thing, a ring, of sentimental value was taken. In neither instance did I harbor the idea that the thief deserved the death sentence. It is not nice to be violated that way; I know that very well, but it still is not a crime worthy of death. I hope the homeowner goes to prison for a long time. He took a life without any good reason, and it was premeditated.