German exchange student killed. Montana SYG law

[laklak]

Seth, I understand he might have acted within the language of the law, but I'll withhold judgement until a grand jury or judge weighs in. I've been digging about to find a similar case in Florida but can't find one. We can't use lethal force to protect property, only to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or the fear of imminent bodily harm. It would be hard to argue either in this case, as no family members were in the garage and the garage was open. Trespass would be about all you could prove, unless you found stolen property on his person, in which case it would be simple burglary, without B&E. But it's all conjecture until more information is released. If I were him I'd have one fuck of a good attorney, because on the face of it it looks indefensible.

[JimC]

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.

By all accounts he deliberately left it open, to entice someone inside so he could have the thrill of killing him, and hope to get away with it because of the uncivilised nature of the US legal system.

Shit, I often think mistermack is over the top, but I agree with him here.

Fucking loonies across the pond...

[Seth]

Fact: Intruders were seen on video inside his garage.

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

Ever hear of "IR surveillance cameras?" Evidently not.

[Seth]

Seth, I understand he might have acted within the language of the law, but I'll withhold judgement until a grand jury or judge weighs in. I've been digging about to find a similar case in Florida but can't find one. We can't use lethal force to protect property, only to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or the fear of imminent bodily harm. It would be hard to argue either in this case, as no family members were in the garage and the garage was open. Trespass would be about all you could prove, unless you found stolen property on his person, in which case it would be simple burglary, without B&E. But it's all conjecture until more information is released. If I were him I'd have one fuck of a good attorney, because on the face of it it looks indefensible.

I think the case here is that a) the garage is legally considered to be part of the "occupied dwelling," and there was likely a door into the house from the garage, thus giving the intruders the ability to enter and harm b) the homeowner's baby, who was still inside the house. I don't think there will be a grand jury, though there might be.

Under the Montana law I cited, what is required is a reasonable belief that an intruder, regardless of speculative intentions, is going to assault anyone then in the premises. In Colorado it requires a) an uninvited entry; b) intent to commit some crime therein other than the uninvited entry itself; and c) any occupant's reasonable belief that the intruder is going to use "any degree of physical force, no matter how slight" against any occupant of the house. That would even include something as simple as trying to push past someone to escape.

The principle at work here are the various legislature's determination that people have a right to absolute safety inside their homes that heavily outweighs any rights the intruder might have.

The other legal principle at work is that if the killing takes place in a residence, or in this case "occupied structure" (which is substantially broader than Colorado's "residence") the lawful occupant of the structure is prima facia immune to both civil lawsuits and criminal charges. To even bring a case, the DA has to first prove that one of the elements of the defense was not present. The elements are uninvited entry; [evident] intent to commit another crime inside; and a threat to use any degree of physical force on the part of the intruder, and a "belief" (not "reasonable belief") on the part of the occupant that any degree of physical force is being offered, and finally, the occupant must have a "reasonable belief," and "must believe" that "a lesser degree of force would be inadequate."

Montana's mens rea requirement for the homeowner is a "reasonable belief" of an "assault" against any person in the structure by the intruder, and that the intruder is committing a felony crime, that's pretty much it.

The point of Castle Doctrine laws is that there is no such thing as "simple burglary" of someone's occupied home. The states that have adopted such laws take the position that the absolute safety of the residents is of paramount importance as against any intruder in the premises for a criminal purpose. In many ways, these laws are a direct reaction to the policies of the UK and other countries that burden their citizens with a duty of care to a home intruder that magnifies the impact of the crime by granting intruders rights equal to, and in some cases greater than those of the resident. Here in America many states have concluded that the old "retreat to the wall" statutes found in some places in America that require a person under criminal attack to attempt to retreat or escape before using deadly force, are socially and morally unacceptable and are bad public policy because they embolden and empower criminals by giving them a tactical edge over their victims, who face criminal and civil prosecution if they don't use lethal force as an absolute, inescapable last resort. This is a result of many cases in the US, and some in the UK, where innocent citizens have been pilloried and sent to prison by overzealous and liberal criminal-coddling District Attorneys who think that criminals ought to have "equal rights" during a criminal episode.

In the past few decades there has been moral outrage at the prosecutions and especially at the ruinous civil suits filed by family member of a deceased (or even slightly injured) criminal that have bankrupted victims because judges and juries were convinced by shylocks that the poor, unfortunate, mentally-abused-as-a-child and intellectually impaired criminal isn't really at fault for committing the crime, it was society that made him that way and therefore the homeowner should have somehow done a background investigation to see if the criminal had some social pathology in his past that should be given great weight in deciding whether, in the instants available, to shoot him or not.

Notorious cases of this kind of sympathy-mongering armchair quarterbacking 20/20 hindsight pandering excusing of criminality are precisely what moved the state legislatures to prevent such miscarriages of justice in the future by securing the right of occupants of a residence to absolute safety and giving them immunity if they act within the criminal law.

And every criminal in Montana, and in every other state with such a law, is and has been on notice that home invasions of occupied structures is an extremely dangerous and potentially deadly pursuit, so they shouldn't do it.

This differs 180 degrees, and rightfully so, from the asinine UK model that allows an intruder to ransack a private home and terrorize the occupants with impunity and with both criminal and civil protection against getting suddenly dead for doing so.

