PDA

View Full Version : An Open Garage, a Dead Exchange Student, and a New Debate on Self-Defense.




mrsat_98
05-07-2014, 03:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html

MISSOULA, Mont. — Teenagers call it garage hopping. The goal was to sneak into an open garage, steal some beer or other items and slip away into the night. It was dumb and clearly illegal. It was not supposed to be deadly.

Around midnight on April 27, a 17-year-old exchange student from Germany named Diren Dede left the host home where he played Xbox and drained cans of Sprite to set off with a friend through his dark hillside neighborhood. They passed a home whose garage door hung partially open. Using a cellphone for light, Mr. Dede headed in.

Inside the house, motion sensors alerted Markus Kaarma to an intruder’s presence. Two recent burglaries had put Mr. Kaarma and his young family on edge, his lawyer said, and he grabbed a shotgun from the dining room and rushed outside. He aimed into the garage and, according to court documents, fired four blasts into the dark. Mr. Dede’s body crumpled to the floor.

Continue reading the main story
FEATURED COMMENT

MikeG Boston
The 'castle doctrine' is poorly constructed on a brittle foundation, and its all-too-obvious flaws are ripe for the most egregious human frailties and abuses.
892 COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Although Mr. Kaarma has been charged with deliberate homicide, Mr. Dede’s death has set off an outcry an ocean away in Germany, exposing the cultural gulf between a European nation that tightly restricts firearms and a gun-loving Western state. In his defense, Mr. Kaarma is expected to turn to Montana laws enacted five years ago that allow residents more legal protections in using lethal force to defend their homes.

More at the link (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html)

mrsat_98
05-07-2014, 03:04 PM
http://www.hngn.com/articles/30748/20140507/montana-man-high-when-shot-exchange-student-police.htm

A Montana man who shot and killed a foreign exchange student for trespassing on his property may have been high and drunk at the time of the incident, CBS News reported.

Markus Kaarma was charged with the April 27 murder of 17-year-old German student Diren Dede, whom he killed with a shotgun in his garage after his motion sensors went off. Kaarma, a 29-year-old firefighter, claims he thought he was in danger. But investigators say that not only did Kaarma set a trap to lure intruders, he was possibly under the influence.

SHARE THIS STORY


Kaarma "may have been impaired by alcohol, dangerous drugs, other drugs, intoxicating substances or a combination of the above, at the time of the incident," Detective Dean Chrestenson said in a statement obtained by CBS News.

more at the link (http://www.hngn.com/articles/30748/20140507/montana-man-high-when-shot-exchange-student-police.htm)

FloralScent
05-07-2014, 03:46 PM
In Germany you can get a prison sentence for saying "It was closer to 5 million than 6". Then they'll send your lawyer to prison for defending you.

angelatc
05-07-2014, 03:49 PM
Again, I have no sympathy for these little punks or the media who seem to be intentionally confusing harmless pranks with illegal entry and theft.

eduardo89
05-07-2014, 03:53 PM
In Germany you can get a prison sentence for saying "It was closer to 5 million than 6". Then they'll send your lawyer to prison for defending you.

You can also go to prison for lifting your arm in the air at a 45 degree angle.

FloralScent
05-07-2014, 03:56 PM
You can also go to prison for lifting your arm in the air at a 45 degree angle.

You betcha. No guns sounds awesome. I only hope one day we'll be as 'safe' as the German people.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 03:58 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html

MISSOULA, Mont. — Teenagers call it garage hopping. The goal was to sneak into an open garage, steal some beer or other items and slip away into the night. It was dumb and clearly illegal. It was not supposed to be deadly.

Around midnight on April 27, a 17-year-old exchange student from Germany named Diren Dede left the host home where he played Xbox and drained cans of Sprite to set off with a friend through his dark hillside neighborhood. They passed a home whose garage door hung partially open. Using a cellphone for light, Mr. Dede headed in.

Inside the house, motion sensors alerted Markus Kaarma to an intruder’s presence. Two recent burglaries had put Mr. Kaarma and his young family on edge, his lawyer said, and he grabbed a shotgun from the dining room and rushed outside. He aimed into the garage and, according to court documents, fired four blasts into the dark. Mr. Dede’s body crumpled to the floor.

Continue reading the main story
FEATURED COMMENT

MikeG Boston
The 'castle doctrine' is poorly constructed on a brittle foundation, and its all-too-obvious flaws are ripe for the most egregious human frailties and abuses.
892 COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Although Mr. Kaarma has been charged with deliberate homicide, Mr. Dede’s death has set off an outcry an ocean away in Germany, exposing the cultural gulf between a European nation that tightly restricts firearms and a gun-loving Western state. In his defense, Mr. Kaarma is expected to turn to Montana laws enacted five years ago that allow residents more legal protections in using lethal force to defend their homes.

More at the link (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html)

That is incredibly stupid. Who fires a shotgun randomly into a dark garage? You have to at least try to identify the person before shooting.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 03:59 PM
In Germany you can get a prison sentence for saying "It was closer to 5 million than 6". Then they'll send your lawyer to prison for defending you.

What's closer to 5 million than 6? Is that a reference to something?

FloralScent
05-07-2014, 04:03 PM
No homeschooling either. Denken außerhalb der Laufstall ist verboten!

Pericles
05-07-2014, 04:03 PM
What's closer to 5 million than 6? Is that a reference to something?

Holocost deniers

People who stay out of other people's homes seem not to have this happen to them ....

FloralScent
05-07-2014, 04:04 PM
That is incredibly stupid. Who fires a shotgun randomly into a dark garage? You have to at least try to identify the person before shooting.

It's not something I would do either.

James Madison
05-07-2014, 04:16 PM
I've never broke into someone's house, and (surprise!) I've never been shot at. What a concept!

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 04:23 PM
I've never broke into someone's house, and (surprise!) I've never been shot at. What a concept!

As much as the kid is a punk, this guy should be charged with manslaughter. You just don't fire at people you can't even identify, much less ascertain that they're a threat in any way. If he tried to make off with something valuable, then I might consider that justified as well, but what he did was stupid and resulted in the needless loss of life.

In any case, you should give the intruder a chance to leave peacefully before shooting. Never mind shooting blindly into a dark garage.

James Madison
05-07-2014, 04:39 PM
As much as the kid is a punk, this guy should be charged with manslaughter. You just don't fire at people you can't even identify, much less ascertain that they're a threat in any way. If he tried to make off with something valuable, then I might consider that justified as well, but what he did was stupid and resulted in the needless loss of life.

In any case, you should give the intruder a chance to leave peacefully before shooting. Never mind shooting blindly into a dark garage.

What if the intruder has a gun? What if the intruder has intent to kill? A half second could be the difference between life and death, and why should the homeowner have to take that great of a risk when he is on his property?

Sometimes the classics work the best.

Don't trespass on private property.
Don't break into someone's house.
Don't try and steal booze.

acptulsa
05-07-2014, 04:40 PM
As much as the kid is a punk, this guy should be charged with manslaughter. You just don't fire at people you can't even identify, much less ascertain that they're a threat in any way.

No, I don't. But it's perfectly legal in Oklahoma, and I like it that way.

I want to know what the hell's wrong with these American kids, applying peer pressure to this poor guy to 'do as the Romans do'. They had to know that this was a possibility. WTF?

bunklocoempire
05-07-2014, 04:42 PM
Oh look, man's law failed again -but natural law sorted it out. Who woulda thunk.:rolleyes:

Sorry dead teen. :( Sorry person with dead teen on their conscious. :(

I did a quick search (found Michigan) as to what the "penalty" might be and how seriously a crime like this is treated:

http://www.lawqa.com/qa/what-can-i-expect-from-first-offense-breaking-and-entering-charge
Question: What can I expect from a first offense breaking and entering charge? 7 Answers as of October 24, 2011

Answer: Lewis & Dickstein, P.L.L.C. | Loren Dickstein
It is impossible to give you a reliable answer without more information. An attorney would need to know the facts and circumstances of your case, your history, your age, and much, much more. If you are under 21 years old, there may be a basis upon which to get your case dismissed. If you are a juvenile, there may be a way to keep your record sealed. If you are over 21, there may be a way to get your case taken under a diversion or delayed sentence so that you will not end up with a conviction. Many things are possible.
Answer Applies to: Michigan
Replied: 10/24/2011

Again we see man's law fail two parties multiple times, and then natural law coming in to bat clean up. Wishy washy discipline is a killer.:(

mrsat_98
05-07-2014, 04:42 PM
That is incredibly stupid. Who fires a shotgun randomly into a dark garage? You have to at least try to identify the person before shooting.

Thank State is was not some poor over worked police officer.

dannno
05-07-2014, 04:46 PM
What's closer to 5 million than 6? Is that a reference to something?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/holocaust-denier-extradited-to-germany-for-prison-term/

James Madison
05-07-2014, 04:47 PM
MikeG Boston
The 'castle doctrine' is poorly constructed on a brittle foundation, and its all-too-obvious flaws are ripe for the most egregious human frailties and abuses.
892 COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Although Mr. Kaarma has been charged with deliberate homicide, Mr. Dede’s death has set off an outcry an ocean away in Germany, exposing the cultural gulf between a European nation that tightly restricts firearms and a gun-loving Western state. In his defense, Mr. Kaarma is expected to turn to Montana laws enacted five years ago that allow residents more legal protections in using lethal force to defend their homes.

I guess Germans only enjoy killing when it's on a global scale.

Seriously, Germany, you're going to lecture the world about murder being wrong?

eduardo89
05-07-2014, 04:59 PM
Seriously, Germany, you're going to lecture the world about murder being wrong?

What fault does the current generation of Germans have for the crimes of their ancestors?

HVACTech
05-07-2014, 05:11 PM
That is incredibly stupid. Who fires a shotgun randomly into a dark garage? You have to at least try to identify the person before shooting.

good point. especially your own garage and damage all of your stuff.
over a cat? raccoon or possum?
sounds like propaganda to me. now that you mention it.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-07-2014, 06:14 PM
What fault does the current generation of Germans have for the crimes of their ancestors?

Exodus 34:7

2young2vote
05-07-2014, 06:20 PM
Bad judgement for both parties, but I have to side with the man whose home was being burglarized - once again.

