German exchange student killed in Montana by home owner.

[Subyman]

Wow, guy executed the kid. Nuts. Good decision on this one. As an aside, there are plenty of innocent reasons why someone may end up in your house or on your property. A friend of my brother was drunk one night and entered the wrong house, he thought it was his and ended up in one of the beds trying to sleep. The home owner woke up and roughed him up, but didn't shoot him. Everything was worked out and no charges were pressed. No quite pure innocence because he was drunk, but he certainly didn't deserve death. He's running his own business now and is very successful. Shows that these things are not cut and dry.

 

[Moonbeam]

I bet that anybody still posting who got it wrong originally will now create a new story to account for that fact, especially conservatives who are especially known to have that disease.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't even think the first shot was legal. He basically set up a trap in the first place, just waiting for someone to cross into the garage.

How is it a trap?

I put valuables in my garage and put a monitoring system on my house. It's legal to do so. The garage door was closed, and there is nothing illegal with sleeping with a gun in your hands if that is something you want to do as well. Or staying up all night with a gun beside you incase someone breaks in. Yah it's super paranoid and stupid in my opinion, but not illegal. Unless it is advertised that there is something valuable in there, then how would anyone know there is something worth stealing there?

The owner protecting his property = legal. Putting your valuables where you want on your property = legal again.

Shooting someone you already shot to "finish" them = not legal. Guy gets what he deserves for that. I'm all for defending your property from someone breaking into it. I'm not for making sure someone is dead just because.

 

[CitizenKain]

First shot was legal, second volley to finish the man was not. Case closed.

Neither shot was in self defense, case closed.

 

[Blanky]

This man was obviously murdered. You cannot bait people into robbing you and then gun you down. It is ludicrous and we all know it. He was never going to get away with such hooliganism. Stupid idiots like this are why people want gun control. They ruin it for people with half a brain who wouldn't ever think to try such a thing.

First shot was NOT legal. Nobody is allowed to bait people into committing a crime specifically with the intent to then shoot them. Nobody at all in any country with reasonable laws. It is barbaric and idiotic.

 

[Blanky]

How is it a trap?

I put valuables in my garage and put a monitoring system on my house. It's legal to do so. The garage door was closed, and there is nothing illegal with sleeping with a gun in your hands if that is something you want to do as well. Or staying up all night with a gun beside you incase someone breaks in. Yah it's super paranoid and stupid in my opinion, but not illegal. Unless it is advertised that there is something valuable in there, then how would anyone know there is something worth stealing there?

The owner protecting his property = legal. Putting your valuables where you want on your property = legal again.

Shooting someone you already shot to "finish" them = not legal. Guy gets what he deserves for that. I'm all for defending your property from someone breaking into it. I'm not for making sure someone is dead just because.

o to the first post in the thread and click the link. It was a trap. They specifically were baiting people. Don't confuse this with legally stopping a burglar.

 

[Subyman]

How is it a trap?

I put valuables in my garage and put a monitoring system on my house. It's legal to do so. The garage door was closed, and there is nothing illegal with sleeping with a gun in your hands if that is something you want to do as well. Or staying up all night with a gun beside you incase someone breaks in. Yah it's super paranoid and stupid in my opinion, but not illegal. Unless it is advertised that there is something valuable in there, then how would anyone know there is something worth stealing there?

The owner protecting his property = legal. Putting your valuables where you want on your property = legal again.

Shooting someone you already shot to "finish" them = not legal. Guy gets what he deserves for that. I'm all for defending your property from someone breaking into it. I'm not for making sure someone is dead just because.

You can construct multiple legal things into something illegal. I can buy some copper tubing = legal, a 55 gallon drum = legal, some corn = legal, some coal = legal, and construct a distillery = illegal.

Not that hard to figure out lol. All these legal things ended up making a trap that killed someone.

 

[Jaskalas]

Prosecutors contended that when Kaarma left his house to corner Dede in the garage after being alerted to his presence by the monitoring devices, he lost legal protection under Montana law.

Is that how Castle Doctrine works, you must stand your ground or retreat - but advancing towards the suspect to protect your property is not allowed?
I mean, in the totality of the circumstances he set a trap - sure... but if that part is taken in isolation, is it considered illegal?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

How is it a trap?

I put valuables in my garage and put a monitoring system on my house. It's legal to do so. The garage door was closed, and there is nothing illegal with sleeping with a gun in your hands if that is something you want to do as well. Or staying up all night with a gun beside you incase someone breaks in. Yah it's super paranoid and stupid in my opinion, but not illegal. Unless it is advertised that there is something valuable in there, then how would anyone know there is something worth stealing there?

The owner protecting his property = legal. Putting your valuables where you want on your property = legal again.

Shooting someone you already shot to "finish" them = not legal. Guy gets what he deserves for that. I'm all for defending your property from someone breaking into it. I'm not for making sure someone is dead just because.

Those are not the facts of this case. The garage door was open. Kaarma had intentionally left his wife's purse, full of "marked" items that he could later identify in the event of a theft, in plain view, and had motion detectors in place. When someone tripped them, he walked into the dark garage and started blindly firing a shotgun. Under these facts (which, unlike yours, have the advantage of being accurate), even the initial shots would have been illegal under Montana law, which I quoted early in this thread, because there was no reasonable basis to believe that Dede intended to commit a violent crime. Burglary alone does not justify the use of deadly force under MT law.

 

[brycejones]

Another libtard who accepts without question a prosecutor's (who is a lawyer by the way, they always lie) events of the truth.

