Unusual intruder shooting case

[antiqueshell]

There are at least five people that posted in this thread that support what I have said.

If somebody enters your garage on private property at midnight there are states like Texas that allow deadly force to be used to protect not only yourself BUT YOUR PROPERTY AS WELL.

Bottom line....trespassing and breaking and entering was occurring on the homeowners private property ON REPEATED occasions. His actions were reasonable, logical, and rational due to those circumstances. If it was a one time event I might be less supportive. I'm certain the guy was afraid of what might happen when he was home and unprepared.

Theft is increasingly a real problem and the criminals have become bolder and more brazen because of lack of sufficient law enforcement availability, desperation, and perhaps drugs.

I make no excuses for the fact that this incident DOES help to deter other potential thieves.

FYI...I had a problem with a belligerent, threatening, obnoxious neighbor and his very large vicious dog, attempting to attack me every time I'd head out to walk on my own darn street. I COULD have shot the dog if I felt sufficiently threatened as it was on a public road (my county sheriff's department informed me of this), and the owners were actively and repeatedly letting the mutt out to accost me. When I approached them and attempted to ask them politely to restrain their animal, they got threatening as well on the street, and challenged me to call the police, which I did. I let the law handle it and they were initially warned to restrain a potentially dangerous dog, and instructed to construct a fence that the animal could not escape from, the owners refused to comply with that county animal control order they would be fined a substantial penalty, and then finally they constructed that required fence.

Obviously I'm not unwilling to make every attempt to use the laws and resolve things peaceably.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
You and others here keep "forgetting" that it is a fact that the homeowner experienced repeated trespass and break and enter crimes.


You, and some others, keep "forgetting", scratch that, ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter how many times he was trespassed against.

You keep ignoring the fact that he left the garage door five and a half feet off the ground. (How is going through an open door "breaking and entering"?)

You keep ignoring the fact that he left bait. That he waited over several days, for some one to take it. And to shoot them.

You claim the dead kid had choices. You keep ignoring the fact that the killer also had choices. Did he close and lock the garage door? Put in an alarm system?

No. he *chose* to put in motion detectors. he chose to put in a video system. he *chose* to entice someone into the garage by putting attractive bait.

He *chose* to start shooting. He didn't have to. Why did he?

Because he got robbed a couple of times and wanted to make someone, anyone, pay for it.

He was too stupid to take any reasonable steps to keep someone out of the garage. He is too stupid to own firearms. It's people like that who add fuel to the gun control fire.

People like him make it easy to paint those of us who are responsible firearms owners as gun crazed who would rather shoot first and ask questions later, if ever.

And people like you help them do that. Well done.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Trajan

And I really doubt he could get on a jury. Either lawyer gets wind of his conspiracy rants, he'll get bounced off.


Yup. Same reason he couldn't get a firearms license up here. The RCMP would have him flagged as a nutter in their database and he'd fail the police check.


The RCMP would make his list

 

[antiqueshell]

Trajan....

"I" would not have made the same exact choice the homeowner did,
but I do NOT hold him at fault for defending his property and person from trespassers and breaking and entering. Just because the garage door was open does NOT mean you enter. It is PRIVATE PROPERTY whether the door was open or not. That is still breaking and entering.

As far as the RCMP making my list....what the heck are you talking about? They have different laws and regulations. Why would you insinuate that I would threaten law enforcement? Not even remotely funny.

We don't live in Canada. The crime rates are far lower as well. They do not have the same problems we do, luckily for them, except perhaps in the biggest cities and even then the crime rates are still significantly lower.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
.....
If you shoot without a threat to yourself, you are using lethal force where it isn't justified. That is known as homicide, or attempted homicide (depending on your aim) and that's what this killer was charged with.


Disagree.

(2) .... is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

(a) the entry is made ..... and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon ..... another then in the occupied structure; or

(my emphasis added)

Unless their case law pulls this back, the law in this jurisdiction clearly permits the use of DF when there is no threat to the shooter.

There was a person remaining in the occupied structure - his wife, girlfriend, whatever she was - the one taking the pictures on the baby monitor.

Whether the shooter's belief was reasonable or not obviously will be hotly contested. From the little bit I've read, there are facts that cut in the defendant's favor, and facts that don't.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
....

You keep ignoring the fact that he left the garage door five and a half feet off the ground. (How is going through an open door "breaking and entering"?)

You keep ignoring the fact that he left bait .....



What does "breaking and entering" ( or "trespass" for that matter ) have to do with anything relevant to this event?

That's not the language the defensive statute uses. That language is "unlawful entry".