You know, it kind of makes me mad when people tell you you should wait until your life is in imminent danger before resorting to force while your home is being invaded. It makes no sense at all. If an unknown person is in your house, against your will, YOU should be the one to take the risk so YOU can protect this other person's life? This person who felt it was simply natural to go into someone else's house and snoop around. Believing that would mean that a person in their home should risk their life and their family's lives just so an intruder can have another chance. Why is it so hard to understand that the intruder had their chance when they entered the property?

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 07:24 PM
What if the intruder has a gun? What if the intruder has intent to kill? A half second could be the difference between life and death, and why should the homeowner have to take that great of a risk when he is on his property?

See... now you're talking like a cop. "What if... what if..."

I don't believe in that. You give the person a chance to identify themselves and leave peacefully. Maybe don't stand in the open while you do it, but it's always bad policy to shoot first and ask questions later.


Sometimes the classics work the best.

Don't trespass on private property.
Don't break into someone's house.
Don't try and steal booze.

"The classics" doesn't mean going around shooting everything you vaguely suspect might be a threat. Honest people always take killing someone very seriously. Fix your gun on the trespasser and tell them to get off your property quickly. A good man will always try to avoid violence whenever possible.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 07:26 PM
No, I don't. But it's perfectly legal in Oklahoma, and I like it that way.

I want to know what the hell's wrong with these American kids, applying peer pressure to this poor guy to 'do as the Romans do'. They had to know that this was a possibility. WTF?

Where have you been? College kids have been taking risks and playing pranks for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure longer.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 07:29 PM
I guess Germans only enjoy killing when it's on a global scale.

Seriously, Germany, you're going to lecture the world about murder being wrong?

Shame on you. You should know better than to collectivize and label Germans as mass murderers. My ancestry is heavily German, and none of us have a mass murdering bone in our body.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 07:32 PM
Bad judgement for both parties, but I have to side with the man whose home was being burglarized - once again.

You know, it kind of makes me mad when people tell you you should wait until your life is in imminent danger before resorting to force while your home is being invaded. It makes no sense at all. If an unknown person is in your house, against your will, YOU should be the one to take the risk so YOU can protect this other person's life? This person who felt it was simply natural to go into someone else's house and snoop around. Believing that would mean that a person in their home should risk their life and their family's lives just so an intruder can have another chance. Why is it so hard to understand that the intruder had their chance when they entered the property?

That man didn't even make an attempt to identify the guy. Is it just me, or is it reasonable to make every effort NOT to kill someone? If you take cover and tell them to come out with their hands up, you have a good chance of resolving it peacefully. Why wouldn't you do that?

Speaking of hypotheticals, what if the person in the garage was someone he knew who was playing a prank on him? You have to at least know who you're shooting at.

NIU Students for Liberty
05-07-2014, 07:41 PM
I guess Germans only enjoy killing when it's on a global scale.

Seriously, Germany, you're going to lecture the world about murder being wrong?

Are you white? If so, you should be paying reparations to slave ancestors according to your collectivist logic.

HVACTech
05-07-2014, 07:43 PM
Where have you been? College kids have been taking risks and playing pranks for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure longer.
just a "college kid" playing a "prank"

and the other guy opens up,,, and sprays buckshot all over his own garage.

because a motion sensor went off?
after he left the door open?

right.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 07:44 PM
just a "college kid" playing a "prank"

and the other guy opens up,,, and sprays buckshot all over his own garage.

because a motion sensor went off?
after he left the door open?

right.

When you say it like that, it makes it sound even more ridiculous... and you're right. It was ridiculous what he did, and he's grossly irresponsible if not criminally liable for what happened.

HVACTech
05-07-2014, 07:52 PM
When you say it like that, it makes it sound even more ridiculous... and you're right. It was ridiculous what he did, and he's grossly irresponsible if not criminally liable for what happened.

my point was.
that the whole frickin situation is... insane.

there is no way, that I would walk into my "dark" garage and unload a shotgun.
what if I hit my truck? or a gas can?

I call bullshit.

acptulsa
05-07-2014, 07:57 PM
Where have you been? College kids have been taking risks and playing pranks for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure longer.

Don't pop off with an arrogant 'where have you been?' and pretend it's a valid argument. I used to climb a certain museum fence with my friends and drink beer on the conning tower of a certain retired submarine.

But I've never broken into someone's home at night. Especially when I knew they were there asleep. There is a difference, and that difference came entirely down to my instinct for survival.


I call bullshit.

It is insane. Popping a shotgun off three times without regard to whether you might hit the breaker box and burn the house down is a stretch of the imagination. And you might be right.

After all, it's easy to see why the wire propagandis--er, I mean services picked this up. Guns. Kids. International relations. The gun grabbers couldn't have dreamed up a more perfect set piece for their grist mill.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:01 PM
Don't want to get shot? Don't trespass. Trespassing led to the shooting. The shooting would not have occurred had there been no trespass. And while it is, my subjective view, that one should hold fire until a threat is realized I do not hold others to this view. Approaching a door of a residence, or traipsing through a yard, is one thing. Entering a premise quite another. Acquitted. IMHO.

francisco
05-07-2014, 08:01 PM
...Two recent burglaries had put Mr. Kaarma and his young family on edge...

So why did he leave his garage door partially open?

Sounds like he was setting a trap.

Is that justifiable?

acptulsa
05-07-2014, 08:03 PM
So why did he leave his garage door partially open?

Sounds like he was setting a trap.

Is that justifiable?

Nope.

It's not provable, either.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:04 PM
So why did he leave his garage door partially open?

Sounds like he was setting a trap.

Is that justifiable?

I open my windows on a cool night. Justification for someone to enter them?

RonPaulFanInGA
05-07-2014, 08:04 PM
So why did he leave his garage door partially open?

Sounds like he was setting a trap.

He did set a trap. He intentionally left his garage open and placed his wife's purse in plain site. He even told his Great Clips barber prior the incident that he was "waiting for the chance to shoot some kid."

brushfire
05-07-2014, 08:04 PM
"Know your target and whats beyond it... " The issue of trespass and self defense seem to be minor here. What if the man blasted his kid, or several of his relatives who might have been in the garage for a surprise party? What a moron.

Any way you look at it, dont play stupid games and you wont win stupid prizes. Whether you're busting into someone's garage, or you're taking blind shots through your garage door.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:06 PM
Don't want to get shot? Don't trespass. Trespassing led to the shooting. The shooting would not have occurred had there been no trespass. And while it is, my subjective view, that one should hold fire until a threat is realized I do not hold others to this view. Approaching a door of a residence, or traipsing through a yard, is one thing. Entering a premise quite another. Acquitted. IMHO.

All the same, I hope this weighs on the homeowner's conscience. He left the door open. Firing off like that into a dark garage without warning tells me he was one trigger-happy motherf***er.

HVACTech
05-07-2014, 08:09 PM
So why did he leave his garage door partially open?

Sounds like he was setting a trap.

Is that justifiable?

try it with your own garage door.

most of them have two positions. open and closed.

unless your name is Manuel of course.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:09 PM
All the same, I hope this weighs on the homeowner's conscience. He left the door open. Firing off like that into a dark garage without warning tells me he was one trigger-happy motherf***er.

I am not debating that. It's best to aoid trigger happy motherf***ers. You do that by not trespassing. I learned that one at a young age.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-07-2014, 08:09 PM
Nope.

It's not provable, either.

Not provable? Oh really?

http://www.newser.com/story/186071/police-montana-man-laid-trap-killed-teen.html


Documents say Kaarma, 29, told a hairstylist last Wednesday that he'd been waiting three days for another burglary, shotgun at the ready, the Washington Post reports. "I’m just waiting to shoot some [obscenity] kid," he allegedly told the stylist at Great Clips, which ended up calling police over his profane language and unruly behavior, Raw Story reports.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:10 PM
So why did he leave his garage door partially open?

Sounds like he was setting a trap.

Is that justifiable?

It's all coming together. That coupled with his willingness to fire multiple times into a dark garage without warning... it's almost starting to sound like murder. He was real quick to pull that trigger, and leaving a garage door open after already being burglarized just doesn't jive.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:11 PM
I open my windows on a cool night. Justification for someone to enter them?

There's a difference between a window and a garage door.

James Madison
05-07-2014, 08:12 PM
Are you white? If so, you should be paying reparations to slave ancestors according to your collectivist logic.

No.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:12 PM
try it with your own garage door.

most of them have two positions. open and closed.

unless your name is Manuel of course.

I don't have a garage or a garage door opener. My parents do. I can stop it at any position at the touch of a button. Two tap I believe. One to raise or lower and one to stop. That was with their old one. Haven't tried it with the new one.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:14 PM
I am not debating that. It's best to aoid trigger happy motherf***ers. You do that by not trespassing. I learned that one at a young age.

It wasn't right for him to kill like that. That's all I'm saying. I hope he loses sleep over it.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:16 PM
There's a difference between a window and a garage door.

No. There is not. Both are demarcations to the house proper. Many houses can be accessed through the garage. Which is why many thieves use the coat hanger method to gain entry by pulling the manual chord.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/garage-door-can-be-opened-by-thieves-in-six-seconds-with-wire-coat-hanger/

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:16 PM
No.

Doesn't fucking matter. You get a big minus rep for that obscene and idiotic comment. If you have any dignity, you will withdraw it and apologize.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:18 PM
No. There is not. Both are demarcations to the house proper. Many houses can be accessed through the garage. Which is why many thieves use the coat hanger method to gain entry by pulling the manual chord.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/garage-door-can-be-opened-by-thieves-in-six-seconds-with-wire-coat-hanger/

There is a reason to leave a window open. There is less of a reason to leave a garage door open... after already being burglarized. The fact that it was a garage door calls his motives into question when taken with other facts that could incriminate him, such as the fact that we are just now learning he told a barber that he was waiting to kill someone. If you ask me, that's a pretty good case for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:19 PM
It wasn't right for him to kill like that. That's all I'm saying. I hope he loses sleep over it.

Right? Wrong? Of the two I would agree that it was not right. Criminal? No. But, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

HVACTech
05-07-2014, 08:19 PM
There's a difference between a window and a garage door.

ding, ding, ding!

we have a winner!

yes. there is.

