Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[M14 Shooter]

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

So is abortion.


Murder is the unlawfull killing of another person; the law assumes that the homeowner acted legitimately until the state proves othewise.

So, your claims of murder are not only unfounded, but bigoted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Prosecutor's choice here.

The prosecutor must also prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear for his life, for the law presumes he did.
He doesn't need to prove this to you, he needs to prove this to 12 unbased people from the same county as the accused.
So... YOUR opinion on the matter could not possibly mean any less.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Why do you refuse to uderstand that the burden is on the state to prove that the accused had no reasonable reason to believe that he was in danger?

 

[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.

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.

If you know there is a person in your darkened garage, you have to assume he is armed because if you don't and you are wrong, YOU are the victim. I refuse to be a willing victim.
I have to question just how dark WAS the garage? The home owner had enough light to hit the perp twice. It was likely light enough to see a person clearly enough to aim.

 

[PredFan]

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, pleads not guilty in shooting death of German exchange student - CBS News

Suspect in German exchange student killing pleads not guilty.

Another unarmed teenanger is sacraficed to the pro-gun pitbull grip on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

American is the only modern Western country where unarmed burglary seems to warrant a death sentence.

Come into my house or garage and you will eat lead. Don't like it? Quit stealing.

 

[PredFan]

And you have all the facts? I don't live in the US, though I am an American, and this is the first time I have heard of this incident. It appears the homeowner lay in wait for this guy and then shot at him in a darkened garage, not caring if he killed him and not knowing if this kid was armed or not or meant any bodily harm to the homeowners. It's murder as far as I am concerned: not self defense or defense of your home. Material possessions are not as important as human life and this was a young kid, only 17, and unarmed.

As I said: you people simply delight in killing other people.

Stupid statement. We don't delight in killing people. We don't delight in killing criminals either but we won't hesitate either.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

The home had been broken into twice before. Items of value WERE stolen in the past. Someone broke in for the 3rd time. It is logical to assume that items of value would be stolen again. It was also prudent to assume that, if confronted, the perpetrator would react with force.
Yes. What worked in 1966 should work today. People are if anything, more violent and more apt to commit armed burglary these days than they were 50 years ago.

 

[martybegan]

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.

If you know there is a person in your darkened garage, you have to assume he is armed because if you don't and you are wrong, YOU are the victim. I refuse to be a willing victim.
I have to question just how dark WAS the garage? The home owner had enough light to hit the perp twice. It was likely light enough to see a person clearly enough to aim.

I believe he used a shotgun, if he fired shot and not slugs, aiming isn't required.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals really believe that there is a right to take someone else's property. Underneath all their complaints and protests, this is the foundation.

 

[Ernie S.]

If it was a shotgun, I apologize. It's been a while since I read the article.

Depending on the distance, some aiming might be necessary, at least enough light to detect a person would be needed to choose a direction to fire. Now, if there is just enough light to point a shotgun in the general direction, there is likely not enough light to be sure the intruder is unarmed.

I'm shooting. I don't want to die tonight.

 

[Ernie S.]

Liberals really believe that there is a right to take someone else's property. Underneath all their complaints and protests, this is the foundation.

Yup that's the bottom line. Work hard, pay your own way, and the government will take a portion of your wealth to support the layabouts. Hell! The government does it.... Robbery is more efficient. It removes the middleman.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals really believe that there is a right to take someone else's property. Underneath all their complaints and protests, this is the foundation.

Yup that's the bottom line. Work hard, pay your own way, and the government will take a portion of your wealth to support the layabouts. Hell! The government does it.... Robbery is more efficient. It removes the middleman.

Robbery, like the knockout game, is also fun. It's in the constitution, pursuit of happiness. This young man was only doing what the government wanted him to do, have a good time redistributing the property of another.

 

[Pogo]

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.


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.

Exactly, a salient point which relates directly to the voluntary manslaughter definition above. That is in fact why I posted it.

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.

I don't know who has suggested "gun grabbing" or what that's got to do with anything, but this is about the act already committed.

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

Unfortunately an unarmed teenager who posed no threat is dead, and there's no doubt about that. What there is doubt about is whether shooting into the dark, not even knowing who or what one is shooting at, is not an act of recklessness and/or obvious lack of concern for human life.

