...The basic problem with that is this: by definition one cannot be 'threatened' by the unknown...
OK, now that's just silly.
This is not about a dictionary or textbook definition of an
actual threat.
This is about the
perception of threat; in this legal context, would a reasonable person feel sufficiently threatened to discharge a firearm into a darkened area.
...If one feels threatened in that case, then that threat can only be coming from within...
But of course.
All perceptions come from within, including perceived threat.
...meaning you're being threatened by your own imagination...
Meaning that you perceive a threat based upon the combination of circumstances presenting (
motion-sensor triggering, spy-camera movement detection and image-capture, unlit area with darkened background, sudden and loud noises from within that darkened area, etc.) at the time of the shooting.
...Who has the right to kill somebody based on their own imagination?...
Not imagination, but perceived threat, based upon presenting circumstances (see above). The only issue in this narrow context is whether that perception was sufficiently reasonable so as to legitimize the shooting.
...I believe that's happened more than a couple of times in human history-- witch burnings, holocausts, lynchings, political persecutions-- NONE of those achieved sociocultural approval; ALL of them were cases of the powerful abusing their position...
Spare us the disconnected hyperbole and faux history lesson.
...This is borne out by the fact that once the lights went on and all could be seen, indeed no threat had ever existed...
The shooter did not know this at the time the trigger was pulled.
Again, we are not dealing with
actual threat, but
perceived threat at the time the trigger was pulled.
Perceived threat is all, to both prosecution and defense, and will form the core upon which this case revolves; just as we see with other rules-of-engagement -centric trials.
...Which is why the most basic rule of firearm use is to see and know what one is shooting at...
Unless it can be successfully argued that hesitation on the part of the shooter, against an opponent shielded by darkness, was legitimately perceived by the shooter as an unacceptable risk to his life.
When in doubt, ties go to the homeowner-shooter.
...Suddenly that's suspended because it's inconvenient?...
Nope. I'm sure the Defense will make a strong case for hesitation posing an unnecessary risk to the homeowner. Whether that's sufficient for the jury is up to them to decide.
...And once again, there was no 'IF' in his rant; Kaarma spoke of what he was going to do and was already engaged in (the trap) -- he presented no conditions...
This is certainly going to present problems for the Defense, but, it's also entirely possible that the Defense will be able to surmount this. In the shooter's favor is the idea that he was inside the house and at-rest and not 'lying in wait' at the time his property was invaded, and that he knee-jerk-reacted by running out into the driveway, rather than taking-up a bulletproof challenge-position. Will it be enough? I dunno.
...He in fact predicted they would be 'seeing this on the ******* news'. News doesn't report IFs...
And he was right. He saw it on the news. Although the sequence of events by which that materialized was probably much different (not lying in wait) than he'd mouthed-off about.
...The only thing he was vague about was whether he was actually going to shoot a cop; he didn't quite commit to that...
Was there ever any question of Kaarma committing violence against the police?
Really? I had not heard that. Any link available in support of such speculation?
...And we know nothing could be seen, as Markus Kaarma himself described it that way and swept across the garage so as to cover everything. Is he lying about that?...
Is there any reason to suspect that Kaarma was lying about the darkened garage?
That would certainly change things, but I had not heard that, either. Got a link?
...Because if he is, meaning he could see, it means he knowingly slaughtered a kid that he knew was no threat.
His case would, indeed, suffer a 'hit', from such a revelation.
However, we both (and the rest of us, too) know that the mere fact that a room is lighted, is not ipso facto evidence that the shooter had a clear line of sight to his target, nor does it automatically and substantively prove that the shooter had definite and practical knowledge that his target was armed or unarmed.
If, for example, the target (the idiot-teen, Dede), ws hunkered-down on the other side of a car, or other object(s) in the garage, or if the view of Dede was otherwise compromised, the lit status of the garage may not prove anywhere near as problematic for the Defense as you seem to believe.
Again... when in doubt, the tie (benefit of a doubt) goes to the homeowner.