James Madison
05-07-2014, 08:22 PM
Doesn't fucking matter. You get a big minus rep for that obscene and idiotic comment. If you have any dignity, you will withdraw it and apologize.

Watch out me got a badass over here.

Plus, I thought you were from West Virginia.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:22 PM
Right? Wrong? Of the two I would agree that it was not right. Criminal? No. But, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Considering new facts coming out... it's beginning to look like it was, indeed, criminal.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:22 PM
Watch out me got a badass over here.

Plus, I thought you were from West Virginia.

Yes... and?

HVACTech
05-07-2014, 08:23 PM
I don't have a garage or a garage door opener. My parents do. I can stop it at any position at the touch of a button. Two tap I believe. One to raise or lower and one to stop. That was with their old one. Haven't tried it with the new one.

that is correct. it has to be done intentionally.

the whole story has gaping holes in it.
I think it is an effort to keep us distracted. propaganda.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:24 PM
There is a reason to leave a window open. There is less of a reason to leave a garage door open... after already being burglarized.

Plenty of reasons one might. I used to help my dad making end tables in his garage. After staining and varnish it was simply good sense to leave the door half open to vent with a fan overnight.
It doesn't matter what the reason. Simply because a home owner has the desire to do so is enough reason. It does not excuse the trespass.
That's kinda like saying it is OK to rape a woman because she dressed slutty.

James Madison
05-07-2014, 08:24 PM
Yes... and?

Goddammit you're dense.

FloralScent
05-07-2014, 08:33 PM
He did set a trap. He intentionally left his garage open and placed his wife's purse in plain site. He even told his Great Clips barber prior the incident that he was "waiting for the chance to shoot some kid."

I didn't read the whole story(lazy), but if this is the case, fuck him. We have enough problems with the Commie press making up shit about gun owners and this d-bag goes and causes an international incident. I have no problem throwing him to the wolves.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:41 PM
Goddammit you're dense.

No, I know what you're getting at. I just want you to say it. Go ahead, say it.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:43 PM
Plenty of reasons one might. I used to help my dad making end tables in his garage. After staining and varnish it was simply good sense to leave the door half open to vent with a fan overnight.
It doesn't matter what the reason. Simply because a home owner has the desire to do so is enough reason. It does not excuse the trespass.
That's kinda like saying it is OK to rape a woman because she dressed slutty.

No, it's not. They're all facts that can contribute in a court of law. Did he have any reason to leave the garage door, even when he had already been burglarized twice? That's doubtful. Like I said, there's less of a reason, and I doubt he was making tables in there.

James Madison
05-07-2014, 08:43 PM
No, I know what you're getting at. I just want you to say it. Go ahead, say it.

You're an attention whore who enjoys stirring the pot?

I wasn't aware FF's ban was up.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:48 PM
You're an attention whore who enjoys stirring the pot?

I wasn't aware FF's ban was up.

Attention whore? You have got to be fucking kidding me. You really are a dirtbag. That's all I have to say about it.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:50 PM
No, it's not. They're all facts that can contribute in a court of law? Did he have any reason to leave the garage door, even when he had already been burglarized twice? That's doubtful. Like I said, there's less of a reason, and I doubt he was making tables in there.

No. It does not matter if he left his front door open. Trespass is trespass. A sign on a barn in my town sums it up..."Trespassers will be shot on site." Not "shot on sight." "On site." Don't want to be shot? Don't trespass. Any derivation of this principle leads to the belief that trespass is condoned under certain circumstance.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 08:53 PM
I didn't read the whole story(lazy), but if this is the case, fuck him. We have enough problems with the Commie press making up shit about gun owners and this d-bag goes and causes an international incident. I have no problem throwing him to the wolves.

And by throwing him to the wolves you will bolster the Commie press narrative. Trespass is trespass. Don't do it or you might get shot. Period.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 08:57 PM
No. It does not matter if he left his front door open. Trespass is trespass. A sign on a barn in my town sums it up..."Trespassers will be shot on site." Not "shot on sight." "On site." Don't want to be shot? Don't trespass. Any derivation of this principle leads to the belief that trespass is condoned under certain circumstance.

It's just another piece of the puzzle. If you leave your front door open and set a trap for someone who tries to come in, you're going out of your way to do harm to that person. It's no different than police putting out unlocked bait cars. They're inviting the crime and then busting the guy for it. This is not stuff that just happens in the real world, and a jury would be foolish not to consider it as a piece of the puzzle when deciding if a crime had been committed.

fisharmor
05-07-2014, 08:58 PM
I don't know how anybody can sympathize with this idiot.
You don't fire into the dark.
I don't think he should go to prison, but that's really only because I don't believe in prison.
He clearly fucked up.

fisharmor
05-07-2014, 08:59 PM
No. It does not matter if he left his front door open. Trespass is trespass. A sign on a barn in my town sums it up..."Trespassers will be shot on site." Not "shot on sight." "On site." Don't want to be shot? Don't trespass. Any derivation of this principle leads to the belief that trespass is condoned under certain circumstance.

Obviously you're not familiar with sleepwalking.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:01 PM
It's just another piece of the puzzle. If you leave your front door open and set a trap for someone who tries to come in, you're going out of your way to do harm to that person. It's no different than police putting out unlocked bait cars. They're inviting the crime and then busting the guy for it. This is not stuff that just happens in the real world, and a jury would be foolish not to consider it as a piece of the puzzle when deciding if a crime had been committed.

No. The crime was committed at trespass. No trespass, no crime.
We are not talking about government agencies. We are talking about property owners.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:02 PM
No. It does not matter if he left his front door open. Trespass is trespass. A sign on a barn in my town sums it up..."Trespassers will be shot on site." Not "shot on sight." "On site." Don't want to be shot? Don't trespass. Any derivation of this principle leads to the belief that trespass is condoned under certain circumstance.

No, not necessarily. I just think people shouldn't be so quick to take a life before any real harm has been done. If you shoot someone just for being on your property, and it looks like you intentionally set a trap for the first person who took the bait, then I don't care about your property rights; you are a criminal. Human life is worth more than some smushed grass on your lawn, and if you intentionally go hunting for trespassers, then you deserve consequences.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:04 PM
Obviously you're not familiar with sleepwalking.

Yeah, it's a bitch...

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/sleep/articles/2009/05/08/7-criminal-cases-that-invoked-the-sleepwalking-defense

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:07 PM
No. The crime was committed at trespass. No trespass, no crime.
We are not talking about government agencies. We are talking about property owners.

I don't care. If you shoot someone simply for being on your property without having done anything else and without warning, then you deserve consequences for needlessly killing someone. Human life is worth more than your right to not have people stand in a certain place. If there is enough collaborating evidence to convict someone of a crime for shooting a trespasser, then they deserve it. There is no reason you can't warn someone or take measure to prevent shooting them. Trespassing does not warrant being summarily executed.

You don't have the right to shoot anyone who wanders onto your property by mistake. Therefore, it follows that you should
1) Identify the person or have them identify themselves and
2) Give them a chance to leave peacefully.

You don't have to weaken your conviction about property rights to do at least that.

Danke
05-07-2014, 09:09 PM
Obviously you're not familiar with sleepwalking.

Not only sleepwalking, but medical problems, etc. There is a myriad reasons one could wonder into the wrong area. I would not use force against someone unless they are coming after me or they are breaking in. And if I can escape, I may still not use deadly force against them.

osan
05-07-2014, 09:09 PM
In Germany you can get a prison sentence for saying "It was closer to 5 million than 6". Then they'll send your lawyer to prison for defending you.

Germany is more fucked up now than even in Hitler's day. One of my cousins lives there. Honestly, I don't know how she can stand it. OTOH, she grew up in Europe and has the fully conditioned response to bend on one knee to "authority", so I suppose that explains a lot.

NIU Students for Liberty
05-07-2014, 09:10 PM
No. The crime was committed at trespass. No trespass, no crime.
We are not talking about government agencies. We are talking about property owners.

Just because you own property does not mean it's justifiable to recklessly open fire on a human being, especially when the person is no threat and you're the predator (if it is in fact true that he intentionally set up a trap to commit murder).

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:10 PM
No, not necessarily. I just think people shouldn't be so quick to take a life before any real harm has been done. If you shoot someone just for being on your property, and it looks like you intentionally set a trap for the first person who took the bait, then I don't care about your property rights; you are a criminal. Human life is worth more than some smushed grass on your lawn, and if you intentionally go hunting for trespassers, then you deserve consequences.

Well, I guess we will just have to disagree.

No trespass, then no crime. Actions have consequence and a homeowner has the right to defend themselves and property as they see fit. IMHO (which I understand we disagree on). Don't want to be shot? Then don't enter someone else's home proper. Period. Drunk, stoned or sleep walking.
Do I think the homeowner is a dipshit? Yes. Do I think he is irresponsible? Yes.
As long as he keeps it on his property then it doesn't matter what I think.
No trespass, then no crime.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:12 PM
Just because you own property does not mean it's justifiable to recklessly open fire on a human being, especially when the person is no threat and you're the predator (if it is in fact true that he intentionally set up a trap to commit murder).

So suddenly a trespasser, in this case house proper, is considered prey? Well let me shed a tear. Unghhhhh. I tried. Can't do it.

NIU Students for Liberty
05-07-2014, 09:13 PM
Germany is more fucked up now than even in Hitler's day. One of my cousins lives there. Honestly, I don't know how she can stand it. OTOH, she grew up in Europe and has the fully conditioned response to bend on one knee to "authority", so I suppose that explains a lot.

I'm pretty sure they're not rounding up millions of people and exterminating them or forcing them into labor camps. So no, Germany is not worse off than it was under the Nazis.

osan
05-07-2014, 09:16 PM
Again, I have no sympathy for these little punks or the media who seem to be intentionally confusing harmless pranks with illegal entry and theft.

I find myself in agreement with you on this. They trespassed. In so doing, especially under cover of darkness, they placed their very lives into the hands of strangers - in this case one who was within his rights to be in no mood to take chances trying to decide whether the person that ought not be in his garage posed an immediate threat.

