A Montana man who set trap convicted of homicide.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thankfully for you and your family, you did not have a confrontation. It is a terrifying experience not being in control of your loved ones safety. Knowing how that made you feel, how would you feel if it happened 2 more times in a matter of weeks? This was the 3rd time in less than 3 weeks they'd been burglarized. Your dam right I'd be on edge, [censored] off, and scared for my families safety. And probably wake up several times a night to check my property. Definitely have a surveillance system installed if I did not already have one. Whether or not they left a door open or not SHOULD be irrelevant. Whether or not a purse was left out SHOULD be irellevant. The homeowner was victimized back to back to back. He did not bait anyone the first 2 times he was broken into and yet he still got broken into. He was not out looking for trouble.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow


I've a problem with someone who purposely lays a trap, with the intent of killing another...the issue is the a person who had the intent to kill another, and try to justify it by using a "victim" scenario.


Any reasonable person would have the same problem.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: jrmason
What I cant understand is why anyone would defend an intruders (actions) That folks is why our country has so many fruits and nuts walking the streets. We seem to have the mindset that criminals have rights, and that is a shame.


That's a pretty standard BITOG mindset...

I don't see anyone defending the intruder's actions at all...where do you get the idea that they are ?

Or is it simply that criticising the shooter's actions is automatically defending the criminal ?

Because the latter is not a valid argument.



Could you ever see yourself in the position the thief put himself in? I never will, and could care less if the homeowner knee capped him with a bat or emptied the clip in his chest. Why are you concerned and so critical of the homeowners actions? You guys are preaching to the choir on laws and rights. I've been through it all for my CCW and studied deeper into it on my own and I'm not interested in anyone's interpretation of why the homeowners actions were illegal. Bottom line is the thug put himself in a bad situation and he paid the price. No sympathy here. I'm guessing many of you have never been victimized and had your sense of security and basic freedoms violated. Its not a good feeling.


This is a case of premeditated murder and to commit this murder the felon used a plan to bait and trap his victim. What is so hard to understand?


But he isn't interested in anyone else's interpretation of the law. especially the grand jury's. the DA, the judge, the law itself.
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
What type (brand / model) of firearm did the homeowner use ?



Pump action shotgun fired four times.
 
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Nor am I interested in yours, but thanks for the concern.


Obviously you are, or you would of not bothered to reply.

Justice triumphed. You'll just have to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Does it bother anyone else that there are more people in this thread that feel the homeowner was justified than there are posters who recognize that this was murder?
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Shannow

I've a problem with someone who purposely lays a trap, with the intent of killing another...the issue is the a person who had the intent to kill another, and try to justify it by using a "victim" scenario.

Any reasonable person would have the same problem.

+2

Setup a trap to video then report to law enforcement is one thing, setup a trap to kill is clearly a murder.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Good for you. You are in favor of murder.

The justice system, law enforcement, and the vast majority citizens are not. I do not consider this a bad thing.


It isn't a bad thing. Despite what internet warriors/tough talkers think.


It is good to see others support and have faith in our justice system.


Actually, no, it's delusional.
 
Originally Posted By: jrmason
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: jrmason
What I cant understand is why anyone would defend an intruders (actions) That folks is why our country has so many fruits and nuts walking the streets. We seem to have the mindset that criminals have rights, and that is a shame.


That's a pretty standard BITOG mindset...

I don't see anyone defending the intruder's actions at all...where do you get the idea that they are ?

Or is it simply that criticising the shooter's actions is automatically defending the criminal ?

Because the latter is not a valid argument.



Could you ever see yourself in the position the thief put himself in? I never will, and could care less if the homeowner knee capped him with a bat or emptied the clip in his chest. Why are you concerned and so critical of the homeowners actions? You guys are preaching to the choir on laws and rights. I've been through it all for my CCW and studied deeper into it on my own and I'm not interested in anyone's interpretation of why the homeowners actions were illegal. Bottom line is the thug put himself in a bad situation and he paid the price. No sympathy here. I'm guessing many of you have never been victimized and had your sense of security and basic freedoms violated. Its not a good feeling.


Spot on. Exactly correct in all respects.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: CT8
Thieves and criminals are a protected class .


Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.

If the thief broke into the home, that's different.


You can't coax the unwilling...the perp had no business being in this guys garage, period!
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow


I've a problem with someone who purposely lays a trap, with the intent of killing another...the issue is the a person who had the intent to kill another, and try to justify it by using a "victim" scenario.
Who came up with that? Maybe he was planning on confronting the little SOB.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Thieves and criminals are a protected class .

Agreed 100%

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: CT8
Thieves and criminals are a protected class .


Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.

If the thief broke into the home, that's different.


So if the feds or local law enforcement set up a sting, and it goes awry and unfortunately someone dies, is that still hunting? is that also an unjustifiable crime?
 
premeditated murder, it was planned and premeditated. guilty as charged
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: CT8
Thieves and criminals are a protected class .


Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.

If the thief broke into the home, that's different.


You can't coax the unwilling...the perp had no business being in this guys garage, period!

True. But as the jury of the convict's peers found, can't bait a trap and murder him just for being there either. Jury got it right.

Lesson, two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Originally Posted By: Guitarmageddon


So if the feds or local law enforcement set up a sting, and it goes awry and unfortunately someone dies, is that still hunting? is that also an unjustifiable crime?
Citizens are always held to much higher standards. Medals would have been handed out if the guy had been a cop, with hard body armor, machine gun, as a dozen buddies similarly equipped.
 
Originally Posted By: jrmason


What I cant understand is why anyone would defend an intruders (actions) That folks is why our country has so many fruits and nuts walking the streets. We seem to have the mindset that criminals have rights, and that is a shame.


I am not defending "intruders". What I am saying is, it is wrong to purposely setup and bait to draw someone in so you can then go out and shoot them. The homeowner basically set a trap to shoot and kill someone. THAT is what I find wrong.

He purposely baited his garage, had a video setup so he knew when the intruder was there, saw the intruder( from inside on the monitor so he was in no danger ), then took his gun and went out and shot the intruder rather than call the Police. That is pre meditated murder I am sorry.

This situation is completely different than the average homeowner confronting an intruder out of the blue and shooting them in self defense. This homeowner knew he was having "visitors" and set a trap so he could kill them. Big difference. Add in that he was growing pot so he didn't want to call the police makes it even worse. The homeowner wanted to shoot and kill. That is not self defense.

Saying the homeowner was not justified in shooting the intruder does not mean I am defending the person stealing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
The best aircraft designer nobody ever heard of...
Replies
2
Views
3K
threeputtpar
T
  • Locked
Safety of cars' keyless entry and ignition systems
Replies
14
Views
8K
brandini
Back
Top