Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Iceweasel]

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

It's got nothing to do with anarchy or vigilantism, it's the law. It isn't a death penalty because there is no certaintee of death. If you walked up to him while down and helpless and finished him off, you're in trouble. A state sponsored death sentence is very long and complicated.

If "it's the law" that a kid gets his head blown off walking into an open garage, then you're back to "state-sponsored". As I said -- either way. How long one process takes over another is immaterial.

And if you recall a recent execution, there's not always a certainty of death even with all State systems in place. No matter the efficiency; it's the intent.

It's very material. One is self defense and the other is a government punishment. The difference is about 20 years IF the death penalty even gets carried out. You've got one botched example for reasons discussed. It could/should be certain. Hanging would remove the mystery. But you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Katzndogz]

The kid did not merely walk into the garage. He walked into the garage with the intent to steal. He has done it before to this same individual. He had done it twice before. The homeowner was tired of continually replacing stolen items and took a stand.


Getting away with stealing before is what encouraged this teen to steal this time. Not only this kid but all the others who think they should get away with stealing too.

 

[thanatos144]

There is a moral to this story kids.... If you break in to someones house you could get killed for it so dont break into other people property. Secondary moral Liberals only want innocents and cops killed.

Apparently the "moral" is, don't bother making up an argument; just make up a strawman.

Straw men? How so? Is it not true a kid got killed for breaking into someone elses property? Is it also true you find this horrible but support Abortion and cop killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal?

 

[martybegan]

The death penalty inflicted certainly can, which is what those of us with respect for human life are saying here. The question has already been posed and ignored but again, why would you blow the kid away instead of either (a) announcing you have a gun on him or (b) firing a warning shot?



Specious reasoning is making up strawmen because you can't defend your own sorry position.

A homeowner can do that, however they are under no obligation to do that in their own home, or should they be required to do it. All you are doing is placing the homeowner at a disadvantage if the intruder is actually armed, which was an unknown at the time this guy shot the intruder.

This all could have been avoided if he stayed out of the garage, and you refuse to admit that, instead blaming the actual victim here, the homeowner.

Riiiiight... "A" kills "B"; that makes "A" the victim. After all, "B" stole "A"s bullet.

As I said --- specious reasoning.
File under "she was askin' for it!".

B was trespassing and had no right to enter A's property. B was an unknown intruder, on A's property to steal some of A's belongings. A had no way of knowing this.

B created the situation. A was within his rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is an old case. The German exchange student belonged to a gang that played a game called garage hopping. It was break into a garage and steal what you can. He had broken into this man's garage and stolen before.

He had it coming. This is a happy ending.

Exchange student killed 'garage hopping' in Montana - CNN.com Video

He didn't have it coming. In no other modern, industrialzed first world nation in the world does breaking into a garage warrant the death penalty, and not even in our country as far as breaking and entering laws are concerned.

You people delight in killing people.

If someone enters your home uninvited then that person is a threat to you. Period.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem is that though breaking into a house (actually it was the garage) is a crime, it is not a crime that warrants the death penalty.

Why do you refuse to understand that the death penatly was not involved in this?

You are very stupid if you think this is a valid point.

First, you said that.

Of course it was a death penalty

Then you said THAT.


The only way you can make your point here is to redfine the terms you use to suit your needs -- which is, of course, a sure sign that you know your argument is unsound.

But, as you appear to -want- to be wrong, I'll help you a little more:

The government does not execute people for rape - does this mean you have no right to kill someone trying to rape you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you nuts? That's exactly what it was.

The death penalty is an action taken by the state, after a conviction.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

Death penatly: State punishment for committing a crime, exercised after a conviction in court.
Self-defense: Immediate action taken by an individual in response to an immediate threat.
The only similarity in these concepts is that the criminal is dead.

Why do you refuse to accept that you are wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

You are the one using the wording/concept the wrong way. He shot an intruder. Its justifiable homicide, nothing more.