Actions have consequences. Those two "kids" chose and one paid the price. Whether the shooter was drunk is utterly irrelevant. Do I forfeit my right to life, and by extension my right to defend life and limb because I am drunk? Good luck to anyone attempting to make that argument.

Unless some detail of truly fundamental import has not been revealed, I would call it a righteous shoot.

We either take property rights seriously or we are jerking off. Which is it?

NIU Students for Liberty
05-07-2014, 09:17 PM
So suddenly a trespasser, in this case house proper, is considered prey? Well let me shed a tear. Unghhhhh. I tried. Can't do it.

Big difference between a teenager grabbing beer from your garage and an armed intruder threatening your life. How was the homeowner acting any different than a scumbag cop who commits entrapment?

osan
05-07-2014, 09:22 PM
I'm pretty sure they're not rounding up millions of people and exterminating them or forcing them into labor camps.

Forgive me, but that is a child's answer. Hitler's Germany was a bald-faced tyranny. The tyrannies of today's Germany are more extensive but far better veiled because on those points Hitler was at least open and honest after a fashion regarding what he and his boys were doing and why. Today, the rotten Orwellian core is pasted over with a cheap Huxleyan veneer straight out of Brave New World, making contemporary Germany far and away more dangerously fucked up than Hitler's far more blatant atrocities. People could see clearly for themselves in those days, their "inability" to say or do anything about it notwithstanding. Today, people cannot see it and worse yet, do not want to see it.


So no, Germany is not worse off than it was under the Nazis.

Oh, how tragically wrong you are.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:23 PM
Well, I guess we will just have to disagree.

No trespass, then no crime. Actions have consequence and a homeowner has the right to defend themselves and property as they see fit. IMHO (which I understand we disagree on). Don't want to be shot? Then don't enter someone else's home proper. Period. Drunk, stoned or sleep walking.
Do I think the homeowner is a dipshit? Yes. Do I think he is irresponsible? Yes.
As long as he keeps it on his property then it doesn't matter what I think.
No trespass, then no crime.

Come on. You can't just absolve someone of all responsibility based on which side of the line the person they shot was on. I honestly don't see how you can justify shooting someone who hasn't done any harm to anything. It doesn't take a pansy to know that you don't just shoot people for such a superficial reason as being on the wrong side of the property line. If you set a trap for someone and kill the first person who steps on your property, you are a monster and anybody with any sense would have to admit that that person would have done something much worse, much more serious than the person who was just in the wrong place. Taking a life is a serious thing, not just a game you can play to see how many people you can shoot by luring them onto your property.

Danke
05-07-2014, 09:25 PM
There are these kids that cut across my property on the way to school, I'm thinking of setting up one of these traps, what do you guys think?

http://m1.i.pbase.com/g1/73/691773/2/108980451.IKLe8xjp.jpg

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:25 PM
So suddenly a trespasser, in this case house proper, is considered prey? Well let me shed a tear. Unghhhhh. I tried. Can't do it.

Can you not conceive of a case where someone would maliciously set a trap and kill the first person he had the chance to by luring him onto the property? Is that not wrong in your eyes?

NIU Students for Liberty
05-07-2014, 09:26 PM
Forgive me, but that is a child's answer. Hitler's Germany was a bald-faced tyranny. The tyrannies of today's Germany are more extensive but far better veiled because on those points Hitler was at least open and honest after a fashion regarding what he and his boys were doing and why. Today, the rotten Orwellian core is pasted over with a cheap Huxleyan veneer straight out of Brave New World, making contemporary Germany far and away more dangerously fucked up than Hitler's far more blatant atrocities. People could see clearly for themselves in those days, their "inability" to say or do anything about it notwithstanding. Today, people cannot see it and worse yet, do not want to see it.



Oh, how tragically wrong you are.

Nope, millions of people being murdered under the name of nationalism is worse than your bullshit "illusion" excuse. Germany today possesses the ability to seek information on their own without fear in comparison to neighbors turning in each other in to the gestapo.

Merkel > Hitler.

osan
05-07-2014, 09:27 PM
That is incredibly stupid. Who fires a shotgun randomly into a dark garage? You have to at least try to identify the person before shooting.

Why? If I'm in my house and someone comes in, do I have the same obligation? Am I obliged by some irrefutable moral principle to expose myself to a potentially mortal threat to that I can ID it as such before taking action against persons who are not supposed to be there in the first place? If so, I believe you will have some fancy 'splaining to do.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:29 PM
I find myself in agreement with you on this. They trespassed. In so doing, especially under cover of darkness, they placed their very lives into the hands of strangers - in this case one who was within his rights to be in no mood to take chances trying to decide whether the person that ought not be in his garage posed an immediate threat.

Actions have consequences. Those two "kids" chose and one paid the price. Whether the shooter was drunk is utterly irrelevant. Do I forfeit my right to life, and by extension my right to defend life and limb because I am drunk? Good luck to anyone attempting to make that argument.

Unless some detail of truly fundamental import has not been revealed, I would call it a righteous shoot.

We either take property rights seriously or we are jerking off. Which is it?

You have got to be kidding me. You don't have to take property rights any less seriously in order to give a human being a chance to leave before shooting them. You don't have to be a pansy. Even the most rugged and self-righteous men know they should not needlessly kill another human being.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:29 PM
Big difference between a teenager grabbing beer from your garage and an armed intruder threatening your life. How was the homeowner acting any different than a scumbag cop who commits entrapment?

A homeowner is a property owner. It is his property. The other is a government worker on public property.
No trespass, no crime. A decision was made to enter this man's house proper. Whether drunk, fucked up on drugs or sleepwalking it does not matter.
I do not agree with the way this man handled this situation. But I fully believe in his right to act as he did.

Does a man have the right to defend his property as he sees fit or does society have the right to dictate how he may or may not defend it? If society dictates then does any man actually own his property?

osan
05-07-2014, 09:29 PM
What if the intruder has a gun? What if the intruder has intent to kill? A half second could be the difference between life and death, and why should the homeowner have to take that great of a risk when he is on his property?

Sometimes the classics work the best.

Don't trespass on private property.
Don't break into someone's house.
Don't try and steal booze.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to James Madison again.

Can someone help me out here?

Natural Citizen
05-07-2014, 09:30 PM
I think that there are way too many dumb asses who own firearms and aren't competent to respect and practice the responsibility that goes with having them. Regardless of what happened here, this is my opinion across the board on it. Too many people looking to be a cowboy these days. What if it was his own kid looking for something out there? Then what?

osan
05-07-2014, 09:32 PM
They had to know that this was a possibility. WTF?

Actually, that may not be so. Let us bear in mind they attend American public schools. Are kids taught any common sense there? No. They are taught to think and behave as full-retards. That is the sadly dangerous truth.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:39 PM
Why? If I'm in my house and someone comes in, do I have the same obligation? Am I obliged by some irrefutable moral principle to expose myself to a potentially mortal threat to that I can ID it as such before taking action against persons who are not supposed to be there in the first place? If so, I believe you will have some fancy 'splaining to do.

If someone comes in your house unarmed and you're sitting there with your revolver, do you tell them to get out, or do you just shoot them without hesitation?

If you want to use the "potentially mortal threat" excuse, then you should do the same for cops who say they "feared for their life." The simple fact that the guy is on your property does not justify taking a life. There are several ways you can safely and responsibly get them off of your property without killing them. Even a "potential" criminal's life has more meaning than your property boundaries. If the person is in your house, it still doesn't justify shooting them when you have the chance not to without exposing you or your family to any real danger.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:41 PM
Come on. You can't just absolve someone of all responsibility based on which side of the line the person they shot was on. I honestly don't see how you can justify shooting someone who hasn't done any harm to anything. It doesn't take a pansy to know that you don't just shoot people for such a superficial reason as being on the wrong side of the property line. If you set a trap for someone and kill the first person who steps on your property, you are a monster and anybody with any sense would have to admit that that person would have done something much worse, much more serious than the person who was just in the wrong place. Taking a life is a serious thing, not just a game you can play to see how many people you can shoot by luring them onto your property.

Again, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat...no trespass, no crime. If I put a gold bar on my front lawn that does not give any other the right to come and take it. They are fools if they so choose and examples should be made of fools for the betterment of society.
Do not trespass. The owner may be level headed. The owner may not be. That is the lesson. Children should be taught this from a young age.
The fact that it had become a game to these young men says more for what I believe than for what you believe.
Trespass should have never become a game to be taken lightly.

osan
05-07-2014, 09:41 PM
I think that there are way too many dumb asses who own firearms and aren't competent to respect and practice the responsibility that goes with having them. Regardless of what happened here, this is my opinion across the board on it. Too many people looking to be a cowboy these days. What if it wa his own kid looking for something out there? Then what?

D00d, you're having a strictly emotional response to this. May I gently suggest it may behoove you to take a step back, take a breath, and reconsider the logic you have employed here?

Firstly, private property rights, if inherent to our being, must then be absolute. That being the case, there is no basis for implying that "dumb asses" are not qualified to own any given thing, firearms included.

Your assertion that "too many people are looking to be a cowboy" really has no meaning when placed under scrutiny. Taken casually, the meaning is purely subjective and liable to vary notably between individuals. The statement has the flavor of venting about it, which is valid enough, but should be offered as such and not as assertions of truth.

If it was his kid out there, do you not think the garage light would be on? Perhaps he has no children. Once again your presumptions do not seem to be quite right this time. Your posts are usually better metered. Just my observation/opinion.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:42 PM
A homeowner is a property owner. It is his property. The other is a government worker on public property.
No trespass, no crime. A decision was made to enter this man's house proper. Whether drunk, fucked up on drugs or sleepwalking it does not matter.
I do not agree with the way this man handled this situation. But I fully believe in his right to act as he did.

Does a man have the right to defend his property as he sees fit or does society have the right to dictate how he may or may not defend it? If society dictates then does any man actually own his property?

So if someone was obviously setting traps and killing everyone who stepped foot on their property just because they could, you would shake your head and go tisk tisk?

This is not about society versus property rights. Not killing someone just for being on your property does not threaten your property rights.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:44 PM
I think that there are way too many dumb asses who own firearms and aren't competent to respect and practice the responsibility that goes with having them. Regardless of what happened here, this is my opinion across the board on it. Too many people looking to be a cowboy these days. What if it was his own kid looking for something out there? Then what?

