Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Esmeralda]

Hi, you have received -11936 reputation points from Pogo.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Here ya go troll. Eat it.

Regards,
Pogo

Note: This is an automated message.

Proof that I am right ...

Looks like a resignation to me.

Looks like he's calling a troll a troll.

 

[Esmeralda]

In America, except back in the Wild West when they hanged horse theives, death has never been the penalty for theft. Never. Killing someone because they are on your property and 'might' steal something is thinking you have a license to kill. These laws, like the Castle Doctrine, make people think they have a license to kill. I posted one example of that and how the home owners went to prison for life. This is a similar case. Kaarma may go to prison for life.

The odds of getting 12 Montanans to agree with you are infinitesimal.

You want so much for it to be cool that a young man is dead. How old are you? How many years have you had the opportunity to live? Have you ever made any mistakes? How would it have been if you were murdered for making a mistake at 17? It's just disgusting the way you all take joy in the fact that boy is dead.

And you are stereotyping people from Montana, in the hopes they will let the murderer go free.

 

[Kondor3]

In America, except back in the Wild West when they hanged horse theives, death has never been the penalty for theft. Never. Killing someone because they are on your property and 'might' steal something is thinking you have a license to kill. These laws, like the Castle Doctrine, make people think they just shoot and won't be questioned.

I posted one example of that and how the home owner went to prison for life. This is a similar case. Kaarma may go to prison for life.

Watch this program. The home owner thought he had a license to kill anyone who entered his home. He sat it wait like Kaarma. He shot to kill and made sure they were dead. He planned it. He didn't call the police, but lay in wait for them and blew them away. Many similarities. He went to prison for life. Laws like the Castle Doctrine are not a license to kill...

There are enough differences between the Montana case and your Minnesota example that the comparison is probably not going to hold up under a closer scrutiny...

For example, the Miinnesota shooter...

1. was sitting in a comfy-chair in his basement, waiting for the idiot-teens to come downstairs

2. shot the boy once to wound him, then walked up to him and shot him in the head, to kill him after he had been disabled

3. did the girl in much the same way when she came downstairs

4. dumped the bodies on a tarp to avoid staining his carpet

5. waited an entire day after the shooting before calling a neighbor (rather than the cops, right away)

6. stupidly made voice-recordings of the incident in his basement; the lead-up to the shootings, the shootings themselves, and the post-shooting timeframe; giving strong evidence that he enjoyed the hunt, and meting out those deaths.

That would be enough to hang Mother Theresa, never mind some dipshit in Bumphukk Minnesota.

The fellow did, indeed, try to use something akin to the Castle Defense, but...

With an event-sequence and damning evidence like that, he was 'toast' the day the trial began.

Kaarma, on the other hand, suffers from no such handicap.

Whoops... not quite true... we have the hearsay testimony of the hairdresser, and, perhaps, a few revealing verbal clues served-up by Kaarma himself, during the course of the interviews, but, nothing on the order of what that idiot-shooter in Minnesota had working against him.

I have no clue whether Kaarma is innocent or guilty of premeditated homicide of some kind or another, but the Minnesota case you're serving-up here seems like a different kind of critter.

IMHO.

 

[Esmeralda]

In America, except back in the Wild West when they hanged horse theives, death has never been the penalty for theft. Never. Killing someone because they are on your property and 'might' steal something is thinking you have a license to kill. These laws, like the Castle Doctrine, make people think they just shoot and won't be questioned.

I posted one example of that and how the home owner went to prison for life. This is a similar case. Kaarma may go to prison for life.

Watch this program. The home owner thought he had a license to kill anyone who entered his home. He sat it wait like Kaarma. He shot to kill and made sure they were dead. He planned it. He didn't call the police, but lay in wait for them and blew them away. Many similarities. He went to prison for life. Laws like the Castle Doctrine are not a license to kill...

There are enough differences between the Montana case and your Minnesota example that the comparison is probably not going to hold up under a closer scrutiny...

For example, the Miinnesota shooter...

1. was sitting in a comfy-chair in his basement, waiting for the idiot-teens to come downstairs

2. shot the boy once to wound him, then walked up to him and shot him in the head, to kill him after he had been disabled

3. did the girl in much the same way when she came downstairs

4. dumped the bodies on a tarp to avoid staining his carpet

5. waited an entire day after the shooting before calling a neighbor (rather than the cops, right away)

6. stupidly made voice-recordings of the incident in his basement; the lead-up to the shootings, the shootings themselves, and the post-shooting timeframe; giving strong evidence that he enjoyed the hunt, and meting out those deaths.

That would be enough to hang Mother Theresa, never mind some dipshit in Bumphukk Minnesota.

The fellow did, indeed, try to use something akin to the Castle Defense, but...

With an event-sequence and damning evidence like that, he was 'toast' the day the trial began.

Kaarma, on the other hand, suffers from no such handicap.

Whoops... not quite true... we have the hearsay testimony of the hairdresser, and, perhaps, a few revealing verbal clues served-up by Kaarma himself, during the course of the interviews, but, nothing on the order of what that idiot-shooter in Minnesota had working against him.

I have no clue whether Kaarma is innocent or guilty of premeditated homicide of some kind or another, but the Minnesota case you're serving-up here seems like a different kind of critter.
IMHO.

-Karma set a trap to lure a possible intruder, as did the guy in Minnesota by hiding his car and making it look like he wasn't home.

-Knowing someone was in his garage, he positioned himself in front of the house blocking an exit for the person in the garage; as did the man in Minnesota, he lay in wait.