Hard to see how it isn't.

And again, if you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then it's impossible to make the case that you feared for your safety. Lethal force in self defense against a legitimately equally lethal threat is legally protected, but as far as I know lethal force against simply being afraid of the dark is not.

Again -- what if it had been a younger child in there? Even his own child? Nobody seems to want to touch that question.

 

[Pogo]

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.

"Stupid"?

So shooting into dark rooms when nobody knows who's in there should be immune from the law?

 

[Kondor3]

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

Agreed.


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


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.


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.

Exactly, a salient point which relates directly to the voluntary manslaughter definition above. That is in fact why I posted it.

Nolo contendere.

If true, then I don't believe that would fall under the category of 'voluntary'; more like temporary insanity or similar temporary mental impairment. A perfect loophole, if he can get away it.

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.

I don't know who has suggested "gun grabbing" or what that's got to do with anything, but this is about the act already committed.

It wasn't you doing the suggesting, insofar as I am aware, but the Gun Grabbers come out in force on threads like this.

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

Unfortunately an unarmed teenager who posed no threat is dead, and there's no doubt about that. What there is doubt about is whether shooting into the dark, not even knowing who or what one is shooting at, is not an act of recklessness and/or obvious lack of concern for human life.

Hard to see how it isn't.

The unarmed teenager deliberately put himself into harm's way in an unlit area, through the commission of a breaking-and-entering crime (above-and-beyond simple trespassing, even if there was no 'breaking' inherent in the situation). And, you're right, there is DOUBT about whether shooting into the dark under such circumstances constitutes recklessness or lack of concern for human life. DOUBT.

REASONABLE doubt.

And again, if you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then it's impossible to make the case that you feared for your safety. Lethal force in self defense against a legitimately equally lethal threat is legally protected, but as far as I know lethal force against simply being afraid of the dark is not.

Disagree. The guy could very well have grabbed his gun, gone into the driveway, heard the commotion in the garage, then shit his pants at the thought of a looming confrontation, before pulling the trigger. I dunno. Neither do you. Impasse.

Again -- what if it had been a younger child in there? Even his own child? Nobody seems to want to touch that question.

Then the child would be dead.

Question touched.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

"Stupid"?

So shooting into dark rooms when nobody knows who's in there should be immune from the law?

Yes.

It was probably stupid to charge the guy.

Because it will probably be very easy for him to wiggle out of this.

Making this a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[Pogo]

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.

"Self defense" is in your own desperation. It's not part of the story. For the umpteenth time, in order to defend yourself, there must exist a threat your're defending yourself from. No such threat existed here, therefore there is no possible self-defense legal defense that need be proven or disproven. Because that (legal) defense has no basis.

Once again, definitions posted earlier, reiterated:
self-defence
n
...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

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)

Obviously the emphasized parts are not met here.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Bullshit.

The law protects citizens from reckless endangerment. And in accordance with that function, the law already charged this guy.

On what planet does the law simply assume all gunshots are legitimate until some entity comes in with a wrongful death suit?

 

[Pogo]

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

So is abortion.


Murder is the unlawfull killing of another person; the law assumes that the homeowner acted legitimately until the state proves othewise.

So, your claims of murder are not only unfounded, but bigoted.

Number one, the law "assumes" no such thing. The law actually charged this guy in its role of protecting the public. Number two, given the definition:

big·ot·ry
ˈbigətrē/
noun
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.​

- if there's any "bigotry", it's in your own post here that wants to dismiss everything and allow random shooting into dark places regardless the consequences.

Which is also irony, so good job multitasking.

 

[Pogo]

Prosecutor's choice here.

The prosecutor must also prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear for his life, for the law presumes he did.
He doesn't need to prove this to you, he needs to prove this to 12 unbased people from the same county as the accused.
So... YOUR opinion on the matter could not possibly mean any less.

Again, bullshit. The law "presumes" nothing based on your unilateral fiat. If the law "presumed" he did, then the same law would have nothing to charge him with. Think about it.

It's not the prosecution that must prove a negative; it's the defense that must make its case -- if indeed it decides to use that for a defense. What you suggest here is absurd.