Then I would have been a very irresponsible parent and would have had to mourn the consequences of my actions. Or, I would have come to the realization that despite my efforts my child did not learn from my teachings and suffered the consequence because of it.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:45 PM
Again, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat...no trespass, no crime. If I put a gold bar on my front lawn that does not give any other the right to come and take it. They are fools if they so choose and examples should be made of fools for the betterment of society.
Do not trespass. The owner may be level headed. The owner may not be. That is the lesson. Children should be taught this from a young age.
The fact that it had become a game to these young men says more for what I believe than for what you believe.
Trespass should have never become a game to be taken lightly.

I don't care how many times you repeat it. I disagree. Does a human life not have value over standing on a certain section of the earth? Really?

osan
05-07-2014, 09:47 PM
I guess Germans only enjoy killing when it's on a global scale.

Well, yes... but also only when its undesirables like Jews and *****s.


Seriously, Germany, you're going to lecture the world about murder being wrong?

That is SO touché. Mo' rep 4 u and another thread winner.

osan
05-07-2014, 09:50 PM
What fault does the current generation of Germans have for the crimes of their ancestors?

His statement is not ascribing fault, but reminding us of their history. Given the current context of candy-coated German tyranny, I would say he was on the money. Germany is a pretty, gilt-cage, gingerbread house shit hole.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:51 PM
D00d, you're having a strictly emotional response to this. May I gently suggest it may behoove you to take a step back, take a breath, and reconsider the logic you have employed here?

Firstly, private property rights, if inherent to our being, must then be absolute. That being the case, there is no basis for implying that "dumb asses" are not qualified to own any given thing, firearms included.

Your assertion that "too many people are looking to be a cowboy" really has no meaning when placed under scrutiny. Taken casually, the meaning is purely subjective and liable to vary notably between individuals. The statement has the flavor of venting about it, which is valid enough, but should be offered as such and not as assertions of truth.

If it was his kid out there, do you not think the garage light would be on? Perhaps he has no children. Once again your presumptions do not seem to be quite right this time. Your posts are usually better metered. Just my observation/opinion.

It doesn't have to be his kid. There are several instances where someone he knew could be on his property and he would have shot them. Surprise parties are one, friends playing pranks is another. The fact is, there are cases in which he could have mistakenly shot someone. Is it wrong to think you should know what you are shooting at before firing blindly? Even the most ardent supporter of property rights can realize the one simple fact that human life is worth more than exclusive occupation of a certain section of the earth, and he doesn't have to surrender any of his rights by realizing that.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:52 PM
So if someone was obviously setting traps and killing everyone who stepped foot on their property just because they could, you would shake your head and go tisk tisk?

This is not about society versus property rights. Not killing someone just for being on your property does not threaten your property rights.

1tres·pass noun \ˈtres-pəs, -ˌpas\
law : the crime of going on someone's land without permission

No trespass, no crime. How many more times do I have to drive this point home. Everything is based on the precedent which is a crime against the property owner.

And the belief you hold, and society at large, is the reason that these kids believe that trespass is just some sort of game. That entering someones property to steal is just a good laugh. And that in turn propagates more of it.

Bman
05-07-2014, 09:53 PM
So if someone was obviously setting traps and killing everyone who stepped foot on their property just because they could, you would shake your head and go tisk tisk?

This is not about society versus property rights. Not killing someone just for being on your property does not threaten your property rights.

The kid was not "just" being on the property. He went in with criminal intent and the home owner prematurely went into eliminate the threat mode. While it is quite clear that it was premature, in the heat of the moment not so much.

Simple life lesson. If you enter someones house uninvited you may end up shot. Most of the time it is not criminal to defend your property and this is a case where it was not. The kid naively failed to recognize the possible out comes of his decision. You would have never made that mistake where I grew up. You knew most home owners had a gun available and in an area where police response times were in excess of 20 minutes it's just how things work.

Natural Citizen
05-07-2014, 09:54 PM
Firstly, private property rights, if inherent to our being, must then be absolute. That being the case, there is no basis for implying that "dumb asses" are not qualified to own any given thing, firearms included.

What I said was I think that there are way too many dumb asses who own firearms and aren't competent to respect and practice the responsibility that goes with having them.

And there are. I know a lot of people with guns. And most of them are idiots. If someone yelled boo! at them they'd crap their pants. I understand the concept of property rights but there is something to be said for competence in these kinds of situations too.

I don't know. I grew up around firearms my entire life and there is just a certain mentality that comes with it. A common sense kind of thing.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:55 PM
Then I would have been a very irresponsible parent and would have had to mourn the consequences of my actions. Or, I would have come to the realization that despite my efforts my child did not learn from my teachings and suffered the consequence because of it.

Wow, such stubbornness. People make mistakes, man. You don't have to give up your property rights to do the first thing a good marksman does and know your target. If you would even try to justify shooting your own kid under that banner of insanity, I would have to say you are batshit crazy.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 09:57 PM
1tres·pass noun \ˈtres-pəs, -ˌpas\
law : the crime of going on someone's land without permission

No trespass, no crime. How many more times do I have to drive this point home. Everything is based on the precedent which is a crime against the property owner.

And the belief you hold, and society at large, is the reason that these kids believe that trespass is just some sort of game. That entering someones property to steal is just a good laugh. And that in turn propagates more of it.

How many times do I have to tell you I don't care? How many times do I have to drive that point home? You don't have to give up any of your property rights in order to give trespassers a chance to leave. Is it getting clearer yet? You can't respond to my response to your claim by making the same claim over and over. If you have a chance to resolve the conflict (and make no mistake, that's all it is) peacefully and you don't, then you are no better than a psychotic murderer.

And it may be that the belief I hold propagates this idea, but that still doesn't threaten any of your rights. That's called the slippery slope fallacy. You can't reasonably predict that my belief will necessarily lead to the loss of any of your property rights. Just because you believe that, in an ideal world, nobody would trespass, that doesn't mean that's how it should be. Human life is valuable enough to give people a chance.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 09:59 PM
Wow, such stubbornness. People make mistakes, man. You don't have to give up your property rights to do the first thing a good marksman does and know your target. If you would even try to justify shooting your own kid under that banner of insanity, I would have to say you are batshit crazy.

Mistakes can be deadly. That is a good lesson to teach.

I don't see where I said anything about shooting my own kid. Care to clarify?

osan
05-07-2014, 10:02 PM
"The classics" doesn't mean going around shooting everything you vaguely suspect might be a threat. Honest people always take killing someone very seriously. Fix your gun on the trespasser and tell them to get off your property quickly. A good man will always try to avoid violence whenever possible.

Oh no you don't. This was perhaps middling clever in the attempt, but I am afraid you were unable to slip it past my eagle eyes. There was nothing vague about the situation. There were strangers in the house who did not belong there. The man's tactics may have left something to be desired, but the general strategy of shooting first and asking questions later was 100% on the mark.

If YOU feel the need to confirm the threat prior to shooting, I fully respect your choice even if I do not agree with it. Similarly, when I plug an unknown intruder who has entered my home with no authority, I expect the same from you and anyone else. Neither am I nor are you obliged to expose yourself to the brands of risk that are inherent in such situations. Your choice to do otherwise from mine is fully legitimate, if foolhardy.

Consider my friend M. He is a crackerjack IPSC shooter whose best 3/2 split was something like 1.6 seconds. A 3/2 is where you start with 3 rounds, shoot 3 targets, drop mag, reload, and shoot two more targets. You have 5 rounds total and each must count. Now imagine the skill to pop off three rounds on target, reload and hit two more in 1.6 seconds. That is world-class time.

Now, imagine M. has broken into your house with the willingness to shoot you if he must in order not to be apprehended or worse. If you do as you say with M, 99.999% chance you will be rewarded with death because M is lightning fast and always dead on target. You don't have a second because in 1 second or less he could leave 7-10 rounds in you. He is that fast, no shit. And the real pros are notably faster.

The point here is you have NO idea who is in your house and you have a choice as to what you will assume about the person. Statistically speaking, you may even be likely to get away with your strategy, but I would still call it very misguided. Having a good heart and a healthy respect for the value of life are admirable qualities, but even those need to be tempered with some reality if the primary goal is to survive a potentially mortal encounter.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 10:04 PM
How many times do I have to tell you I don't care? How many times do I have to drive that point home? You don't have to give up any of your property rights in order to give trespassers a chance to leave. Is it getting clearer yet? You can't respond to my response to your claim by making the same claim over and over. If you have a chance to resolve the conflict (and make no mistake, that's all it is) peacefully and you don't, then you are no better than a psychotic murderer.

And it may be that the belief I hold propagates this idea, but that still doesn't threaten any of your rights. That's called the slippery slope fallacy. You can't reasonably predict that my belief will necessarily lead to the loss of any of your property rights. Just because you believe that, in an ideal world, nobody would trespass, that doesn't mean that's how it should be. Human life is valuable enough to give people a chance.

And time and again I said that I personally don't agree with the homeowners decision. However, I do believe that it was his choice to make. And I would acquit.

PaulConventionWV
05-07-2014, 10:04 PM
The kid was not "just" being on the property. He went in with criminal intent and the home owner prematurely went into eliminate the threat mode. While it is quite clear that it was premature, in the heat of the moment not so much.

Simple life lesson. If you enter someones house uninvited you may end up shot. Most of the time it is not criminal to defend your property and this is a case where it was not. The kid naively failed to recognize the possible out comes of his decision. You would have never made that mistake where I grew up. You knew most home owners had a gun available and in an area where police response times were in excess of 20 minutes it's just how things work.

It doesn't matter why he was there. He hadn't done any harm yet. The guy had a chance to tell him to put the beer down and get out of his garage or he would shoot, and instead, he just shot a man for no reason other than he was in his garage. That makes him a bad person. If your belief system involves placing higher moral priority on your exclusivity to a certain portion of the earth than on a "potential criminal's" life, then you're a maniac.