-Without knowing who was there or what that person was doing or intended, he shot in the dark, shot to kill. The man in Minnesota, like Kaarma, didn't call the police when people entered his home; he lay in wait and then shot to kill, killing unarmed people.

-He bragged about it before hand, bragged about his plan to set a trap and to kill an intruder. The man in Minnesota 'bragged' about what he was doing as he tape recorded the entire incident.

-Two hairdressers who have no stake in this situation are going to be believed by the jury. The hairdressers are Montana people too, btw. In Montana, the hairdressers are the witnesses to the premeditation; in Minnesota it is the tape recording.

-The Minnesota case has a lot of similarities, including the fact the killer lived in an area where there are a lot of people who own guns, a lot of hunters, etc. A very conservative area.

-Don't depend so much on a Montana jury being extremists when it comes to guns and the Castle Doctrine. They will look for a logical reason for Kaarma to fear bodily harm or death, and there isn't one.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In America, except back in the Wild West when they hanged horse theives, death has never been the penalty for theft. Never. Killing someone because they are on your property and 'might' steal something is thinking you have a license to kill. These laws, like the Castle Doctrine, make people think they just shoot and won't be questioned.

I posted one example of that and how the home owner went to prison for life. This is a similar case. Kaarma may go to prison for life.

Watch this program. The home owner thought he had a license to kill anyone who entered his home. He sat it wait like Kaarma. He shot to kill and made sure they were dead. He planned it. He didn't call the police, but lay in wait for them and blew them away. Many similarities. He went to prison for life. Laws like the Castle Doctrine are not a license to kill...

There are enough differences between the Montana case and your Minnesota example that the comparison is probably not going to hold up under a closer scrutiny...

For example, the Miinnesota shooter...

1. was sitting in a comfy-chair in his basement, waiting for the idiot-teens to come downstairs

2. shot the boy once to wound him, then walked up to him and shot him in the head, to kill him after he had been disabled

3. did the girl in much the same way when she came downstairs

4. dumped the bodies on a tarp to avoid staining his carpet

5. waited an entire day after the shooting before calling a neighbor (rather than the cops, right away)

6. stupidly made voice-recordings of the incident in his basement; the lead-up to the shootings, the shootings themselves, and the post-shooting timeframe; giving strong evidence that he enjoyed the hunt, and meting out those deaths.

That would be enough to hang Mother Theresa, never mind some dipshit in Bumphukk Minnesota.

The fellow did, indeed, try to use something akin to the Castle Defense, but...

With an event-sequence and damning evidence like that, he was 'toast' the day the trial began.

Kaarma, on the other hand, suffers from no such handicap.

Whoops... not quite true... we have the hearsay testimony of the hairdresser, and, perhaps, a few revealing verbal clues served-up by Kaarma himself, during the course of the interviews, but, nothing on the order of what that idiot-shooter in Minnesota had working against him.

I have no clue whether Kaarma is innocent or guilty of premeditated homicide of some kind or another, but the Minnesota case you're serving-up here seems like a different kind of critter.
IMHO.

-Karma set a trap to lure a possible intruder.
-Knowing someone was in his garage, he positioned himself in front of the house blocking an exit for the person in the garage.
-Without knowing who was there or what that person was doing or intended, he shot in the dark, shot to kill.
-He bragged about it before hand, bragged about his plan to set a trap and to kill an intruder.
-Two hairdressers who have no stake in this situation are going to be believed by the jury. The hairdressers are Montana people too, btw.
-The Minnesota case has a lot of similarities, including the fact the killer lived in an area where there are a lot of people who own guns, a lot of hunters, etc. A very conservative area.
-Don't depend so much on a Montana jury being extremists when it comes to guns and the Castle Doctrine. They will look for a logical reason for Kaarma to fear bodily harm or death, and there isn't one.

Bullshit, irrelevance and lies.

Standard libtard talking points.

 

[Slyhunter]

In America, except back in the Wild West when they hanged horse theives, death has never been the penalty for theft. Never. Killing someone because they are on your property and 'might' steal something is thinking you have a license to kill. These laws, like the Castle Doctrine, make people think they just shoot and won't be questioned.

I posted one example of that and how the home owner went to prison for life. This is a similar case. Kaarma may go to prison for life.

Watch this program. The home owner thought he had a license to kill anyone who entered his home. He sat it wait like Kaarma. He shot to kill and made sure they were dead. He planned it. He didn't call the police, but lay in wait for them and blew them away. Many similarities. He went to prison for life. Laws like the Castle Doctrine are not a license to kill...

There are enough differences between the Montana case and your Minnesota example that the comparison is probably not going to hold up under a closer scrutiny...

For example, the Miinnesota shooter...

1. was sitting in a comfy-chair in his basement, waiting for the idiot-teens to come downstairs

2. shot the boy once to wound him, then walked up to him and shot him in the head, to kill him after he had been disabled

3. did the girl in much the same way when she came downstairs

4. dumped the bodies on a tarp to avoid staining his carpet

5. waited an entire day after the shooting before calling a neighbor (rather than the cops, right away)

6. stupidly made voice-recordings of the incident in his basement; the lead-up to the shootings, the shootings themselves, and the post-shooting timeframe; giving strong evidence that he enjoyed the hunt, and meting out those deaths.

That would be enough to hang Mother Theresa, never mind some dipshit in Bumphukk Minnesota.

The fellow did, indeed, try to use something akin to the Castle Defense, but...

With an event-sequence and damning evidence like that, he was 'toast' the day the trial began.

Kaarma, on the other hand, suffers from no such handicap.

