Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Esmeralda]

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.

Not at all! Shooting someone who has broken into your home is NOT murder.

In this case it is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Not at all! Shooting someone who has broken into your home is NOT murder.

In this case it is.

Ohh so there has already been a trial and a verdict? Link us to it.

 

[Esmeralda]

Not at all! Shooting someone who has broken into your home is NOT murder.

In this case it is.

Ohh so there has already been a trial and a verdict? Link us to it.

Whether or not this case has been tried in court, morally and ethically it is murder. The murderer lay in wait for this guy and blew him away without knowing who it was or what he was doing there and in the dark: he couldn't even see him. Shooting an unarmed teenager engaged in a prank, in the dark, without ascertaining what was going on, shooting him when the murderer could have just as easily locked himself and his family in the house and called the police: MURDER. My prediction is this guy will be convicted of murder because he set a trap for this kid and lay in wait for him. You gun nuts have a lot to answer for.

 

[Pogo]

Death is not the punishment for housebreaking or theft. You are happy he is dead. That makes you a very sick person.

No one is happy the kid is dead. I am extremely happy the home owner, his wife and his child are not dead. I am overjoyed that the deceased will never break into another home.
The story could have had a far better outcome, namely the homeowner, his family and possessions intact, AND the student could have lived, had he NOT entered a private dwelling without permission.

So -- do you dream in black and white too Ernie?

Happy the home owner and his family are not dead? There's no reason they should be --- except for a Head of Household who goes around shooting guns into the dark. Actually you're right -- the family is damn lucky they haven't been on the receiving end of this already. God forbid somebody should get up and creak a stair going to the bathroom.

I gotta say, from my experiences in Montana, this is not at all typical behavior. Every Montanan I've encountered has been a solid, friendly, down-to-earth good heart. Sadly there are exceptions everywhere.

 

[Esmeralda]

Death is not the punishment for housebreaking or theft. You are happy he is dead. That makes you a very sick person.

No one is happy the kid is dead. I am extremely happy the home owner, his wife and his child are not dead. I am overjoyed that the deceased will never break into another home.
The story could have had a far better outcome, namely the homeowner, his family and possessions intact, AND the student could have lived, had he NOT entered a private dwelling without permission.

So -- do you dream in black and white too Ernie?

Happy the home owner and his family are not dead? There's no reason they should be --- except for a Head of Household who goes around shooting guns into the dark. Actually you're right -- the family is damn lucky they haven't been on the receiving end of this already. God forbid somebody should get up and creak a stair going to the bathroom.

I gotta say, from my experiences in Montana, this is not at all typical behavior. Every Montanan I've encountered has been a solid, friendly, down-to-earth good heart. Sadly there are exceptions everywhere.

And things have changed in the past couple of decades. IMO it all goes back to radio and television asses like Rush Limbaugh as well as Faux News and their extreme right wing approach to reality. People have been brainwashed and they don't even know it. America did not used to be like this.

 

[Ernie S.]

Involuntary Manslaughter: Definition
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

Elements of the Offense
Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Charges of involuntary manslaughter often come in the wake of a deadly car crash caused by a motorist under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. While the motorist never intended to kill anyone, his or her negligence in operating a car while impaired is enough to meet the requirements of the charge.

(Findlaw)​

Clearly all three criteria are more than met.

Second Degree Murder: Definition
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.​

(Findlaw)

Voluntary Manslaughter: Definition
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought (aka, murder) and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense. (Findlaw)​

Prosecutor's choice here.

No. Sorry, it's may be the prosecutor's choice, but all choices assume the act was unlawful. Montana law says a homeowner can use deadly force against an unlawful intruder if he believes himself or others to be in danger. The onus is on the state to prove he was NOT in fear for his life and well being. They can go ahead with the case, if they like, but #1, it will be nearly impossible to find a jury in Montana willing to convict and #2, any conviction is 100% sure to be overturned on appeal. The law is quite plain. The homeowner was within his rights to protect his self and family.