Just because you grew up that way, it doesn't mean that's how it should be. You can give people a chance and you don't have to give up any rights, so why wouldn't you do it?

acptulsa
05-07-2014, 10:07 PM
I don't care how many times you repeat it. I disagree. Does a human life not have value over standing on a certain section of the earth? Really?

The kid was not on the lawn. The kid was in the house.

Oklahoma law sees a world of difference there. You're completely glossing it over, apparently in your zeal to make your point stick.

It makes a huge difference to me.

osan
05-07-2014, 10:09 PM
What I said was I think that there are way too many dumb asses who own firearms and aren't competent to respect and practice the responsibility that goes with having them.

I know what you wrote and the implication is clear. Otherwise, why write it? They are dumb and lack yadda boohicky bulb bulb bulb... OK, so what? What am I to take away from the statement if not the fairly clear implication that they should somehow be interferred with?
And there are. I know a lot of people with guns. And most of them are idiots.

Then may I suggest you find yourself better circles into which to mingle? I know lots of people with guns, too, and NONE of them are idiots. That is not to say I have not met fools with guns... almost exclusively cops, BTW. But those are not people I KNOW, if you get my meaning.


I understand the concept of property rights but there is something to be said for competence in these kinds of situations too.

Valid point, but I'd still be interested in knowing what the take-away should have been from the statement, above.


I don't know. I grew up around firearms my entire life and there is just a certain mentality that comes with it. A common sense kind of thing.

Fully agree, but what does this have to do with the fact that the man shot an intruder in his garage in the dead of pitch-black night?

osan
05-07-2014, 10:11 PM
Are you white? If so, you should be paying reparations to slave ancestors according to your collectivist logic.

So much FAIL...

So little time.

Bman
05-07-2014, 10:11 PM
It doesn't matter why he was there. He hadn't done any harm yet. The guy had a chance to tell him to put the beer down and get out of his garage or he would shoot, and instead, he just shot a man for no reason other than he was in his garage. That makes him a bad person. If your belief system involves placing higher moral priority on your exclusivity to a certain portion of the earth than on a "potential criminal's" life, then you're a maniac.

Just because you grew up that way, it doesn't mean that's how it should be. You can give people a chance and you don't have to give up any rights, so why wouldn't you do it?


In my house hold I have two children. If you are anywhere in my house or property uninvited and I feel threatened you may, if you wake up, be able to use your dick for a pencil.

You can make a case that the guy acted in haste and should have used telekinesis to know the intent of the intruder. Still doesn't make his acting in what he thought was a defense situation into a criminal situation...unless you can prove he intended to lure the German kid into the house.

Danke
05-07-2014, 10:13 PM
The kid was not on the lawn. The kid was in the house.

Oklahoma law sees a world of difference there. You're completely glossing it over, apparently in your zeal to make your point stick.

It makes a huge difference to me.

Actually it was an open garage. Could have been an open chicken coop, barn or any number of buildings that were open and unsecured. I once saw a homeless man sleeping in the bed of my pickup truck, I shot him.

LibertyEagle
05-07-2014, 10:17 PM
See... now you're talking like a cop. "What if... what if..."

I don't believe in that. You give the person a chance to identify themselves and leave peacefully. Maybe don't stand in the open while you do it, but it's always bad policy to shoot first and ask questions later.

"The classics" doesn't mean going around shooting everything you vaguely suspect might be a threat. Honest people always take killing someone very seriously. Fix your gun on the trespasser and tell them to get off your property quickly. A good man will always try to avoid violence whenever possible.

Your recommendation is exactly how someone would get themselves killed. The owner did nothing wrong. Thieves should learn that theft is dangerous to their health.

Bman
05-07-2014, 10:21 PM
Actually it was an open garage. Could have been an open chicken coop, barn or any number of buildings that were open and unsecured. I once saw a homeless man sleeping in the bed of my pickup truck, I shot him.

Tube or it didn't happen.

osan
05-07-2014, 10:30 PM
Where have you been? College kids have been taking risks and playing pranks for as long as I can remember, and I'm sure longer.

Your reasoning is not quite valid here as it neglects sea-changes in context.

Back when I was in college, we did all manner of stupid things that might today get us shot.

For example, one year, the guys at UCLA decided they were going to do something BIG to Tommy Trojan (I was at USC). The boys on frat row at SC got wind of it and posted guards (UCLA would deface the trojan every year just before the SC/UCLA football game, a truly classic rivalry) around the bronze statue. The fUCLA boys got wind of it and took oblique measures when they hired a helicopter to fly a 55 gallon drum of paint over the statue and release it. They had my respect for oblique strategy, though the $10K it cost SC to clean the mess left me a bit cold and in the mid-70s that was still a LOT of money.

Just to pick an arbitrary point, let us say that since the 1900 the common behaviors of people have changed and this includes that of common criminals. The average person, even the average criminal, would not have ever considered doing some of the things that are today commonplace. It would have horrified them, yet today some people think nothing of such acts.

One day I was driving on Grand Central Parkway going to work. I saw a graphite Mercedes parked off on the grass strip right of the right shoulder. I wanted to stop and check it out, but did not want to be late so I kept going. That night on the news, that car was one of the headliners. Three people shot dead including an 11-month old infant. Columbian drug gang hit. There was a full million dollars cash in a paper bag in the car, too. This was ghastly and 100 years ago virtually nobody in this nation would have done such a thing. But the cultural context has changed and now some people will do such horrible things that the rest are far more on their guard, which only makes sense. Should people offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs to those who demand it on their whim and caprice? I doubt it, and that is why otherwise innocent pranks are now dangerous ones.

Hell, Mischief Night '74 we made a chlorine bomb with dog poo in a bag. One of my cohorts places the bomb on the porch of someone with whom he was displeased, lit it, and hoofed it into the weeds across the street. The target of his ire opened the door, discovered the brightly burning dry bleach, stomped it out, and got a shoeful of dog poo. We nearly died trying not to howl, laughing. It was childish and pretty stupid, but no real harm was done. Today, because of all the insane tensions in this nation, the same prank might get someone shot.

This is not the fault of a shooter or the kids going mildly awry. It is the result of shit circumstances that have arisen as the result of a people having, on the mean, lost their moral center. Were we morally the nation we were in 1900, these sorts of things would likely not be happening with anything but the least frequency... if even that. The craziness of the world as it now stands has presented people with the choice of changing with the times or risk being consumed in the flames of a world going simple on itself.

twomp
05-07-2014, 10:33 PM
And time and again I said that I personally don't agree with the homeowners decision. However, I do believe that it was his choice to make. And I would acquit.

If he got acquitted then did it again. Would you acquit him again as well? Maybe leave some candy lying around on Halloween and see if he can get 2 kills with one shot?

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 10:36 PM
It doesn't matter why he was there. He hadn't done any harm yet. The guy had a chance to tell him to put the beer down and get out of his garage or he would shoot, and instead, he just shot a man for no reason other than he was in his garage. That makes him a bad person. If your belief system involves placing higher moral priority on your exclusivity to a certain portion of the earth than on a "potential criminal's" life, then you're a maniac.

Just because you grew up that way, it doesn't mean that's how it should be. You can give people a chance and you don't have to give up any rights, so why wouldn't you do it?

The harm was trespass. It is a criminal offense. And criminals can be...dangerous.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 10:45 PM
If he got acquitted then did it again. Would you acquit him again as well? Maybe leave some candy lying around on Halloween and see if he can get 2 kills with one shot?

So you are equating leaving a door open with having Halloween decorations and candy out to lure someone in to shoot them. That's a stretch. :rolleyes: And I have already stated that I don't care if he had left a gold bar out. Trespass is trespass. Theft is theft.

And , yes, I would acquit him if it happened a second time. And a third. And a fourth. Until word got around that if you enter a man's home uninvited then you might be killed for doing so.
I would imagine after the second time word would get around that it would be a place to be avoided uninvited. As it should be.

twomp
05-07-2014, 11:00 PM
So you are equating leaving a door open with having Halloween decorations and candy out to lure someone in to shoot them. That's a stretch. :rolleyes: And I have already stated that I don't care if he had left a gold bar out. Trespass is trespass. Theft is theft.

And , yes, I would acquit him if it happened a second time. And a third. And a fourth. Until word got around that if you enter a man's home uninvited then you might be killed for doing so.
I would imagine after the second time word would get around that it would be a place to be avoided uninvited. As it should be.

I am equating it with the fact that he left the door open intentionally so he can legally kill someone. He doesn't need to have Halloween decorations up just a bowl of candy would be enough to lure kids in.

phill4paul
05-07-2014, 11:12 PM
I am equating it with the fact that he left the door open intentionally so he can legally kill someone. He doesn't need to have Halloween decorations up just a bowl of candy would be enough to lure kids in.

And I honestly don't care if he left every door and window open. He can intend all day. Unless someone trespasses then his intentions are moot. The trespass was the crime. The killing was the response.

twomp
05-07-2014, 11:20 PM
And I honestly don't care if he left every door and window open. He can intend all day. Unless someone trespasses then his intentions are moot. The trespass was the crime. The killing was the response.

It definitely would be a great way for serial killers to feed their addiction.

mrsat_98
05-08-2014, 03:48 AM
The kid was not on the lawn. The kid was in the house.

Oklahoma law sees a world of difference there. You're completely glossing it over, apparently in your zeal to make your point stick.

It makes a huge difference to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage

In law, the curtilage of a house or dwelling is the land immediately surrounding it, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated "open fields beyond", and also excluding any closely associated buildings, structures, or divisions that contain the separate intimate activities of its own respective occupants with those occupying residents being persons other than those residents of the house or dwelling of which the building is associated. It delineates the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where "intimate home activities" take place. It is an important legal concept in certain jurisdictions for the understanding of search and seizure, conveyancing of real property, burglary, trespass, and land use planning.

In urban properties, the location of the curtilage may be evident from the position of fences, wall and similar; within larger properties it may be a matter of some legal debate as to where the private area ends and the 'open fields' start.[1]

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 05:36 AM
Well, yes... but also only when its undesirables like Jews and *****s.



That is SO touché. Mo' rep 4 u and another thread winner.

Are you people fucking serious? How can you blame today's generation of Germans for something that happened in the 1940s? How can you just generalize like that?