Whoops... not quite true... we have the hearsay testimony of the hairdresser, and, perhaps, a few revealing verbal clues served-up by Kaarma himself, during the course of the interviews, but, nothing on the order of what that idiot-shooter in Minnesota had working against him.

I have no clue whether Kaarma is innocent or guilty of premeditated homicide of some kind or another, but the Minnesota case you're serving-up here seems like a different kind of critter.
IMHO.

-Karma set a trap to lure a possible intruder.
-Knowing someone was in his garage, he positioned himself in front of the house blocking an exit for the person in the garage.
-Without knowing who was there or what that person was doing or intended, he shot in the dark, shot to kill.
-He bragged about it before hand, bragged about his plan to set a trap and to kill an intruder.
-Two hairdressers who have no stake in this situation are going to be believed by the jury. The hairdressers are Montana people too, btw.
-The Minnesota case has a lot of similarities, including the fact the killer lived in an area where there are a lot of people who own guns, a lot of hunters, etc. A very conservative area.
-Don't depend so much on a Montana jury being extremists when it comes to guns and the Castle Doctrine. They will look for a logical reason for Kaarma to fear bodily harm or death, and there isn't one.

I don't see the problem.
He killed someone who invaded his home.
Don't want to die, don't do home invasions.
Problem solved.

 

[Pogo]

I live here. Most of us, especially those to the north of me, hunt. We may not have the same game as Montana, but we do pretty well.
Smaller farms too, but many of them, all with predators to dispatch.
Most of my weapons are primarily for hunting and all are legal hunting weapons in Alabama. Any is also quite suitable
If your implication was to label me a "gun nut", I must tell you that I resent the shit out of that.

It isn't. I already know you're not an Alabaman and have one of the sharpest minds on this board. I was speaking of cultural stereotypes. That's always dicey but hey, you started it.

You've already described some incidents you've been in where you demonstrated responsible actions and attitudes toward firearms. Kondor did the same. Both of y'all made the right decisions as you described your experiences. Kaarma didn't. That's what makes your stance odd; you exercised proper restraint, and this guy did not. One would think you'd hold others to the same standard you practice yourself.



Aaaand we're back to where we started, which is that I don't think you know Montanans very well. People who are afraid of guns will be hard to come by in Montana, but that's irrelevant because the case isn't about guns; it's about homicide, which is an action. It isn't about "defense" either, even if the defense will try to play it that way.

Check out the comments I on the Missoulan page I linked if you think you know Montanans' minds. Here's one of the lengthier ones that goes into these aspects:

>> For clarification... Kaarma said “I’m just waiting to shoot some ******* kid” to Felene Sherbondy, his hair stylist. He elaborated that he had been waiting up for three nights with his shotgun to shoot “some ******* kid”. He left the garage door open 5 ½ ft that night, and baited him in with his wife's purse. They set up motion sensors and a baby monitor. He knew there was an intruder inside the garage so we went outside, around to the front of garage where the door is. He then fired 3 shots into the garage at a low level, and 1 at a higher elevation. He called 911 AFTER he fired the shots into the garage, sweeping the entire garage with this battery. THIS IS BASED ON THE POLICE AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE. It is unknown if everything in the affidavit is correct, but it is the closest thing to concrete data we have on what happened at this point in time.

Should the data enclosed in the affidavit be correct, and Felene’s testimony permissible, this is a case of first degree homicide as Kaarma did not feel threatened for his life, but instead had been planning on leaving an opportune scene for a robber, and to corner and gun them down.

This is Murder, and the Castle Doctrine should not be repealed as the state is properly handling this case. All this talk of the Castle Doctrine legalizing murder is some play on pathos by a few crooked politicians to take away your right to defend your life and your family. The law is working as intended, and that is why Kaarma is being charged.
Here is the castle doctrine. It does not apply if the affidavit is true in its accusations.
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure. <<​

Those comments btw were running about 70% against what Kaarma did, and that was only in the first couple of days after the incident.

I appreciate the kind words, Mr Possum and your implied pronouncement that I am not a "gun nut".
While true, I am not a native Alabaman, I do to a great extent, fit in well here. I've even caught myself saying "I'm fixin' ta go ta WalMart, y'all.
I was every bit as pro 2nd Amendment when I lived in Connecticut and Florida. My home in CT had a sticker on the window glass of the front door like this:

And I meant it. I wasn't afraid to say it or to tell people what I would have done if that asshole HAD broken through my front door.
Hell, Pogo, I've even sat in the dark with my .44 in a house under construction after twice having been broken into and having tools stolen.

I've told numerous people that anyone who enters my home uninvited gets dead. Now, am I a "gun nut"?

Of course not. You're a talk nut. You don't get to be a gun nut until you start shooting indiscriminately. But back to the house under construction with the tools stolen -- suppose you're sitting there and you hear a noise coming from a direction that was easily accessible to the general public -- would you have fired into the dark without knowing what the hell you were shooting at?

Felene Sherbondy (I can't wait til SHE'S on the stand) SAYS Kaarma said those things. Perhaps he did, perhaps she is imbellishing the story a bit. I'm sure Mr Kaarma's attorney will cross examine her and we shall see how well her statements hold up.

Has anyone come up with a picture of this Sherbondy woman? I'm thinking this will do until we get an update:

What exactly are you trying to imply here? Black people are less credible? I have no idea. Anyway there were TWO witnesses in the hairdresser shop; I don't remember the other one's name.

As far s the law goes, Pay close attention to this part:

(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

Reasonably believes Reasonably Believes

It is up to the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Markus Kaarma did not reasonably believe that he and his family were in danger.

Yeah I pointed this out before.