 

[Esmeralda]

Involuntary Manslaughter: Definition
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

Elements of the Offense
Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Charges of involuntary manslaughter often come in the wake of a deadly car crash caused by a motorist under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. While the motorist never intended to kill anyone, his or her negligence in operating a car while impaired is enough to meet the requirements of the charge.

(Findlaw)​

Clearly all three criteria are more than met.

Second Degree Murder: Definition
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.​

(Findlaw)

Voluntary Manslaughter: Definition
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought (aka, murder) and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense. (Findlaw)​

Prosecutor's choice here.

No. Sorry, it's may be the prosecutor's choice, but all choices assume the act was unlawful. Montana law says a homeowner can use deadly force against an unlawful intruder if he believes himself or others to be in danger. The onus is on the state to prove he was NOT in fear for his life and well being. They can go ahead with the case, if they like, but #1, it will be nearly impossible to find a jury in Montana willing to convict and #2, any conviction is 100% sure to be overturned on appeal. The law is quite plain. The homeowner was within his rights to protect his self and family.

Here's the crux of the matter right here: if he believes anyone is in danger. IF and BELIEF are the operative words. Apparently twice before kids had entered his garage and stolen beer or some other rather valueless items. No one had tried to enter the house; no one's safety had been threatened. This homeowner had no reason whatsoever to believe either he or his family were in danger of any bodily harm. He can say he believed it: but even within that stupid law, he can't just say it: there has to be a rational reason for that belief. If not, everyone in the country could just shoot anyone who stepped on their porch because he 'believed' he was in danger. The jury isn't going to buy it.

 

[Ernie S.]

No one is happy the kid is dead. I am extremely happy the home owner, his wife and his child are not dead. I am overjoyed that the deceased will never break into another home.
The story could have had a far better outcome, namely the homeowner, his family and possessions intact, AND the student could have lived, had he NOT entered a private dwelling without permission.

So -- do you dream in black and white too Ernie?

Happy the home owner and his family are not dead? There's no reason they should be --- except for a Head of Household who goes around shooting guns into the dark. Actually you're right -- the family is damn lucky they haven't been on the receiving end of this already. God forbid somebody should get up and creak a stair going to the bathroom.

I gotta say, from my experiences in Montana, this is not at all typical behavior. Every Montanan I've encountered has been a solid, friendly, down-to-earth good heart. Sadly there are exceptions everywhere.

And things have changed in the past couple of decades. IMO it all goes back to radio and television asses like Rush Limbaugh as well as Faux News and their extreme right wing approach to reality. People have been brainwashed and they don't even know it. America did not used to be like this.

America was always like this. Hell when I was a kid, if you broke into someone's home and got shot, they rarely found your corpse. If you shot an intruder and did happen to call the police to get the body out of your house, they would ask a couple of questions, ask you if you wanted a drink and cart the body off. I saw it happen. In Connecticut, of all places. That was in 1966.

 

[Pogo]

Involuntary Manslaughter: Definition
Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

Elements of the Offense
Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Charges of involuntary manslaughter often come in the wake of a deadly car crash caused by a motorist under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. While the motorist never intended to kill anyone, his or her negligence in operating a car while impaired is enough to meet the requirements of the charge.

(Findlaw)​

Clearly all three criteria are more than met.

Second Degree Murder: Definition
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.​

(Findlaw)

Voluntary Manslaughter: Definition
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought (aka, murder) and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense. (Findlaw)​

Prosecutor's choice here.

No. Sorry, it's may be the prosecutor's choice, but all choices assume the act was unlawful.

Well, no they don't. That's why I posted these definitions.
Involuntary manslaughter: "recklessness or criminal negligence": the guy shot into the dark, apparently knowing only that a motion sensor had registered something.

It could have been a child. Maybe even his own. Do you shoot at things you can't see?


Murder 2: "1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life." -- certainly "dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life" apply.

Voluntary Manslaughter: "The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed" -- the guy shot into the dark. That sounds "emotionally or mentally disturbed" to me.