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 05:39 AM
His statement is not ascribing fault, but reminding us of their history. Given the current context of candy-coated German tyranny, I would say he was on the money. Germany is a pretty, gilt-cage, gingerbread house shit hole.

What does their history have to do with them today? They're all individual human beings just like everyone else, and they are no more mass murderers than you are a slaveholder. History, or no history, collectivism and generalization is wrong.

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 05:42 AM
What I said was I think that there are way too many dumb asses who own firearms and aren't competent to respect and practice the responsibility that goes with having them.

And there are. I know a lot of people with guns. And most of them are idiots. If someone yelled boo! at them they'd crap their pants. I understand the concept of property rights but there is something to be said for competence in these kinds of situations too.

I don't know. I grew up around firearms my entire life and there is just a certain mentality that comes with it. A common sense kind of thing.

I grew up owning and shooting firearms as well, sometimes just to put food on the table as a kid. A responsible gun owner tries everything possible not to take a life, don't they? I don't care what piece of the earth you own, shooting someone without warning is wrong.

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 05:44 AM
Mistakes can be deadly. That is a good lesson to teach.

I don't see where I said anything about shooting my own kid. Care to clarify?

You said, and I quote:


hen I would have been a very irresponsible parent and would have had to mourn the consequences of my actions. Or, I would have come to the realization that despite my efforts my child did not learn from my teachings and suffered the consequence because of it.

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 05:51 AM
Oh no you don't. This was perhaps middling clever in the attempt, but I am afraid you were unable to slip it past my eagle eyes. There was nothing vague about the situation. There were strangers in the house who did not belong there. The man's tactics may have left something to be desired, but the general strategy of shooting first and asking questions later was 100% on the mark.

If YOU feel the need to confirm the threat prior to shooting, I fully respect your choice even if I do not agree with it. Similarly, when I plug an unknown intruder who has entered my home with no authority, I expect the same from you and anyone else. Neither am I nor are you obliged to expose yourself to the brands of risk that are inherent in such situations. Your choice to do otherwise from mine is fully legitimate, if foolhardy.

Consider my friend M. He is a crackerjack IPSC shooter whose best 3/2 split was something like 1.6 seconds. A 3/2 is where you start with 3 rounds, shoot 3 targets, drop mag, reload, and shoot two more targets. You have 5 rounds total and each must count. Now imagine the skill to pop off three rounds on target, reload and hit two more in 1.6 seconds. That is world-class time.

Now, imagine M. has broken into your house with the willingness to shoot you if he must in order not to be apprehended or worse. If you do as you say with M, 99.999% chance you will be rewarded with death because M is lightning fast and always dead on target. You don't have a second because in 1 second or less he could leave 7-10 rounds in you. He is that fast, no shit. And the real pros are notably faster.

The point here is you have NO idea who is in your house and you have a choice as to what you will assume about the person. Statistically speaking, you may even be likely to get away with your strategy, but I would still call it very misguided. Having a good heart and a healthy respect for the value of life are admirable qualities, but even those need to be tempered with some reality if the primary goal is to survive a potentially mortal encounter.

The person who is on your property is somewhere they shouldn't be. You don't know if they're a threat until they actually try to harm you or something of yours.

I don't see how any reasonable person can't take cover and tell the person to identify themselves. If someone was obviously setting traps for people and shooting them because they could, would you call that justified? If an unarmed man comes into your house and you are sitting there with a pistol, he's not going anywhere without your say so. You have him dead to rights. Do you still shoot him or do you give him a chance to get off of your property? What if he tries to run away? Do you chase him down and shoot him while he's still on your property? Is that justified?

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 05:58 AM
The kid was not on the lawn. The kid was in the house.

Oklahoma law sees a world of difference there. You're completely glossing it over, apparently in your zeal to make your point stick.

It makes a huge difference to me.

So what is the distinction you make between the house and the lawn? Is being in the garage just as threatening as being in the house? You still haven't entered the living quarters. Besides, I've already said that you still shouldn't shoot someone just because they're in your house. It's more of a threat if they are, but if you find someone in your house and you have no idea who it is, you shouldn't just fire blindly into your own house. I think it would be prudent to give the person a chance to drop everything and leave.

Granted, in that case, I would acquit because in most cases, it was justified. However, it is not hard to imagine a situation in which someone tries to lure strangers in and shoots them just because they can. If there is evidence that they just wanted to kill someone, I would pursue a criminal case. Whether or not anyone is able to prosecute your successfully, however, there is no difference between a murderer and someone who lures someone else onto their property and shoots them the first chance they get without any warning. To me, that's criminal behavior. If they're smart, they'll probably get away with it, but it doesn't make them any less of a cold-blooded killer than someone who does it in public.

mrsat_98
05-08-2014, 05:58 AM
I for one don't really want my fate decided by twelve nit wit members of society, i.e. a jury. But in this case its up to the jury.

http://cartersvillelawyer.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/image001.jpg

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 06:02 AM
In my house hold I have two children. If you are anywhere in my house or property uninvited and I feel threatened you may, if you wake up, be able to use your dick for a pencil.

You can make a case that the guy acted in haste and should have used telekinesis to know the intent of the intruder. Still doesn't make his acting in what he thought was a defense situation into a criminal situation...unless you can prove he intended to lure the German kid into the house.

No telekinesis required. Take cover and yell, "Who goes there?" or something to that effect. What's so hard to understand about that?

As I said before, facts have come out that suggest strong that he DID try to lure somebody into his house so he could shoot them. Is that still justified in your eyes?

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 06:05 AM
Your recommendation is exactly how someone would get themselves killed. The owner did nothing wrong. Thieves should learn that theft is dangerous to their health.

He intentionally lured them in and killed them because he just wanted to kill a couple of teenagers. Those are the facts now. He DID do something wrong, and he should suffer consequences.

Besides, I thought it was just common sense to try to identify what you're shooting at. How did he know who he was going to kill? Why couldn't he take cover and tell them to come out with their hands up? What, I ask, is so dangerous about taking cover, gun drawn, and telling the person to get out?

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 06:08 AM
Your reasoning is not quite valid here as it neglects sea-changes in context.

Back when I was in college, we did all manner of stupid things that might today get us shot.

For example, one year, the guys at UCLA decided they were going to do something BIG to Tommy Trojan (I was at USC). The boys on frat row at SC got wind of it and posted guards (UCLA would deface the trojan every year just before the SC/UCLA football game, a truly classic rivalry) around the bronze statue. The fUCLA boys got wind of it and took oblique measures when they hired a helicopter to fly a 55 gallon drum of paint over the statue and release it. They had my respect for oblique strategy, though the $10K it cost SC to clean the mess left me a bit cold and in the mid-70s that was still a LOT of money.

Just to pick an arbitrary point, let us say that since the 1900 the common behaviors of people have changed and this includes that of common criminals. The average person, even the average criminal, would not have ever considered doing some of the things that are today commonplace. It would have horrified them, yet today some people think nothing of such acts.

One day I was driving on Grand Central Parkway going to work. I saw a graphite Mercedes parked off on the grass strip right of the right shoulder. I wanted to stop and check it out, but did not want to be late so I kept going. That night on the news, that car was one of the headliners. Three people shot dead including an 11-month old infant. Columbian drug gang hit. There was a full million dollars cash in a paper bag in the car, too. This was ghastly and 100 years ago virtually nobody in this nation would have done such a thing. But the cultural context has changed and now some people will do such horrible things that the rest are far more on their guard, which only makes sense. Should people offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs to those who demand it on their whim and caprice? I doubt it, and that is why otherwise innocent pranks are now dangerous ones.

Hell, Mischief Night '74 we made a chlorine bomb with dog poo in a bag. One of my cohorts places the bomb on the porch of someone with whom he was displeased, lit it, and hoofed it into the weeds across the street. The target of his ire opened the door, discovered the brightly burning dry bleach, stomped it out, and got a shoeful of dog poo. We nearly died trying not to howl, laughing. It was childish and pretty stupid, but no real harm was done. Today, because of all the insane tensions in this nation, the same prank might get someone shot.

This is not the fault of a shooter or the kids going mildly awry. It is the result of shit circumstances that have arisen as the result of a people having, on the mean, lost their moral center. Were we morally the nation we were in 1900, these sorts of things would likely not be happening with anything but the least frequency... if even that. The craziness of the world as it now stands has presented people with the choice of changing with the times or risk being consumed in the flames of a world going simple on itself.

So you admit that you did a bunch of things you could have gotten shot for, and by your logic, rightly should have... and then you're telling me there are no exceptions to shooting someone on your property without first trying to identify the person and telling them to get out? I honestly don't see how it is less safe for a person to take cover and draw their gun on the person than if they immediately fired blindly at them. How does it put you in any more danger to try to avoid shooting someone if possible?

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 06:12 AM
The harm was trespass. It is a criminal offense. And criminals can be...dangerous.

There is no harm in simple trespassing. Tell me what harm was done. Harm is a word with real meaning. It does NOT mean being somewhere you shouldn't be. That is not harm. Not all criminals have to be dangerous. Heck, anyone could be dangerous, but the point is that you should at least verify that they are a threat before killing them. If you can't see them, take cover and give them at least a few seconds to come out with their hands up.

PaulConventionWV
05-08-2014, 06:13 AM
So you are equating leaving a door open with having Halloween decorations and candy out to lure someone in to shoot them. That's a stretch. :rolleyes: And I have already stated that I don't care if he had left a gold bar out. Trespass is trespass. Theft is theft.

And , yes, I would acquit him if it happened a second time. And a third. And a fourth. Until word got around that if you enter a man's home uninvited then you might be killed for doing so.
I would imagine after the second time word would get around that it would be a place to be avoided uninvited. As it should be.

That is sick. What is the difference between someone who does that for fun and a pyschopathic killer?

tod evans
05-08-2014, 06:18 AM
Part of the country I grew up in "trespassing" was cause for a highspeed rocksalt injection..

But............"Trespassing" was unlawful entry onto property not into a structure...

Unfortunately in most parts of the country today peppering trespassers with rocksalt will draw charges while killing them outright wont...