Damned if I know what he was thinking at the time. I think myself a fairly reasonable man and if someone was in my garage without an invitation around midnight I would expect the worst. I would KILL him. And I think that in Montana, at minimum 25% of the population would do exactly the same thing.

This is exactly where we differ about the nature of Montana. People there are just not anywhere near that paranoid. And yes, that is extremely paranoid.

So, if the defense team does their job in the voir dere stage, Dede gets at worst, a hung jury and the prosecution wouldn't retry.
11:1, yeah the state will retry.
10:2, I'd say 50/50, depending on how DA's are hired/elected in Montana.
9:3, (the worst I'd expect) Nope no retrial.

So.... That's the reality of it, Pogo. Dede should have stayed the hell out of the man's garage. HE instigated his own death.

You're well over my head with the odds ratios; I'm not a gambler. I'll stay within the details of the story and what I know about Montanans, and based on that I'm going with guilty. Because trespassing has never warranted a death penalty.

 

[Pogo]

...Perhaps, but I responded to the various predictions of "what Montanans will do" because I actually have experience with Montanans in Montana, and I don't believe the assumptions from you or Ernie are entirely accurate about them...

You have experience with Montanans, in Montana? How nice for you. Doesn't change the stereotype, though, nor its basis in reality, nor the likelihood that most of the local fodder for a jury pool will conform to such a stereotype in the main.

Opinion?

Yep.

We'll know soon enough which of us was right.

It does change the stereotype for me, just as knowledge about anything or anywhere improves over assumed stereotypes. Montanans are just not all hung up on the puritan punitivity that plagues the east. It's just not part of the mentality as it would be in, say, Alabama. In other words what you and Ernie are so desperately trying to push for just doesn't pass much of a smell test when it plays in Missoula. Move the entire incident to Alabama and your chances go up greatly.

I don't think you can simply pull up a red-and-blue political map, surmise "ok these are the red states and those are the blue states and therefore group A has characteristics X, Y and Z". Mass psychology is just not that simple.

 

[Pogo]

...Those comments btw were running about 70% against what Kaarma did, and that was only in the first couple of days after the incident.

70% against, in the first couple of days following the incident, before all the surviving participants had been heard from, directly or indirectly?

No surprise there.

In the days following the May 6 disclosure by defense attorney Ryan that Dede's sidekick from Ecuador confessed that Dede was 'garage-hopping' the night of the shooting (intentionally trespasssing, with the intention to commit burglary) and that both he and Dede had engaged in garage-hopping on multiple occasions in the past?

Any data on such numbers after the May 6 disclosure?

I'll bet not.

I'll also bet that if such polling occurred again since that information became public, that that 70% would fall a point or two afterwards.. or 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or more...

Don't know -- the present numbers were ones I just happened across. Feel free to seek validation for this cockamamie theory of yours that life in Missoula rotates around a law office's press releases...

 

[Pogo]

Americans have a habit of shooting people dead for the crime of stepping onto their property.

Yes we do. We also have a high number of thugs that stage home invasions and kill the occupants of the home. The fear that you may be assaulted in your own home is very real here.
As The Prophet John Lenon said, "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

You DO know that was typical Lennon sarcasm I hope... the title actually came from a U.S. gun magazine (not sure which one) that said on its cover "happiness is a warm gun". Lennon remembered, "I just thought it was a fantastic, insane thing to say. A warm gun means you just shot something!" In other words he was as incredulous that there would be such a thought on a magazine as the rest of us are that this incident happened.

I don't dispute the above at all though, we do indeed seem to have more people shot for the crime of trespassing as Noomi noted.

Let's say on the corner of Main and Not Main there are a disproportionate number of drunk driving accidents. Should our advice be to stay away from that intersection, or should it be to actually address the drunk driving problem? It's all well and good to recognize when one has a problem; to then go on doing the same thing anyway in spite of that just makes my head explode.

Or it used to, before I moved to New Orleans and had to get used to it as a regular thing...

 

[Kondor3]

...Those comments btw were running about 70% against what Kaarma did, and that was only in the first couple of days after the incident.

70% against, in the first couple of days following the incident, before all the surviving participants had been heard from, directly or indirectly?

No surprise there.

In the days following the May 6 disclosure by defense attorney Ryan that Dede's sidekick from Ecuador confessed that Dede was 'garage-hopping' the night of the shooting (intentionally trespasssing, with the intention to commit burglary) and that both he and Dede had engaged in garage-hopping on multiple occasions in the past?

Any data on such numbers after the May 6 disclosure?

I'll bet not.

I'll also bet that if such polling occurred again since that information became public, that that 70% would fall a point or two afterwards.. or 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or more...

Don't know -- the present numbers were ones I just happened across. Feel free to seek validation for this cockamamie theory of yours that life in Missoula rotates around a law office's press releases...

Not even a good attempt at deflection, Pogo.

All I said is that if the folks who responded to that poll, right after the shooting, knew then, what they know not (that Dede was engaged in criminal behavior, and had done so on repeated occasions in the past), then, that 70% figure would probably not have been anywhere near as high.

You can try (and fail) to spin doctor it any other way which amuses; machts nichts.

A simple "well, yeah, maybe" would have sufficed.

 

[Pogo]

With your permission I'd like to suspend the usual quote sanctitude for ease of construction... I usually don't do this but it will be so much easier...

In America, except back in the Wild West when they hanged horse theives, death has never been the penalty for theft. Never. Killing someone because they are on your property and 'might' steal something is thinking you have a license to kill. These laws, like the Castle Doctrine, make people think they just shoot and won't be questioned.

