...Trying to parse 'perceived' versus "imaginary" isn't going to get traction...
None underway, and none needed. The law provides all the distinction that is necessary, in the form of the word 'believe' (perceive, in this context).
...External stimuli... none are threats...
Correct. Various external stimuli, acting upon the human mind, create the perception of threat; regardless of whether the threat is real or not. The test is: what constitutes a perception of threat that a reasonable person would believe to be operative.
Here is the Castle Doctrine, as enacted in Montana:
----------
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.
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(
BTW... turns out the garage is attached, and is, therefore, part of the 'occupied structure' )
----------
Note the recurring theme within: 'believes' (perceives)...
Perception in this context is based upon a combination of external stimuli and internalization (conscious thought, hunches, instinct, analysis, conclusions, etc.).
Yielding the perception (belief) that a threat exists.
Your Honor, the Pointless-Squabbling-Over-Synonyms Defense rests.
----------
...Reasonable...
...This is going to be center stage....
Agreed.
...Is it "reasonable" to react to a trespasser by trapping him "like a caged animal" (Kaarma's words) and strafe everything, all the while having no idea what -- or what else -- one may be aiming at...
Doubtful. Is that what happened? Do we know that the shooter 'trapped' the burglar?
Did conditions warrant pumping several rounds into that darkened garage? I dunno.
...Is it "reasonable" to tell people you're sitting up with a baited trap and a shotgun to "kill some ******* kid" (again, Kaarma's own words) several days before doing exactly that, and then claim "defense"?...
No.
The shooter bragged about the possibility some days prior; nolo contendere.
Is that what happened on the night of the shooting, however, or, when push-came-to-shove, did the shooter chicken-out, and just scatter-shot the whole frigging garage in a panic, during the initial burst of firing?
We already know that he was in the house, rather than lying outside in a pre-planned and secure position to lie-in-wait, and that he only picked up his gun and ran outside once the motion-sensors had gone off.
If true, and if it's as simple as that, then, that, too, is a rather far cry from the scenario he bragged about some days earlier.
There appear to be several inconsistencies between the guy's bragging and what actually unfolded that night; enough to make me wonder about malice aforethought. I could be wrong, but I'm reserving judgment on that one.
And, finally, even if he was, indeed, lying in wait (which he apparently was not), then, does it really matter? If his trap-setting resulted in a situation wherein his (or his family's) safety was reasonably perceived to be at-risk, then, even the setting-a-trap piece may not signify.
Police bait traps all the time, while taking just enough care so that they cannot be openly accused of entrapment in a court of law. Sometimes, idiots fall for those traps, sometimes they don't.
Doesn't stop the police from prosecuting the idiots who fell into the traps, though; they were stupid enough to fall for the trap and to commit a crime, they must pay the forfeit.
...Is it even "reasonable" to be shooting into your own house, penetrating your own walls, leaving a 10-month-old baby alone in that same house? Is it "reasonable" to have assumed a sniper position that would only, if not effective, send said intruder INTO said house? Indeed, are ANY of these actions "reasonable"?...
I dunno.
I don't have a schematic of their house, and a diagram of the shooting, to be able to say, with any reliable confidence.
What does this have to do with whether the shooter perceived that a threat existed at the time he pulled the trigger?
...That's what I'd be pounding if I were the Prosecution...
Given how easily some of those points are deflected, you might want to stay out of the criminal defense business.
...Yet it's exactly the pretext you're going with here. The whole purpose of that phrase is to expose the silliness of the logic therein...
Relevant statute in most US States which have a Castle Doctrine -sympathetic law utilize the words 'believe' or 'perceive' to describe the assessing of a potential threat.
There is no disconnect between logic and the use of 'perception' or 'belief' over and over again, amongst the States, and there is no disconnect between logic and a separating of "Imagined threat" from "Perceived threat". Sorry. No budge there.
...The proverbial child is afraid of the dark because of what he IMAGINES out of the unknown. Which is exactly what Kaarma did...
Nope.
His property had been violated twice before in recent times, and the police had done nothing.
His property was violated a third time, that night, his motion sensors and cameras had picked something up, and there was a racket coming out of the darkened garage aperture at the time the trigger was pulled.
That's just a wee bit above the nature of a childhood fear of the dark.
That dog just ain't gonna hunt, Pogo.
...unless of course the whole thing was a vengeance homicide, which is what the circumstances point to, which is why he's charged with that crime.
The circumstances point to no such thing, and neither does the published criminal complaint.
...No quibbles with any of that except the last line where you demonstrate a dogged determination to trivialize a human life into an infield single...
"Ties go to the homeowner-shooter".
Translation: when there is a modicum of reasonable doubt in connection with the shooter and how he reacted to the intruder and/or the situation, that benefit of a doubt goes to the homeowner-shooter.
Spare me your accusations of trivializing human life, when, in fact, I am merely simplifying the language into common metaphorical vernacular.
It's your right to walk through life with your bleeding heart on your sleeve.
I (and most folks, I daresay) get along just fine without doing so, and still manage to function as good, decent human beings.
Despite your admonitions and finger-wagging and tongue-clucking to the contrary.
...Therefore there IS nothing left as a catalyst except Kaarma's own imagination...
Immaterial. All that signifies here is whether a reasonable man would have believed (perceived) that a threat existed, which merited opening fire, at the time the trigger was pulled.
That's the law.
See above.
...Oh wait, that's why I put the inconvenient analogy about witches and holocausts...
Disconnected melodrama merely gets in the way.
...which is a way of awarding a "get out of murder free" card. All you have to do is say you perceived (imagined) a threat. "There's a black guy across the street; I 'perceive' a threat! I hear somebody speaking Arabic -- I 'perceive' a threat!"...
The perception (belief) must be reasonable. See Montana law, above. The jury decides.
That's why the excerpt from Felene Sherbondy is in there; it would have no other function. It's there exactly because it establishes premeditation and intent.