Hiding when a trespasser is in your dwelling is insane and cowardly but certainly your prerogative...

acptulsa
05-08-2014, 07:26 AM
Hiding when a trespasser is in your dwelling is insane and cowardly but certainly your prerogative...

And unless that garage was detatched the kid was 'in the living quarters'.

phill4paul
05-08-2014, 08:03 AM
You said, and I quote:

Nothing in that quote says anything about shooting my own kid. Perhaps, you meant to say "justify the shooting (by another) of my own kid."

In that case you would be correct. Is it not the parents responsibility to teach their kids how to stay safe in this world? Does a parent not deserve any responsibility for not teaching their children not to enter another's dwelling uninvited?

aGameOfThrones
05-08-2014, 08:34 AM
http://www.strangepolice.com/images/content/131012.jpg

Philhelm
05-08-2014, 10:54 AM
Meh, not much sympathy here. I love how the article tries to downplay the kid's actions by stating that is was "dumb," as though it were a harmless prank. Never in my life have I ever considered enterting someone's home without permission.

angelatc
05-08-2014, 12:04 PM
Don't pop off with an arrogant 'where have you been?' and pretend it's a valid argument. I used to climb a certain museum fence with my friends and drink beer on the conning tower of a certain retired submarine.

But I've never broken into someone's home at night. Especially when I knew they were there asleep. There is a difference, and that difference came entirely down to my instinct for survival.
.

Me either. I have also never broken into someone's home in the daytime. But this is what the liberals have done to our youth. They take away morality incrementally, then get blindsided by reality.

There's a big difference between putting a bikini on a public statue, and breaking into a garage to steal beer.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-08-2014, 03:02 PM
http://missoulian.com/news/local/search-warrant-missoula-man-may-have-been-high-when-german/article_71e0d72c-d544-11e3-b2fa-001a4bcf887a.html


Search warrant: Missoula man may have been high when German student shot

Markus Kaarma may have been under the influence of marijuana when he shot and killed German exchange student Diren Dede, according to a search warrant requested by Missoula police.

The search warrant also indicates that during previous burglaries of the Missoula home, unknown suspects had taken all the marijuana and marijuana pipes out of the garage.

Kaarma, 29, is charged with deliberate homicide for the shooting of the foreign exchange student, who was finishing his junior year abroad at Big Sky High School.

Demigod
05-08-2014, 03:08 PM
Legally the homeowner is completely right,and the kid is wrong but he had no reason to shoot him.just because you can doesn't mean you should.

francisco
05-08-2014, 03:22 PM
Legally the homeowner is completely right,...

I know that you tempered the above with the following


the kid is wrong but he had no reason to shoot him.just because you can doesn't mean you should.


But despite the Castle Doctrine law there is very much a question if the homeowner violated the law by deliberately setting up an ambush or trap, and then lying in wait

A judge and jury will get to decide if what the homeowner did was legal or not.



A hairstylist named Felene Sherbondy told the police that Mr. Kaarma had come into the Great Clips salon three days before the shooting and talked about how he had been waiting up with his shotgun for three nights “to shoot some kid.” Ms. Sherbondy told the police that Mr. Kaarma was being “extremely vulgar and belligerent,” according to court documents.

Ender
05-08-2014, 03:31 PM
http://missoulian.com/news/local/search-warrant-missoula-man-may-have-been-high-when-german/article_71e0d72c-d544-11e3-b2fa-001a4bcf887a.html


Originally Posted by The Missoulian
Search warrant: Missoula man may have been high when German student shot

Markus Kaarma may have been under the influence of marijuana when he shot and killed German exchange student Diren Dede, according to a search warrant requested by Missoula police.

The search warrant also indicates that during previous burglaries of the Missoula home, unknown suspects had taken all the marijuana and marijuana pipes out of the garage.

Kaarma, 29, is charged with deliberate homicide for the shooting of the foreign exchange student, who was finishing his junior year abroad at Big Sky High School.

Uhhhhh.... no.

Marijuana makes one laid back- not aggressive. Sounds like this will be used to list the evils of dope as well as the home owner.

bunklocoempire
05-08-2014, 04:57 PM
Bad judgement for both parties, but I have to side with the man whose home was being burglarized - once again.

You know, it kind of makes me mad when people tell you you should wait until your life is in imminent danger before resorting to force while your home is being invaded. It makes no sense at all. If an unknown person is in your house, against your will, YOU should be the one to take the risk so YOU can protect this other person's life? This person who felt it was simply natural to go into someone else's house and snoop around. Believing that would mean that a person in their home should risk their life and their family's lives just so an intruder can have another chance. Why is it so hard to understand that the intruder had their chance when they entered the property?

+a gazillion

The balance of power, the power of natural law to protect one's individual rights (how scary!:eek::rolleyes:), has been shifted to the arm of man's law, the LEO. The LEO certainly seem to be at home with natural law... for themselves.

It is not a "mundane state" we live in but a police state. -It isn't rocket science to figure why it's like this.

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-08-2014, 05:44 PM
As much as the kid is a punk, this guy should be charged with manslaughter. You just don't fire at people you can't even identify, much less ascertain that they're a threat in any way. If he tried to make off with something valuable, then I might consider that justified as well, but what he did was stupid and resulted in the needless loss of life.

In any case, you should give the intruder a chance to leave peacefully before shooting. Never mind shooting blindly into a dark garage.

it would be different if the intruder was trying to escape someone and slipped under the garage, but according to the article he had bad intent. But if the guy was so concerned about his house being broken into he shouldn't leave his garage open

osan
05-08-2014, 05:44 PM
Bad judgement for both parties

Not sure I'd call the homeowner's judgment "bad". I may have done things differently. OTOH, I may not. It is very easy to second guess the actions of others when it is not your own life potentially on the line. It is similar to the Monday night quarterbacking I have heard endless times... people criticizing those out on a playing field... "Oh that guy sucks... he should have done X... what a dumbass..." YOU get out there and play against 300#, ultra toned-up and jacked up monsters seeking to flatten you like a sheet of paper and see how well you fare. I have had intruders in my house twice. Once a drunken Mexican who entered my kitchen, disrobed, and passed out dead away under the kitchen table while my girl and I were out having dinner. Walked in, found him, got VERY pumped up, got the gun, called the cops, and had them take him away, declining to press charges on the condition they explain to him that had I been home, he would have been on the wrong end of a 12 ga and may well have been shot.

The other time, MX mafia entered my home in Scottsdale, took cash, left. I was on the bed with a 97 Winchester. I had decided I would shoot anyone who came through the bedroom door. They left without incident.

Oh, and there was that escapee from sheriff Joe's jail who was on my roof. I put him on the end of that very 97 and kept him polite while the sheriff's came. Yes, my life is stupid.


You know, it kind of makes me mad when people tell you you should wait until your life is in imminent danger before resorting to force while your home is being invaded. It makes no sense at all. If an unknown person is in your house, against your will, YOU should be the one to take the risk so YOU can protect this other person's life? This person who felt it was simply natural to go into someone else's house and snoop around. Believing that would mean that a person in their home should risk their life and their family's lives just so an intruder can have another chance. Why is it so hard to understand that the intruder had their chance when they entered the property?

When placed under minimal analytic scrutiny, the subtext there is that the intruder's life is actually more valuable than your own. Typical progressive/socialist/collectivist mentality. It is patently sick beyond description, not to mention absurd.

LibForestPaul
05-08-2014, 05:58 PM
One can not kill another human for trespassing on one's property. Natural law.
Debatable whether garage should fall under castle doctrine.

Would have no problem if this kid was in the basement of house and was put down;if I were on the jury.

That being said, arrest and investigation not unreasonable.

Suzanimal
02-13-2015, 07:56 AM
Montana homeowner gets 70 years for killing German exchange student


MISSOULA, Mont. (Reuters) - A Montana homeowner who was found guilty of deliberate homicide last year for fatally shooting an unarmed 17-year-old German exchange student who entered his garage was sentenced on Thursday to 70 years in prison.

Markus Kaarma, 30, will not be eligible for parole for the first 20 years of his sentence.

He was convicted in December of killing Diren Dede of Hamburg in a trial that tested Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" self-defense law, which allows deadly force against a home invasion if a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent an assault.

Prosecutor Andrew Paul said on Thursday prior to the sentencing that Kaarma, a former U.S. Forest Service firefighter, had a long history of assaults and domestic abuse, and characterized him as an unpredictable "powder keg."

At trial, prosecutors painted Kaarma as an armed aggressor who lured Dede to his death while the student was "garage hopping" at night in Missoula, perhaps looking for alcohol.

The Missoula County District Court heard how Kaarma installed motion detectors and a baby monitor days before the shooting, and deliberately left cash and other items in the garage on the day he killed Dede.

Judge Ed McLean said Kaarma's actions were alarming and stemmed in part from an earlier incident in which marijuana belonging to Kaarma was stolen.

"You weren't killing to protect your family, you were angry someone stole your grass two weeks before. You were angry with the world," the judge said.

Wearing shackles and an orange prison jumpsuit, Kaarma said he was sorry for taking another man's life.

"I did what was necessary and I hope no one else finds themselves in the situation I was in," Kaarma said.

Prosecutors said Kaarma lost legal protection when he left his house to corner the student in the garage after being alerted to Dede's presence by the monitoring devices.

Defense attorneys countered unsuccessfully that Kaarma was under no obligation to retreat from an intruder, and that his actions were in line with Montana law.

The defense had called for a new trial, arguing that "prejudicial" media coverage had made it impossible to seat an impartial jury. But McLean rejected that request, and another that Kaarma's conviction be downgraded from deliberate homicide, during a hearing earlier on Thursday before sentencing.

Defense lawyers said they planned to appeal the verdict to the Montana Supreme Court, but otherwise made no comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/montana-homeowner-gets-70-years-killing-german-exchange-184143667.html

asurfaholic
02-13-2015, 09:17 AM
Not sure how I feel about his conviction. Baiting someone is premeditated. Killing him after the fact is premeditated murder.

Proper thing to do is lock your shit up if you don't want it to be stolen.

jmdrake
02-13-2015, 09:20 AM
That is incredibly stupid. Who fires a shotgun randomly into a dark garage? You have to at least try to identify the person before shooting.

Joe Biden
....
Detroit Police Officers
....