I posted one example of that and how the home owner went to prison for life. This is a similar case. Kaarma may go to prison for life.

Watch this program. The home owner thought he had a license to kill anyone who entered his home. He sat it wait like Kaarma. He shot to kill and made sure they were dead. He planned it. He didn't call the police, but lay in wait for them and blew them away. Many similarities. He went to prison for life. Laws like the Castle Doctrine are not a license to kill...

There are enough differences between the Montana case and your Minnesota example that the comparison is probably not going to hold up under a closer scrutiny...

For example, the Miinnesota shooter...

1. was sitting in a comfy-chair in his basement, waiting for the idiot-teens to come downstairs

Kaarma and Pflager...

1. Had left the garage door open and when alerted, took a position outside the front of the house looking back into the garage, giving him a vantage point that cut off any possible egress and would push whatever was there back into the house--- rather than using the door connected to the house facing into the garage, which would have given him a position to push away from the house, in other words to drive him away.

2. shot the boy once to wound him, then walked up to him and shot him in the head, to kill him after he had been disabled

2. Shot across into the dark in a sweeping motion, aiming both high and low to cover everything (and lied about that motion to the police)

3. did the girl in much the same way when she came downstairs

3. N/A

4. dumped the bodies on a tarp to avoid staining his carpet

3. N/A

5. waited an entire day after the shooting before calling a neighbor (rather than the cops, right away)

5. Waited until the property had been breached and the garage sprayed with buckshot, (some of it even penetrating the house btw) and switched on the lights to see his victim for the first time before calling 911

6. stupidly made voice-recordings of the incident in his basement; the lead-up to the shootings, the shootings themselves, and the post-shooting timeframe; giving strong evidence that he enjoyed the hunt, and meting out those deaths.

6. Stupidly made predictions of what he was going to do, promising that they would be "reading about this", reported he had been staying up waiting for the occasion, giving even stronger evidence that the hunt is exactly what he was on.

That would be enough to hang Mother Theresa, never mind some dipshit in Bumphukk Minnesota.

The fellow did, indeed, try to use something akin to the Castle Defense, but...

With an event-sequence and damning evidence like that, he was 'toast' the day the trial began.

Kaarma, on the other hand, suffers from no such handicap.

Whoops... not quite true... we have the hearsay testimony of the hairdresser, and, perhaps, a few revealing verbal clues served-up by Kaarma himself, during the course of the interviews, but, nothing on the order of what that idiot-shooter in Minnesota had working against him.

I have no clue whether Kaarma is innocent or guilty of premeditated homicide of some kind or another, but the Minnesota case you're serving-up here seems like a different kind of critter.

IMHO.

Actually (again), there were two witnesses to the hairdresser conversation who confirm each other.

Interesting that an incident in Minnesota that doesn't go the way you would have liked becomes named "Bumphuck". Interesting in that it fits a pattern...

 

[Pogo]

70% against, in the first couple of days following the incident, before all the surviving participants had been heard from, directly or indirectly?

No surprise there.

In the days following the May 6 disclosure by defense attorney Ryan that Dede's sidekick from Ecuador confessed that Dede was 'garage-hopping' the night of the shooting (intentionally trespasssing, with the intention to commit burglary) and that both he and Dede had engaged in garage-hopping on multiple occasions in the past?

Any data on such numbers after the May 6 disclosure?

I'll bet not.

I'll also bet that if such polling occurred again since that information became public, that that 70% would fall a point or two afterwards.. or 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or more...

Don't know -- the present numbers were ones I just happened across. Feel free to seek validation for this cockamamie theory of yours that life in Missoula rotates around a law office's press releases...

Not even a good attempt at deflection, Pogo.

All I said is that if the folks who responded to that poll, right after the shooting, knew then, what they know not (that Dede was engaged in criminal behavior, and had done so on repeated occasions in the past), then, that 70% figure would probably not have been anywhere near as high.

You can try (and fail) to spin doctor it any other way which amuses; machts nichts.

A simple "well, yeah, maybe" would have sufficed.

I think you're the only guy in the world that sees the attorney's press release as anything significant. I can't take that seriously, no. You see, the particular article those comments were attached to wasn't really an article; it was just the link to the criminal complaint, which brought forth all the details about who did what when, as well as the statements from at least one of the hairdressers. THAT is the significant content, as it illustrates Kaarma's intentions. After all, this is, news flash, a story about the actions of Markus Kaarma -- not the actions of Diren Dede.

And it's not a "poll" -- it's the commentary section of the story in the local paper. Maybe you should, you know, read it. And I haven't "spun" anything; I counted up the comments. Easy thing to do. Anyone who actually broke a sweat to read it could do the same thing.

 

[Kondor3]

Don't know -- the present numbers were ones I just happened across. Feel free to seek validation for this cockamamie theory of yours that life in Missoula rotates around a law office's press releases...

Not even a good attempt at deflection, Pogo.

All I said is that if the folks who responded to that poll, right after the shooting, knew then, what they know not (that Dede was engaged in criminal behavior, and had done so on repeated occasions in the past), then, that 70% figure would probably not have been anywhere near as high.

You can try (and fail) to spin doctor it any other way which amuses; machts nichts.

A simple "well, yeah, maybe" would have sufficed.

I think you're the only guy in the world that sees the attorney's press release as anything significant. I can't take that seriously. Sorry.

Who knows?