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

I see that you do not understand the meaning of the words "vigilante" and "anarchy".
Not a real surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's vigilante death penalty -- as opposed to state-sponsored. No other difference
See also "anarchy".

It's got nothing to do with anarchy or vigilantism, it's the law. It isn't a death penalty because there is no certaintee of death. If you walked up to him while down and helpless and finished him off, you're in trouble. A state sponsored death sentence is very long and complicated.

You likely will not make any progress here -- its nearly impossible to meaningfully discuss things with people who choose to be wrong.

 

[Pogo]

The death penalty is an action taken by the state, after a conviction.
Why do you refuse to understand this?

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

Death penatly: State punishment for committing a crime, exercised after a conviction in court.
Self-defense: Immediate action taken by an individual in response to an immediate threat.
The only similarity in these concepts is that the criminal is dead.

Why do you refuse to accept that you are wrong?

"Self-defense" requires an actual threat to defend from.

Rather than take the word of an internet message board poster who can only post from ignorance or emotion... let's look it up, shall we?

self-defence
n
1. the act of defending oneself, one's actions, ideas, etc
2. (Boxing) boxing as a means of defending the person (esp in the phrase noble art of self-defence)
3. (Law) law the right to defend one's person, family, or property against attack or threat of attack by the use of no more force than is reasonable -- FreeDic

But leave us make sure we have the legal definition, so we get it right:
self-defense
n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. -- Law.com (emphasis added for the doggedly dense)

You lose.

 

[Pogo]

There is a moral to this story kids.... If you break in to someones house you could get killed for it so dont break into other people property. Secondary moral Liberals only want innocents and cops killed.

Apparently the "moral" is, don't bother making up an argument; just make up a strawman.

Straw men? How so? Is it not true a kid got killed for breaking into someone elses property? Is it also true you find this horrible but support Abortion and cop killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal?

No. You pulled that out of your ass.

 

[Pogo]

after the teen broke into his garage.

Got what he deserved. In America we enjoy being able to protect our property. You break in my home I am not gonna ask you if you intend to harm me. By breaking in you have already made yourself a threat to me and my family.

Riiiight, because walking into an open garage is the same thing as murder.

BROKE IN...ya got that? BROKE IN...period. End of story.

Actually, middle of story. Always pays to actually read the article:

>> A witness said the exchange student was unarmed when he entered Kaarma's open garage as part of a popular local high school prank known as "garage hopping." <<
​

OPEN garage. Ya got that?

Same story also notes just above that part:

>> Paul Ryan, the defendant's attorney, previously said his client would plead not guilty by invoking a defense that is in line with Montana's version of the "castle doctrine," which permits homeowners to use force if they believe there is impending harm or a threat to life, reports Reuters. <<​

"If they believe there is impending harm or a threat to life". Ya got that?

You used violence to FORCE your way into my home. Not gonna stand there and debate whether you are just a moron or are a rapist and murderer. You BROKE into my home which is my castle MY HOME and now you will get treated the way a criminal should be treated. Deal with it.

You're the one that thinks walking into an OPEN garage is "using violence to FORCE your way into my home". First of all I'm not dead, so it's not me, and second, there is no force nor violence required to walk into an open space. Therefore while one of us may be a moron, that ain't me either. And if you actually live in a castle, that might explain why you're illiterate.


Ya got that? You can't just blow people away that pose no threat to your life, end of story.

 

[Pogo]

This is an old case. The German exchange student belonged to a gang that played a game called garage hopping. It was break into a garage and steal what you can. He had broken into this man's garage and stolen before.

He had it coming. This is a happy ending.

Exchange student killed 'garage hopping' in Montana - CNN.com Video

He didn't have it coming. In no other modern, industrialzed first world nation in the world does breaking into a garage warrant the death penalty, and not even in our country as far as breaking and entering laws are concerned.

You people delight in killing people.

If someone enters your home uninvited then that person is a threat to you. Period.