Obviously when I say "prosecutor's choice" I'm saying that any of the above may be applied, from what we know here.

Montana law says a homeowner can use deadly force against an unlawful intruder if he believes himself or others to be in danger. The onus is on the state to prove he was NOT in fear for his life and well being. They can go ahead with the case, if they like, but #1, it will be nearly impossible to find a jury in Montana willing to convict and #2, any conviction is 100% sure to be overturned on appeal. The law is quite plain. The homeowner was within his rights to protect his self and family.

Once again, as already stated, in order to "self-defend" you must have something to self-defend against. If you're shooting into a dark garage and you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then you're not gonna be able to make a case that you believe anybody to be in danger.

You can't have it both ways; either there's a known threat or an unknown unknown. For a known danger, you defend; but for an unknown there's only one defense, and that's to determine what you're dealing with. That's what this guy failed to do. The man SHOT INTO THE DARK. Literally. Therefore what he was shooting at was his own imagination. Rotsa ruck making a case for self-defense against one's own imagination.

 

[Esmeralda]

So -- do you dream in black and white too Ernie?

Happy the home owner and his family are not dead? There's no reason they should be --- except for a Head of Household who goes around shooting guns into the dark. Actually you're right -- the family is damn lucky they haven't been on the receiving end of this already. God forbid somebody should get up and creak a stair going to the bathroom.

I gotta say, from my experiences in Montana, this is not at all typical behavior. Every Montanan I've encountered has been a solid, friendly, down-to-earth good heart. Sadly there are exceptions everywhere.

And things have changed in the past couple of decades. IMO it all goes back to radio and television asses like Rush Limbaugh as well as Faux News and their extreme right wing approach to reality. People have been brainwashed and they don't even know it. America did not used to be like this.

America was always like this. Hell when I was a kid, if you broke into someone's home and got shot, they rarely found your corpse. If you did call the police to get the body out of your house, they would ask a couple of questions, ask you if you wanted a drink and cart the body off. I saw it happen. In Connecticut, of all places. That was in 1966.

And this was your learning curve was it? You decided then and there that's how reality should be? Of course, in that scenario, it was probably the case a real burglar, armed, had broken into a home and meant to do harm or at least steal valuable items. In this case, a kid was doing a prank and not intending to steal anything of particular value nor was he armed: nor did he essentially break into anything: the door was left wide open. So, you extend your little life lesson of 1966 to any situation where someone walks onto your property? Cool. Sicko.

 

[Politico]

In killing criminals? Yes. Of course. They have a choice. They can stop committing crimes. They can stop committing crimes as a source of enjoyment.

She just hates guns. That's why she started another thread on the same incident like it was new.

It is new to me. I don't live in the States at present (though I am an American), and the news about the trial is the first I knew about this incident. I remember another story some years back where a man killed a Japanese exchange student who knocked on his door on Halloween, looking for a party. There was a communication problem, and the homeowner shot the young man. WTF is wrong with the pro-gun Americans? Why do you keep killing unarmed people who are on or near your property? Why are you so scared and territorial? Why do you think non-violent crimes justify the death penalty? Why do you take such delight in killing people? Why do you cling so tenaciously to your guns? You're sick. It is a sickness. One that is palpably repugnant and horrifying.

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

 

[Esmeralda]

She just hates guns. That's why she started another thread on the same incident like it was new.

It is new to me. I don't live in the States at present (though I am an American), and the news about the trial is the first I knew about this incident. I remember another story some years back where a man killed a Japanese exchange student who knocked on his door on Halloween, looking for a party. There was a communication problem, and the homeowner shot the young man. WTF is wrong with the pro-gun Americans? Why do you keep killing unarmed people who are on or near your property? Why are you so scared and territorial? Why do you think non-violent crimes justify the death penalty? Why do you take such delight in killing people? Why do you cling so tenaciously to your guns? You're sick. It is a sickness. One that is palpably repugnant and horrifying.