The defense attorney (Ryan) told the press that he had been shown a deposition by the police, focused upon the 'confession' of the Ecuadoran student, which stipulated that the two of them (the Ecuadoran student, and the dead German-Turkish student, Dede) had engaged in garage-hopping on multiple occasions in the past, and that Dede decided to take-on the Kaarma garage on his own, after informing the Ecuadoran of his intent, with the Ecuadoran kid taking a pass, and waiting for Dede down the block.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the local police department nor the states attorney have issued a refutation or denial of the defense attorney's public statement.

Perhaps they are merely reluctant to comment upon a pending case, but they could probably have issued a refutation without damaging their own case, had they been inclined to do so, and had such relay of the Ecuadoran student's testimony been inaccurate.

If the Ecuadoran student's deposition exists, and if it says what Ryan says it does, then we will certainly see this brought forth during the course of the trial.

If not, we'll know Ryan was lying.

Although why he would lie about something that law enforcement could so easily repudiate, and thereby further damage his client, is absolutely beyond me.

I'm inclined to believe that the Ecuadoran kid's deposition exists, and says that Ryan says it does.

And, in turn, if that is true, then the former 70% 'support' polling number you cited earlier, from a poll taken only a couple of days after the incident, would certainly be much lower, if taken at any time beyond May 6, when Ryan made his announcement.

But, in the absence of polling numbers from that timeframe and beyond, we can't say with any certainty, one way or another.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not even a good attempt at deflection, Pogo.

All I said is that if the folks who responded to that poll, right after the shooting, knew then, what they know not (that Dede was engaged in criminal behavior, and had done so on repeated occasions in the past), then, that 70% figure would probably not have been anywhere near as high.

You can try (and fail) to spin doctor it any other way which amuses; machts nichts.

A simple "well, yeah, maybe" would have sufficed.

I think you're the only guy in the world that sees the attorney's press release as anything significant. I can't take that seriously. Sorry.

Who knows?

The defense attorney (Ryan) told the press that he had been shown a deposition by the police, focused upon the 'confession' of the Ecuadoran student, which stipulated that the two of them (the Ecuadoran student, and the dead German-Turkish student, Dede) had engaged in garage-hopping on multiple occasions in the past, and that Dede decided to take-on the Kaarma garage on his own, after informing the Ecuadoran of his intent, with the Ecuadoran kid taking a pass, and waiting for Dede down the block.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the local police department nor the states attorney have issued a refutation or denial of the defense attorney's public statement.

Perhaps they are merely reluctant to comment upon a pending case, but they could probably have issued a refutation without damaging their own case, had they been inclined to do so, and had such relay of the Ecuadoran student's testimony been inaccurate.

If the Ecuadoran student's deposition exists, and if it says what Ryan says it does, then we will certainly see this brought forth during the course of the trial.

If not, we'll know Ryan was lying.

Although why he would lie about something that law enforcement could so easily repudiate, and thereby further damage his client, is absolutely beyond me.

I'm inclined to believe that the Ecuadoran kid's deposition exists, and says that Ryan says it does.

And, in turn, if that is true, then the former 70% 'support' polling number you cited earlier, from a poll taken only a couple of days after the incident, would certainly be much lower, if taken at any time beyond May 6, when Ryan made his announcement.

But, in the absence of polling numbers from that timeframe and beyond, we can't say with any certainty, one way or another.

Jacobins just love trying people in the court of public opinion then having their public executions. Only years later do people find out that the Kulaks, Jews, Armenians, Catholics, middle class professionals in Cambodia, etc are actually innocent and the leftwing fascists simply LIED, LIED, and LIED more to smear their targets and get the public to hate them before killing their victims and looting their property.

Lying is what libtards do; actual facts are so troublesome.

But now that more data is allowed to the public, public opinion is turning in favor of the man who defended his home and leftwing fascists just HATE that.

 

[Pogo]

I think you're the only guy in the world that sees the attorney's press release as anything significant. I can't take that seriously. Sorry.

Who knows?

The defense attorney (Ryan) told the press that he had been shown a deposition by the police, focused upon the 'confession' of the Ecuadoran student, which stipulated that the two of them (the Ecuadoran student, and the dead German-Turkish student, Dede) had engaged in garage-hopping on multiple occasions in the past, and that Dede decided to take-on the Kaarma garage on his own, after informing the Ecuadoran of his intent, with the Ecuadoran kid taking a pass, and waiting for Dede down the block.

To the best of my knowledge, neither the local police department nor the states attorney have issued a refutation or denial of the defense attorney's public statement.

Perhaps they are merely reluctant to comment upon a pending case, but they could probably have issued a refutation without damaging their own case, had they been inclined to do so, and had such relay of the Ecuadoran student's testimony been inaccurate.

If the Ecuadoran student's deposition exists, and if it says what Ryan says it does, then we will certainly see this brought forth during the course of the trial.

If not, we'll know Ryan was lying.

Although why he would lie about something that law enforcement could so easily repudiate, and thereby further damage his client, is absolutely beyond me.

I'm inclined to believe that the Ecuadoran kid's deposition exists, and says that Ryan says it does.

And, in turn, if that is true, then the former 70% 'support' polling number you cited earlier, from a poll taken only a couple of days after the incident, would certainly be much lower, if taken at any time beyond May 6, when Ryan made his announcement.

But, in the absence of polling numbers from that timeframe and beyond, we can't say with any certainty, one way or another.

Jacobins just love trying people in the court of public opinion then having their public executions. Only years later do people find out that the Kulaks, Jews, Armenians, Catholics, middle class professionals in Cambodia, etc are actually innocent and the leftwing fascists simply LIED, LIED, and LIED more to smear their targets and get the public to hate them before killing their victims and looting their property.

But now that more data is allowed to the public, public opinion is turning in favor of the man who defended his home and leftwing fascists just HATE that.

