German exchange student killed. Montana SYG law

[Seth]

It's funny how the abundance of guns is used to justify the abundance of guns.
And the frequency of killings is used to justify killings.

Only the half-wits across the pond could say it all with a straight face.

Only quarter-wits over there would fail to understand that guns are inanimate objects and it's the intent of the user that makes them either a public benefit or detriment.

[Seth]

Kid was in the garage, not in the house, unless he starts trying to break down the door into the house he isn't posing any threat to the occupants.

The garage is legally part of the "occupied structure."

No way in hell I'm opening a garage door and firing multiple rounds into it without knowing who is in there and what is going on. No way I'm leaving my garage open and unsecured with visible valuables in it.

He knew someone was in there because he set up cameras and motion detectors. He has every right to leave his garage door open 24/7, and doing so doesn't authorize anyone to enter it without permission, ever.

All this sort of droolingly imbecilic behavior is going to accomplish is to rile up public opinion to the point SYG laws are repealed, which is not something I want to see. They need to put this moron away before he kills someone else over a fucking lawnmower.

Neither SYG nor Castle Doctrine laws are going to be repealed any time soon. They are in fact spreading all over.

Look, someone comes into my house I'm going to waste them, full stop. But I hear someone in my garage I'm calling the cops. There's nothing in there worth their life OR mine. For all this idiot knew there were a couple of gangbangers out there with Uzis.[/quote]

You just wiped out the case against him with that single statement. You're right, they could have been armed gangbangers, and they were in his "occupied structure," and they (arguably) gave him a reasonable belief he was going to be assaulted (as you point out), which under Montana law justifies his use of deadly force.

[/quote]Guy probably just finished "Tactical Takedowns for Dummies", because no one with any sort of training is going to stick a fucking shotgun around the door and start blasting away blindly.[/quote]

Well, I never said he was either smart or tactically proficient, just that he likely acted within the four corners of the law.

In any event, this will hopefully put other burglars in Montana on notice that whether their victim goes to prison or not, they might get dead, which hopefully will persuade them to take up an honest occupation.

[mistermack]

It's funny how the abundance of guns is used to justify the abundance of guns.
And the frequency of killings is used to justify killings.

Only the half-wits across the pond could say it all with a straight face.

Only quarter-wits over there would fail to understand that guns are inanimate objects and it's the intent of the user that makes them either a public benefit or detriment.

I certainly understand that. I also understand that a high proportion of gun owners are morons, and that's why innocent people keep getting killed.
You can't ban morons, but you can ban guns.

[Seth]

It does reek of someone looking for a reason to kill somebody, dunnit? That was a shit-for-brains tactic from the get-go.

Yup. And the shit-for-brains burglar gave him a legal reason to do it.

Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me.

[Seth]

Trayvon Martin was returning home from the shop, when he got killed. The asshole still got off.

Trayvon Martin tried to kill the man who killed him in lawful self-defense, as the jury ruled. Trayvon Martin committed suicide by victim.

This asshole has nothing to worry about.

What it needs is for a Kennedy kid to get shot.

Well, they seem to have stopped committing criminal acts lately, so you may be out of luck.

Now where was Harry Reid when you really need him?

[Seth]

It's funny how the abundance of guns is used to justify the abundance of guns.
And the frequency of killings is used to justify killings.

Only the half-wits across the pond could say it all with a straight face.

Only quarter-wits over there would fail to understand that guns are inanimate objects and it's the intent of the user that makes them either a public benefit or detriment.

I certainly understand that. I also understand that a high proportion of gun owners are morons, and that's why innocent people keep getting killed.
You can't ban morons, but you can ban guns.

You can ban guns, but it won't stop crooks from having guns, all it will do is keep victims from protecting themselves.

The burglar wasn't innocent, which is the whole point.

[MrJonno]

I certainly understand that. I also understand that a high proportion of gun owners are morons, and that's why innocent people keep getting killed.
You can't ban morons, but you can ban guns.

Very sensible its a lot easier to restrict tools than it is to restrict people.

[mistermack]

The burglar wasn't innocent, which is the whole point.

The kid WAS innocent. Just shows that you don't understand the very simple point.

[Seth]

I certainly understand that. I also understand that a high proportion of gun owners are morons, and that's why innocent people keep getting killed.
You can't ban morons, but you can ban guns.

Very sensible its a lot easier to restrict tools than it is to restrict people.

Except that it does no good and makes things worse, because the people who obey restrictive laws aren't the ones misusing the tools in the first place.

If we could ban morons, you'd be wearing concrete overshoes already.

[Seth]

The burglar wasn't innocent, which is the whole point.

The kid WAS innocent. Just shows that you missed the very simple point.

Ipso facto and de jure he was not. He was illegally in someone else's garage in the middle of the night rooting around in stuff that didn't belong to him. That's the very definition of burglary.

The fact that he was an exchange student is irrelevant. The fact that he was young is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what he was doing when he got shot, which was committing a felony.

[mistermack]

The burglar wasn't innocent, which is the whole point.

The kid WAS innocent. Just shows that you missed the very simple point.

Ipso facto and de jure he was not. He was illegally in someone else's garage in the middle of the night rooting around in stuff that didn't belong to him. That's the very definition of burglary.

The fact that he was an exchange student is irrelevant. The fact that he was young is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what he was doing when he got shot, which was committing a felony.

That bollocks just shows how little you know, and how much you pretend to know.
The kid was innocent till proven guilty.
You can take appropriate action without a trial, to save your life etc.
Killing someone without knowing the facts isn't an appropriate action anywhere, except the loony bin across the pond.
It might be appropriate to kill someone as a last resort to stop them shooting you.
But not to guard a handbag.

[Seth]

The burglar wasn't innocent, which is the whole point.

The kid WAS innocent. Just shows that you missed the very simple point.

Ipso facto and de jure he was not. He was illegally in someone else's garage in the middle of the night rooting around in stuff that didn't belong to him. That's the very definition of burglary.

The fact that he was an exchange student is irrelevant. The fact that he was young is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what he was doing when he got shot, which was committing a felony.

That bollocks just shows how little you know, and how much you pretend to know.
The kid was innocent till proven guilty.

Only at trial. There is no presumption of innocence in a self-defense situation. Nor are the police required to treat a suspect as innocent, in fact their job is to presume that the suspect is guilty and collect the evidence at the crimescene and take him into custody. The presumption of innocence only applies to the duty of a jury to make that presumption when trying the facts of the case.

You can take appropriate action without a trial, to save your life etc.

Yup.

Killing someone without knowing the facts isn't an appropriate action anywhere, except the loony bin across the pond.

Fact: Intruders were seen on video inside his garage.
Fact: Motion detectors indicated intruders.
Fact: It was dark and the lights were off in the garage.
Fact: The homeowner has every legal right to go investigate intruders in his garage.

It might be appropriate to kill someone as a last resort to stop them shooting you.
But not to guard a handbag.

He wasn't killed because of a handbag, he was killed because he committed a felony by unlawfully entering an "occupied premises under circumstances that (may have) justified the homeowner in using deadly force because of a perceived threat to occupants of the premises.

[mistermack]

Only to loonies.

Luckily, the rest of the world is a bit more civilised.

[mistermack]

Fact: Intruders were seen on video inside his garage.

Fact: It was dark and the lights were off in the garage.

[Warren Dew]

No way I'm leaving my garage open and unsecured with visible valuables in it.

That's no doubt sensible, but faulting the guy for leaving his garage door open is like faulting a rape victim for wearing a short dres.