No, they're in your home uninvited. Period.

 

[Kondor3]

...You can't just blow people away that pose no threat to your life, end of story.

Much depends upon the circumstances, whether there were any witnesses, and how good a bullshitter the shooter is, I suspect...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I understand that you think you are being clever when you are not. You are playing word games and think you're oh so smart: you're not. You're playing with words. The concept is the same. You are not fooling anyone, idiot.

Death penatly: State punishment for committing a crime, exercised after a conviction in court.
Self-defense: Immediate action taken by an individual in response to an immediate threat.
The only similarity in these concepts is that the criminal is dead.
Why do you refuse to accept that you are wrong?

"Self-defense" requires an actual threat to defend from.

What's that? Self-defense and the death penalty AREN'T the sqme thing?
What's that? Esmerelda is wrong to try to equate the two?
C'mon. Say it. I know you can.

 

[Pogo]

Death penatly: State punishment for committing a crime, exercised after a conviction in court.
Self-defense: Immediate action taken by an individual in response to an immediate threat.
The only similarity in these concepts is that the criminal is dead.
Why do you refuse to accept that you are wrong?

"Self-defense" requires an actual threat to defend from.

What's that? Self-defense and the death penalty AREN'T the sqme thing?
What's that? Esmerelda is wrong to try to equate the two?
C'mon. Say it. I know you can.

Of course they're not the same thing. That's the whole point here. One is present; one is not.
Esmeralda didn't try to plug in "self-defense"; you did.

What, you need a definition for "death penalty" too?

pen·al·ty [pen-l-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural pen·al·ties.
1.
a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.
2.
a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation.
3.
something that is forfeited, as a sum of money.
4.
a disadvantage imposed upon one of the competitors or upon one side for infraction of the rules of a game, sport, etc.
5.
consequence or disadvantage attached to any action, condition, etc.

I'll give you a few minutes to figure out what "death" means.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One does not have a right to enter another's property whether a door is open or not. The person in question was bent on stealing property from the house and the home owner had no idea what he intended when he entered. Further if I leave my wallet laying in MY garage that dos not permit you to take it no matter if I left the door open or not.

Entering my property in the middle of the night uninvited bent on stealing from me is a crime not a prank and it can and will get you killed if I catch you at it. My family lives here and I will protect them from any and all threats, uninvited thieves are a danger to my family. I do not have the time nor can I risk the chance they are armed to warn them or ask them nicely why they entered my property illegally.

 

[Pogo]

...You can't just blow people away that pose no threat to your life, end of story.

Much depends upon the circumstances, whether there were any witnesses, and how good a bullshitter the shooter is, I suspect...

True. According to the story the guy "went outside and fired a shotgun into his darkened garage, hitting Dede in the arm and head. The boy died a short time later" -- after he (homeowner) was alerted by motion sensors. So he's firing into the unknown.

Which to me sounds like involuntary manslaughter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Self-defense" requires an actual threat to defend from.

What's that? Self-defense and the death penalty AREN'T the sqme thing?
What's that? Esmerelda is wrong to try to equate the two?
C'mon. Say it. I know you can.

Of course they're not the same thing.

Better tell Esmerelda -- she thinks so.
She also thinks you don't have a right to kill someone unless the crime they're committing draws the death penalty.

 

[Pogo]

One does not have a right to enter another's property whether a door is open or not. The person in question was bent on stealing property from the house and the home owner had no idea what he intended when he entered. Further if I leave my wallet laying in MY garage that dos not permit you to take it no matter if I left the door open or not.

Entering my property in the middle of the night uninvited bent on stealing from me is a crime not a prank and it can and will get you killed if I catch you at it. My family lives here and I will protect them from any and all threats, uninvited thieves are a danger to my family. I do not have the time nor can I risk the chance they are armed to warn them or ask them nicely why they entered my property illegally.

So you have the right to use deadly force if you "don't have time".

Thanks for clearing that up. Time is money.