My gut feeling is that if the decedant was not authorized to be in the garage, then his entry was in fact unlawful, regardless of whether the door was closed, or open. One would have to research the Montana statutes or case law for a definitive answer. I don't have that kind of time or interest.

As to the baiting, if that's true, that may or may not be problematic. It seems to me that if the killing was legally justified, it doesn't really matter how the decedant got to that position - what happened to him was still not unlawful.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Win
[
One would have to research the Montana statutes or case law for a definitive answer. I don't have that kind of time or interest.


That's too bad. Because if you don't know what is considered capital homicide is in Montana, then you have no argument.

In an above post, I posted a link to Montana law.

To wit: Murder committed while currently serving sentence of imprisonment; previous murder conviction; committed by torture; lying in wait or ambush; part of scheme or operation which would result in death of more than 1 person; victim was peace officer performing duty; aggravated kidnapping; while incarcerated at state prison by person previously convicted of murder or persistent felony offender; while committing sexual assault, sexual intercourse without consent, deviate sexual conduct or incest and victim less than 18 years - See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/montana-law/montana-capital-punishment-laws.html#sthash.cqyq2MvT.dpuf

The guy lay in wait day after day. He set up an ambush. Both of which fall into the definition of capital homicide.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
subquoting antiqueshell

subquote = >If I was on that jury (and you know people like me WILL be on that jury) .....

And I really doubt he could get on a jury. Either lawyer gets wind of his conspiracy rants, he'll get bounced off.


I'd be OK with him on the jury.

Well, OK, more than OK, it only takes one to hang a jury, and clearly he's the one. If I had any hesitation, it might be that he could be too vigorous an advocate for the defendant in a dicey case like this.

What I wouldn't want on the jury are the "what if" people, and the people who might not follow the law as given them by the judge.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Trajan
....

You keep ignoring the fact that he left the garage door five and a half feet off the ground. (How is going through an open door "breaking and entering"?)

You keep ignoring the fact that he left bait .....



What does "breaking and entering" ( or "trespass" for that matter ) have to do with anything relevant to this event?

That's not the language the defensive statute uses. That language is "unlawful entry".

My gut feeling is that if the decedant was not authorized to be in the garage, then his entry was in fact unlawful, regardless of whether the door was closed, or open. One would have to research the Montana statutes or case law for a definitive answer. I don't have that kind of time or interest.

As to the baiting, if that's true, that may or may not be problematic. It seems to me that if the killing was legally justified, it doesn't really matter how the decedant got to that position - what happened to him was still not unlawful.


In an above post, I posted a link to Montana law.


Are you talking about the laying in wait / ambush thing? It would surprise me if that was applicable on one's own property, because a potential decedant can easily avoid it simply by not entering on the property. edit, nor, frankly does waiting in one's dwelling strike me as laying in wait or an ambush.

$30,000 is a shockingly low bond for any type of homicide, even a negligent homicide, and incomprehensible for a capital offense, if, indeed, one can even bond out in Montana on a capital charge. So I don't think our defendant is presently charged with capital murder.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Trajan
subquoting antiqueshell

subquote = >If I was on that jury (and you know people like me WILL be on that jury) .....

And I really doubt he could get on a jury. Either lawyer gets wind of his conspiracy rants, he'll get bounced off.


I'd be OK with him on the jury.

Well, OK, more than OK, it only takes one to hang a jury, and clearly he's the one. If I had any hesitation, it might be that he could be too vigorous an advocate for the defendant in a dicey case like this.

What I wouldn't want on the jury are the "what if" people, and the people who might not follow the law as given them by the judge.


He would never get past either challenge for cause or peremptory challenge.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Trajan
....

You keep ignoring the fact that he left the garage door five and a half feet off the ground. (How is going through an open door "breaking and entering"?)

You keep ignoring the fact that he left bait .....



What does "breaking and entering" ( or "trespass" for that matter ) have to do with anything relevant to this event?

That's not the language the defensive statute uses. That language is "unlawful entry".

My gut feeling is that if the decedant was not authorized to be in the garage, then his entry was in fact unlawful, regardless of whether the door was closed, or open. One would have to research the Montana statutes or case law for a definitive answer. I don't have that kind of time or interest.

As to the baiting, if that's true, that may or may not be problematic. It seems to me that if the killing was legally justified, it doesn't really matter how the decedant got to that position - what happened to him was still not unlawful.


In an above post, I posted a link to Montana law.


Are you talking about the laying in wait / ambush thing? It would surprise me if that was applicable on one's own property, because a potential decedant can easily avoid it simply by not entering on the property.


Read the law. Read what the killer admitted to. Said killer could of avoided arrest and being locked up if he took reasonable steps to avoid it.