?

 

[Ernie S.]

In America, except back in the Wild West when they hanged horse theives, death has never been the penalty for theft. Never. Killing someone because they are on your property and 'might' steal something is thinking you have a license to kill. These laws, like the Castle Doctrine, make people think they have a license to kill. I posted one example of that and how the home owners went to prison for life. This is a similar case. Kaarma may go to prison for life.

The odds of getting 12 Montanans to agree with you are infinitesimal.

You want so much for it to be cool that a young man is dead. How old are you? How many years have you had the opportunity to live? Have you ever made any mistakes? How would it have been if you were murdered for making a mistake at 17? It's just disgusting the way you all take joy in the fact that boy is dead.

And you are stereotyping people from Montana, in the hopes they will let the murderer go free.

Why must you assume that I think any death is cool? I have managed to live for 64 years and 334 days and yes, I've made lots of mistakes. I am fortunate to have survived.
One thing I never did is sneak into someone's home in the middle of the night, not even when I was young and dumb.

I think you're a typical Liberal who thinks that someone who supports the 2nd Amendment and the right of self defense to be a cold hearted bastard that takes joy in senseless death.

Yes Dede's death was senseless, but HE instigated it, not Mr. Kaarma.

ETA:
I will expect an apology for insinuating that I "take joy in the fact that boy is dead".

 

[Pogo]

The odds of getting 12 Montanans to agree with you are infinitesimal.

You want so much for it to be cool that a young man is dead. How old are you? How many years have you had the opportunity to live? Have you ever made any mistakes? How would it have been if you were murdered for making a mistake at 17? It's just disgusting the way you all take joy in the fact that boy is dead.

And you are stereotyping people from Montana, in the hopes they will let the murderer go free.

Why must you assume that I think any death is cool? I have managed to live for 64 years and 334 days and yes, I've made lots of mistakes. I am fortunate to have survived.
One thing I never did is sneak into someone's home in the middle of the night, not even when I was young and dumb.

I think you're a typical Liberal who thinks that someone who supports the 2nd Amendment and the right of self defense to be a cold hearted bastard that takes joy in senseless death.

Yes Dede's death was senseless, but HE instigated it, not Mr. Kaarma.

If this were actually a case of self-defense ---- there wouldn't be a story.

There wouldn't have been an arrest for "intentional homicide" either.

More from one of those "road rage" incidents:

>> It was about 4:30 p.m. and I was driving home on Prospect , and he [Kaarma] was driving in front of me going about ten miles an hour,” said the neighbor who would like to remain anonymous. ” I tried to pull out slightly so he could see me in his side mirror and he slowed even further–to about 2 miles per hour. When I tried to go around him, he suddenly turned his vehicle into me cutting me off and forcing me to the curb. He got out of his car, and started yelling at me.”
The neighbor claims that in her brief altercation with Kaarma that he “dropped at least three F-bombs” and was angry that she was driving too fast in the neighborhood.

... The neighbor says the situation escalated to the point where she was fearful Kaarma might throw a punch through the window–so she closed the window and began backing away. She said Kaarma was foaming at the mouth and seemed compromised. She also noted that he was wearing a white v-neck undershirt and pajama pants even though it was late in the day.

“I used to work in an ER, I registered drunks and drug addicts everyday and, if you ask me, I’d say that it’s obvious that he was either off his medications or high on something,” Kaarma’s neighbor said.

The night of the incident, before most of the details had leaked out about the shooting, Kaarma’s neighbor claims that she placed a call to 911, informing them of the altercation and offering a description of Kaarma. She said she placed the call after seeing the flood of emergency response vehicles on the street below her and in the general vicinity of the Kaarma residence.

“I just knew he had to be involved,” the neighbor said. “He was just so irrational earlier that day. I had to tell someone on the record. I think it points to his mental state of being on that day.” << (link)​

This was less than eight hours before the shooting. One of three similar road rage complaints against Kaarma, right there in the residential neighborhood.

I dunno, again I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internets, but if I were Kaarma's defense I might want to go with insanity over castle...

 

[Ernie S.]

It isn't. I already know you're not an Alabaman and have one of the sharpest minds on this board. I was speaking of cultural stereotypes. That's always dicey but hey, you started it.

You've already described some incidents you've been in where you demonstrated responsible actions and attitudes toward firearms. Kondor did the same. Both of y'all made the right decisions as you described your experiences. Kaarma didn't. That's what makes your stance odd; you exercised proper restraint, and this guy did not. One would think you'd hold others to the same standard you practice yourself.



Aaaand we're back to where we started, which is that I don't think you know Montanans very well. People who are afraid of guns will be hard to come by in Montana, but that's irrelevant because the case isn't about guns; it's about homicide, which is an action. It isn't about "defense" either, even if the defense will try to play it that way.

Check out the comments I on the Missoulan page I linked if you think you know Montanans' minds. Here's one of the lengthier ones that goes into these aspects:

>> For clarification... Kaarma said “I’m just waiting to shoot some ******* kid” to Felene Sherbondy, his hair stylist. He elaborated that he had been waiting up for three nights with his shotgun to shoot “some ******* kid”. He left the garage door open 5 ½ ft that night, and baited him in with his wife's purse. They set up motion sensors and a baby monitor. He knew there was an intruder inside the garage so we went outside, around to the front of garage where the door is. He then fired 3 shots into the garage at a low level, and 1 at a higher elevation. He called 911 AFTER he fired the shots into the garage, sweeping the entire garage with this battery. THIS IS BASED ON THE POLICE AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE. It is unknown if everything in the affidavit is correct, but it is the closest thing to concrete data we have on what happened at this point in time.