Most people here in the US cannot even comprehend how completely idiotic and senseless UK policies and laws are, and we shake our heads in bafflement at how debased and worthless Brits have become that they would allow their government to force them to sit quietly by and let a home invader have unobstructed and safe access to everything they own.

It's simply incomprehensible to us how servile and cowardly the population of the UK has become. Theyforfeit their rights to be called human beings and are justifiably called "sheeple" because of such inbred idiocy.

Around here, you stay the fuck out of someone else's house or suffer the (occasionally fatal) consequences of not doing so, and nobody gives a shit about your excuses or sad personal story. Keep out means keep out. Pretty simple and easy to understand don't you think?

[Seth]

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.

By all accounts he deliberately left it open, to entice someone inside so he could have the thrill of killing him, and hope to get away with it because of the uncivilised nature of the US legal system.

Even if true, which it might be, doesn't that militate for staying the fuck OUT of his garage? If the criminal had done that, he'd be alive today. I can drum up no sympathy at all for the criminals, who knew better. Fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

Shit, I often think mistermack is over the top, but I agree with him here.

Fucking loonies across the pond...

Reminder to all you cowardly, servile criminal-coddling Brits etc., stay the fuck out of the United States. We don't want you here anyway, you just pollute the place with your sheeple genes anyway. We kicked your sorry asses out of this country 234 years ago because you're a bunch of fuckwits, and I can't say anything has changed for the better, and much has changed for the worse in fact.

Not-welcome to the United States.

[orpheus]

Actually, you're very welcome to the United States. Those who feel as Seth does do not speak for all Americans. A large number of us feel differently. A lot of us see that in some ways US society is deeply, tragically flawed.

[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.

By all accounts he deliberately left it open, to entice someone inside so he could have the thrill of killing him, and hope to get away with it because of the uncivilised nature of the US legal system.

None of the accounts says "thrill". You are just reading it in, just as some people read in "provocative" to the wearing of a short dress.

[FBM]

Actually, you're very welcome to the United States. Those who feel as Seth does do not speak for all Americans. A large number of us feel differently. A lot of us see that in some ways US society is deeply, tragically flawed.

Most of us do not inhabit ideological extremes.

[mistermack]

Fact: Intruders were seen on video inside his garage.

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

Ever hear of "IR surveillance cameras?" Evidently not.

You're priceless

[Gallstones]

The rumor trickling down, allegedly from the second teen, is that Dede stepped into the garage, because the door was conveniently open, to light a cigarette out of the wind.

Montana Code Annotated Use of Force in Defense of a Person

45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. 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 conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[Gallstones]

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.

By all accounts he deliberately left it open, to entice someone inside so he could have the thrill of killing him, and hope to get away with it because of the uncivilised nature of the US legal system.

None of the accounts says "thrill". You are just reading it in, just as some people read in "provocative" to the wearing of a short dress.

Thrill of killing a trespasser is strongly implied by Kaarma's own words after and in the days prior.

Felene Sherbody of Great Clips: the defendant was in Great Clips on August [april?] 23, 2014. When asked how he was doing the Defendant replied: "I'm just waiting to shoot some fucking kid." He told the stylists that he had been waiting up for three nights with his shotgun to shoot some fucking kid...he was waiting up at night to catch someone and shoot them.

Regarding the car: From the Complaint

He claimed he shot high to avoid hitting the car.

[JimC]

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.

By all accounts he deliberately left it open, to entice someone inside so he could have the thrill of killing him, and hope to get away with it because of the uncivilised nature of the US legal system.

None of the accounts says "thrill". You are just reading it in, just as some people read in "provocative" to the wearing of a short dress.

Well, he did it so that he would have the opportunity of shooting someone, presumably because it fulfilled some twisted motive. If not thrill, then the perverted satisfaction of the true homicidal vigilante...

One sick bastard...

[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.

By all accounts he deliberately left it open, to entice someone inside so he could have the thrill of killing him, and hope to get away with it because of the uncivilised nature of the US legal system.

None of the accounts says "thrill". You are just reading it in, just as some people read in "provocative" to the wearing of a short dress.

Well, he did it so that he would have the opportunity of shooting someone, presumably because it fulfilled some twisted motive.

It seems obvious from his past victimization that his motive was preventing further burglaries. I don't find that motive twisted at all, even if the means may have been overkill.

[orpheus]

His motive was preventing further burglaries? By deliberately leaving his garage open and placing valuables in it? No, that doesn't make sense. Those are not the actions of someone who wants to prevent future burglaries. However, he himself admitted what he was trying to do:

Just four days before Dede's death, Missoula police had been called to a Great Clips hair cutting salon in response to a complaint that Kaarma had been "extremely vulgar and belligerent."

A Great Clips employee named Felene Sherbondy hat told police that when she asked Kaarma how he was doing, Kaarma replied; "I'm just waiting to shoot some f------ kid," according to an affidavit.

In that case, Kaarma is accused of telling Sherbondy that he had been burglarized a few times and was waiting up at night to catch someone and shoot them. When Sherbondy asked Kaarma to quit swearing, he told her he could say "whatever the f---" he wanted.

(bold mine)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... t/8445731/

[FBM]

The case of Byron Smith bears some resemblance to the Kaarma case, and Smith is serving life for first-degree murder.