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

He wasn't in the house, he was in the garage. He never attempted to enter the house. All the rest of your rant is just that: a mindless rant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is new to me. I don't live in the States at present (though I am an American), and the news about the trial is the first I knew about this incident. I remember another story some years back where a man killed a Japanese exchange student who knocked on his door on Halloween, looking for a party. There was a communication problem, and the homeowner shot the young man. WTF is wrong with the pro-gun Americans? Why do you keep killing unarmed people who are on or near your property? Why are you so scared and territorial? Why do you think non-violent crimes justify the death penalty? Why do you take such delight in killing people? Why do you cling so tenaciously to your guns? You're sick. It is a sickness. One that is palpably repugnant and horrifying.

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

He wasn't in the house, he was in the garage. He never attempted to enter the house. All the rest of your rant is just that: a mindless rant.

Last time I checked my garage is connected and part of my house. All that stops a thief from entering is a single door. Someone illegally enters my garage in the middle of the night bent on illegal activity and i catch them I will use deadly force to protect my family as I do not know what they are up to, whether they are armed or intent on harming me or my family.

As for never attempting to enter the house we don't know that as he was stopped short of that. And it is not murder unless a Jury says so. Last I checked no Jury has so ruled. And in this Country one is Innocent till proven guilty.

Montana law allows home defense, the prosecution is going to have a hard time over coming that hurdle.

 

[Kondor3]

Well, apparently you don't. Ask Zimmerman. Ask the clown in the OP. And of course there are self-defense rights in other countries. Of course the issue is firearms. This student would still be alive if this guy didn't bring out his peashooter, or confront the guy.

Someone comes on your property, and you're not supposed to confront the guy?

Is that what you're trying to pitch to the class here?

No, I'm trying to pitch that each scenario needs to be treated differently.

Agreed.

An armed guy walks up your driveway with a hoodie on, and you have a shotgun at your disposal? All bets are off.

Unless the guy with the hoodie is snacking on skittles and iced tea.

Some 17 year old kid running around in your garage - and you know somebody is there, but you don't know who - grab your gun, call the cops and wait.

If it's pitch-dark, you really don't know. And, if there's no cover to hunker-down behind, and you're out in the open, awaiting whatever comes out of that pitch-dark void, then it may make sense to pull the trigger. I dunno.

If he breaks into the house, all bets are off... see how that works? Your attitude seems to be 'shoot first ask, questions later'..to which I say bollocks.

Of course I see how that works.

I would like to think that I would have called the cops (or yelled over my shoulder to have the wife call the cops as I headed outside), and hunkered-down in the driveway, cocked-and-locked, before deciding to (a) wait it out or (b) issue a voice-challenge.

But we don't know whether the guy was out-in-the-open or hunkered-down behind cover, we don't know what vague shapes and motions he might have seen or sensed from the pitch-dark void of the open garage door, we don't know what he heard (if anything) in the moment(s) before pulling the trigger, etc. It's also possible that the guy was scared out of his wits and was in Neanderthal-Defensive-Mode and eliminated the potential threat before it could manifest; not entirely in possession of his own faculties at the moment of truth.

I dunno. I wasn't there. I want more data before I move to judgment, even on a personal level, never mind a legal one.

But I DO believe that the use of firearms and lethal force in the defense of one's hearth and home and kindred is both legitimate and necessary under a wide variety of circumstances.

I also believe that this unfortunate homeowner - whose nighttime encounter with an idiot teenager who stupidly put himself into harms' way - should not become a Gun-Grabber's Anti-Hero poster boy, without the attempt being challenged - vigorously.

When in doubt, err on the side of the homeowner.

 

[Kondor3]

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

He wasn't in the house, he was in the garage. He never attempted to enter the house. All the rest of your rant is just that: a mindless rant.

Last time I checked my garage is connected and part of my house. All that stops a thief from entering is a single door. Someone illegally enters my garage in the middle of the night bent on illegal activity and i catch them I will use deadly force to protect my family as I do not know what they are up to, whether they are armed or intent on harming me or my family.