Should the data enclosed in the affidavit be correct, and Felene’s testimony permissible, this is a case of first degree homicide as Kaarma did not feel threatened for his life, but instead had been planning on leaving an opportune scene for a robber, and to corner and gun them down.

This is Murder, and the Castle Doctrine should not be repealed as the state is properly handling this case. All this talk of the Castle Doctrine legalizing murder is some play on pathos by a few crooked politicians to take away your right to defend your life and your family. The law is working as intended, and that is why Kaarma is being charged.
Here is the castle doctrine. It does not apply if the affidavit is true in its accusations.
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure. <<​

Those comments btw were running about 70% against what Kaarma did, and that was only in the first couple of days after the incident.

I appreciate the kind words, Mr Possum and your implied pronouncement that I am not a "gun nut".
While true, I am not a native Alabaman, I do to a great extent, fit in well here. I've even caught myself saying "I'm fixin' ta go ta WalMart, y'all.
I was every bit as pro 2nd Amendment when I lived in Connecticut and Florida. My home in CT had a sticker on the window glass of the front door like this:

And I meant it. I wasn't afraid to say it or to tell people what I would have done if that asshole HAD broken through my front door.
Hell, Pogo, I've even sat in the dark with my .44 in a house under construction after twice having been broken into and having tools stolen.

I've told numerous people that anyone who enters my home uninvited gets dead. Now, am I a "gun nut"?

Of course not. You're a talk nut. You don't get to be a gun nut until you start shooting indiscriminately. But back to the house under construction with the tools stolen -- suppose you're sitting there and you hear a noise coming from a direction that was easily accessible to the general public -- would you have fired into the dark without knowing what the hell you were shooting at?





What exactly are you trying to imply here? Black people are less credible? I have no idea. Anyway there were TWO witnesses in the hairdresser shop; I don't remember the other one's name.



Yeah I pointed this out before.

Damned if I know what he was thinking at the time. I think myself a fairly reasonable man and if someone was in my garage without an invitation around midnight I would expect the worst. I would KILL him. And I think that in Montana, at minimum 25% of the population would do exactly the same thing.

This is exactly where we differ about the nature of Montana. People there are just not anywhere near that paranoid. And yes, that is extremely paranoid.

So, if the defense team does their job in the voir dere stage, Dede gets at worst, a hung jury and the prosecution wouldn't retry.
11:1, yeah the state will retry.
10:2, I'd say 50/50, depending on how DA's are hired/elected in Montana.
9:3, (the worst I'd expect) Nope no retrial.

So.... That's the reality of it, Pogo. Dede should have stayed the hell out of the man's garage. HE instigated his own death.

You're well over my head with the odds ratios; I'm not a gambler. I'll stay within the details of the story and what I know about Montanans, and based on that I'm going with guilty. Because trespassing has never warranted a death penalty.

I would not fire blindly, but if I identified a man sized target in the dark, Yes, I would fire.
This is likely what Kaarma did. A "dark" garage is pretty vague. How dark was it? Was it dark enough that Karma couldn't make out facial features? Was it so dark that he couldn't tell whether the intruder was armed or not?
Or, was it so dark that he had no idea where Deed was?
If it was case #1, It was certainly light enough for Dede to see a man with a gun and put his hands up and surrender. I guess we won't know about that, other than from Kaarma.
If it was case #2, (the most likely) Kaarma was prudent to assume the intruder was armed and dangerous. It is always reasonable to assume that a perpetrator, in the process of committing one felony, may be prepared to commit another.

If, per chance, it was case #3, how the hell did the kid get hit? Did he rush at Kaarma, causing Kaarma to shoot at a sound?
Depending on choke and barrel length, the pattern of a 12 gauge would be at most 2 feet wide within a typical garage. It's very unlikely 4 rounds fired into total darkness would kill the young man.

There's too much room for reasonable doubt here, Possum. Certainly, the prosecution will likely convince a few gun haters like you to vote to convict, but I would bet on a hung jury with no retrial.
No way the prosecution gets 12 of 12. Even odds at 6:6

 

[Ernie S.]

Americans have a habit of shooting people dead for the crime of stepping onto their property.

Yes we do. We also have a high number of thugs that stage home invasions and kill the occupants of the home. The fear that you may be assaulted in your own home is very real here.
As The Prophet John Lenon said, "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

You DO know that was typical Lennon sarcasm I hope... the title actually came from a U.S. gun magazine (not sure which one) that said on its cover "happiness is a warm gun". Lennon remembered, "I just thought it was a fantastic, insane thing to say. A warm gun means you just shot something!" In other words he was as incredulous that there would be such a thought on a magazine as the rest of us are that this incident happened.

I don't dispute the above at all though, we do indeed seem to have more people shot for the crime of trespassing as Noomi noted.

Let's say on the corner of Main and Not Main there are a disproportionate number of drunk driving accidents. Should our advice be to stay away from that intersection, or should it be to actually address the drunk driving problem? It's all well and good to recognize when one has a problem; to then go on doing the same thing anyway in spite of that just makes my head explode.

Or it used to, before I moved to New Orleans and had to get used to it as a regular thing...

Of course addressing the drunk driving problem makes sense, but banning booze and cars would be stupid and encroach on the rights of law abiding people.

We have a problem with people getting shot for trespassing? Hell yes we do! We suspend the driving privileges of people who are convicted of DUI, not the people they kill and maim on their way home from the bar.
What say we get tough on people who trespass, not the people who are forced to live in fear of them.