Setting up an ambush isn't reasonable. Leaving a garage door open, especially after claiming to have been robbed before, is not a reasonable action. Setting up motion detectors, but no alarm, is not a reasonable action. Laying down bait is not a reasonable action.

There is a poster awhile back who has a neighbor from [censored]. Guy complained when he worked on his car in the driveway. Pulled up bushes that were planted because this guy claims that watering them caused water to go into his basement.

Now according to you, said poster would be justified to plant claymore mines or grenades under the bushes so that they go off if they are disturbed.

Just too bad if some kid walking his dog tripped, the dog got loose, and in chasing the dog, hit the bush and set one off and died.

You'd be OK with that. because after all, the kid was trespassing

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
...

Now according to you, said poster would be justified to plant claymore mines or grenades under the bushes so that they go off if they are disturbed. ....


Huh?

Where did that come from?

Because under the relevant statutes I think this defendant has a defensible case that can be vigorously defended, how, exactly, does that translate to claymore mines or grenades under bushes?

 

[02SE]

I have a problem with the concept that he was baiting anyone, by having personal belongings in his own garage.

Am I baiting potential thieves by having fully stocked Snap-On rolling tool cabinets in my garage? Maybe the high performance Motorcycle is too enticing, and I deserve to be robbed?

There are a few cars too, certainly I deserve to have them stolen..

 

[datech]

Originally Posted By: 02SE
I have a problem with the concept that he was baiting anyone, by having personal belongings in his own garage.

Am I baiting potential thieves by having fully stocked Snap-On rolling tool cabinets in my garage? Maybe the high performance Motorcycle is too enticing, and I deserve to be robbed?

There are a few cars too, certainly I deserve to have them stolen..








I believe the original story said it was his wife's purse that was left as bait, it has turned out that the real bait was marijuana.

He told the hairdresser he was baiting the garage and waiting to shoot somebody.

The reason the homeowner wanted to settle this himself without calling the police was the marijuana.

This is a typical reason drug runners get shot and killed as they have to carry their own 'protection', although there was a recent case in Texas where a woman called the police to complain about a drug deal gone bad. They all went to jail.

Whether the marijuana upset the homeowner's sense of right or wrong is hard to say, it could have been a factor, but as a drug related shooting he will pay a big price for his crime.

 

[datech]

Officers found a jar of pot in Kaarma's home the day he shot the teen, a police statement accompanying an April 28 request for a search warrant said. Kaarma also might have had marijuana stolen from his garage in a previous burglary, the document said.


The search-warrant request says Kaarma's girlfriend, Janelle Pflager, told a neighbor that someone had taken all the marijuana and pot pipes out of the garage in a previous burglary.

Pflager also told the neighbor her husband smokes marijuana in the garage, and police found a glass jar

 

[dlundblad]

I am still standing behind the fact that the kid shouldn't have been in his garage. If he wanted to tell him he left his door open, he should have went to the front door. Going into the garage is entering (not breaking and entering) the structure is asking for trouble.

The Mary Juana in the garage is a whole new ballgame.

*The best I can say is that I am glad I am not the one who has to dissect these cases and what I would have personally done if I was the garage owner guy. ie. not leaving the door up

 

[datech]

The kids were probably in there smoking the pot, which is expensive and of course illegal, so the homeowner couldn't involve the police (even though he should have considered they would show up for a homicide)

Not as simple as it seems at first, the crime begins to make more sense when the true motive is revealed.

It would be really interesting if it turns out the homeowner was not only consuming pot, but a dealer as well. There has been no mention of that, but I wonder if it is a possibility as the crime somewhat fits the drug dealing mold.

 

[Win]

http://www.abcfoxmontana.com/story/25446280/markus-kaarma-speaks-out-on-diren-dede-shooting

 

[OVERKILL]

Boy the lawyer sure cleaned those statements up, LOL!!!

 

[datech]

from the guns.com web site story on this incident:

"The court documents also indicate that Kaarma’s desciption of how the incident unfolded doesn’t quite match up with the evidence gathered at the scene. For example, Kaarma said that he aimed his shotgun high in an attempt to miss the car that was parked in the garage. However, investigators determined that three shots were fired low, while the fourth was fired high."

"Additionally, even the couple’s recollection of what transpired has inconsistencies. Kaarma claimed that there was never any communication between him and the teens before he opened fire and that the entire incident only lasted a few seconds. However, Pflager said that she heard her husband say, “Hey, hey” as he loaded a shotgun shell and the boy responded with “hey” or “wait” before Kaarma fired the first two shots."

----------------------------------

They have to be expected to make the best case they can, but I see big problems for this man Kaarma.