As for never attempting to enter the house we don't know that as he was stopped short of that. And it is not murder unless a Jury says so. Last I checked no Jury has so ruled. And in this Country one is Innocent till proven guilty.

Montana law allows home defense, the prosecution is going to have a hard time over coming that hurdle.

Correct.

It was probably stupid to even charge the guy.

When in doubt, err on the side of the homeowner.

Nature has de-selected the idiot teenager.

 

[Politico]

It is new to me. I don't live in the States at present (though I am an American), and the news about the trial is the first I knew about this incident. I remember another story some years back where a man killed a Japanese exchange student who knocked on his door on Halloween, looking for a party. There was a communication problem, and the homeowner shot the young man. WTF is wrong with the pro-gun Americans? Why do you keep killing unarmed people who are on or near your property? Why are you so scared and territorial? Why do you think non-violent crimes justify the death penalty? Why do you take such delight in killing people? Why do you cling so tenaciously to your guns? You're sick. It is a sickness. One that is palpably repugnant and horrifying.

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

He wasn't in the house, he was in the garage. He never attempted to enter the house. All the rest of your rant is just that: a mindless rant.

Exactly. The owner of the garage attached to the house on the property the bad guy crossed to break into had no right to defend it. You hate guns. We get it Leftytoon.

 

[Geaux4it]

It is new to me. I don't live in the States at present (though I am an American), and the news about the trial is the first I knew about this incident. I remember another story some years back where a man killed a Japanese exchange student who knocked on his door on Halloween, looking for a party. There was a communication problem, and the homeowner shot the young man. WTF is wrong with the pro-gun Americans? Why do you keep killing unarmed people who are on or near your property? Why are you so scared and territorial? Why do you think non-violent crimes justify the death penalty? Why do you take such delight in killing people? Why do you cling so tenaciously to your guns? You're sick. It is a sickness. One that is palpably repugnant and horrifying.

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

He wasn't in the house, he was in the garage. He never attempted to enter the house. All the rest of your rant is just that: a mindless rant.

Bottom line here lefties- Tell your kids to quit disrespecting the peoples property and to stay on the street. Don't walk into peoples personal property. If the lefties start to home train their kids then maybe there would be less Daddy's in prison

-Geaux

 

[M14 Shooter]

MT law:

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.
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

Further, the state has the burdern to prove that the use of force was not justified.
http://votesmart.org/static/billtext/24745.pdf
Passed into law 4-27-2009
Montana HB 228 - Amending Concealed Weapons and Self-Defense Statutes - Key Vote - Project Vote Smart

And so, it is self-defense until proven otherwise - no matter how much -you- may disagree.

Nope. Case not proven.
In order to "self-defend" you must have something to defend against. In order to have that the latter must acually exist. Imagination doesn't quiiiiiiite meet that criterion. Nor do ghoulies and ghosties and long leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night. This guy according to the story shot into "the dark".

Not according to the law.
According to th law, he acted in self-defense until proven otherwise.
It doesn't matter how much -you- disagree, and YOUR opinion on the legitimacy of the shoot is meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, apparently you don't. Ask Zimmerman. Ask the clown in the OP. And of course there are self-defense rights in other countries. Of course the issue is firearms. This student would still be alive if this guy didn't bring out his peashooter, or confront the guy.

Someone comes on your property, and you're not supposed to confront the guy?

Is that what you're trying to pitch to the class here?

No, I'm trying to pitch that each scenario needs to be treated differently. An armed guy walks up your driveway with a hoodie on, and you have a shotgun at your disposal? All bets are off. Some 17 year old kid running around in your garage - and you know somebody is there, but you don't know who - grab your gun, call the cops and wait. If he breaks into the house, all bets are off... see how that works? Your attitude seems to be "shoot first ask, questions later"..to which I say bollocks.

You seem to be arguing against the law, but still focus on the gun. Why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Not at all! Shooting someone who has broken into your home is NOT murder.

In this case it is.

Not according to the law, which assumes the shoot was legitimate until proven otherwise.