You should have learned by now not to do that lest you look like a fool yet again.

A defense attorney is also a lawyer, but you're taking his word for it . . .

I didn't see this before. Poor spidey logic has never been his strong suit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Those are not the facts of this case. The garage door was open. Kaarma had intentionally left his wife's purse, full of "marked" items that he could later identify in the event of a theft, in plain view, and had motion detectors in place. When someone tripped them, he walked into the dark garage and started blindly firing a shotgun. Under these facts (which, unlike yours, have the advantage of being accurate), even the initial shots would have been illegal under Montana law, which I quoted early in this thread, because there was no reasonable basis to believe that Dede intended to commit a violent crime. Burglary alone does not justify the use of deadly force under MT law.

Please don't do that. You know the universe comes to an end when he admits to being wrong, he's just that important.

 

[dainthomas]

I'm amazed at all the criminal law experts in this thread who got the outcome hilariously wrong. Knock me over with a feather.

 

[Mai72]

What's the nationality of the home owner?

My guess he's SE Asian? I know the kid who got killed was a foreign exchange student from Germany.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I'm amazed at all the criminal law experts in this thread who got the outcome hilariously wrong. Knock me over with a feather.

Internet lawyers are like jailhouse lawyers, but worse in that they normally have no experience at all with the criminal justice process.

I certainly don't pretend to be the oracle of criminal justice knowledge, but I have worked a fair bit, in multiple jurisdictions, as a prosecutor and defense attorney, and successfully handled capital-level cases in both roles (I have actually sent one person to prison for life as a prosecutor, and secured a complete acquittal in a first-degree murder case as a defense attorney). That is at least helpful in anticipating what will happen in real-world cases.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What's the nationality of the home owner?

My guess he's SE Asian? I know the kid who got killed was a foreign exchange student from Germany.

He does appear to be Asian-American. If I had to venture a guess I would guess he was adopted, because his name sounds northern European and not at all Asian.

 

[Caravaggio]

Did he come to the US to continue his thieving ways?

Nope, probably just trying to reconnect to his German roots.

 

[HumblePie]

Those are not the facts of this case. The garage door was open. Kaarma had intentionally left his wife's purse, full of "marked" items that he could later identify in the event of a theft, in plain view, and had motion detectors in place. When someone tripped them, he walked into the dark garage and started blindly firing a shotgun. Under these facts (which, unlike yours, have the advantage of being accurate), even the initial shots would have been illegal under Montana law, which I quoted early in this thread, because there was no reasonable basis to believe that Dede intended to commit a violent crime. Burglary alone does not justify the use of deadly force under MT law.

The purse doesn't matter. The garage door wasn't fully open, otherwise it "might" have counted as bait.

The garage door was mostly closed and no one from the outside would be able to see anything potentially valuable inside without opening the garage further and going in. That the intruder had to completely open the door is by law breaking and entering which is legal to use self defense by lethal force for CD in MT.

Again, the reason he received the murder rap level he did, and not murder 1, was because he followed up on his shots to make sure the person was dead. You don't do that as it is illegal in all states.

Had there actually been an intent to murder with a baited trap as you keep thinking, Kaarma would be on the rap for murder 1 and looking at possible death penalty for his actions. That is not the verdict.

On top of that, they have already stated they are filing to appeal the verdict. I don't think it will get overturned because of what I have stipulated all along, the "finishing" shot is the illegal action that makes him guilty.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Baiting - it's only applicable to racists who are trying to trick realists into looking like racists,.. not homicidal predators who lure and murder complete strangers and then claim it's self defense.

 

[HumblePie]

o to the first post in the thread and click the link. It was a trap. They specifically were baiting people. Don't confuse this with legally stopping a burglar.

To "bait" someone has to be presented a bait. No bait is presented in this case as the "valuables" were never in plain sight.

Also, that is one slippery slope. What defines bait even if it can be seen from the outside? Someone looking in through my windows of my house right now can probably see some nice furniture, my lovely holiday tree with presents underneath, and possibly some other valuable items worth stealing. Just because they can be viewed from outside my house is that now "bait" that I setup in the event someone intrudes into my home with the intent to steal my stuff?

 

[HumblePie]

Is that how Castle Doctrine works, you must stand your ground or retreat - but advancing towards the suspect to protect your property is not allowed?
I mean, in the totality of the circumstances he set a trap - sure... but if that part is taken in isolation, is it considered illegal?

The problem is he fired first, realized he hit the person, and then went forward to shoot a second time. Which is why he was found guilty. You don't do that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The purse doesn't matter. The garage door wasn't fully open, otherwise it "might" have counted as bait.

The garage door was mostly closed and no one from the outside would be able to see anything potentially valuable inside without opening the garage further and going in.

What is your source for this? As far as I know only defense counsel has said that. The reporting on the case just says the door was open.

That the intruder had to completely open the door is by law breaking and entering which is legal to use self defense by lethal force for CD in MT.

This is incorrect. I quoted the actual law at the start of this thread and you continually ignore it. The law is actually important in . . . the practice of law.

Again, the reason he received the murder rap level he did, and not murder 1, was because he followed up on his shots to make sure the person was dead.

This is 100% your supposition. The jury was not asked that - they were just asked whether the shooting was legally justified. None of the shots would have been lawful under MT law because merely entering a garage is not, under MT law, a crime that can justify the use of deadly force.

 

[brycejones]

What's the nationality of the home owner?

My guess he's SE Asian? I know the kid who got killed was a foreign exchange student from Germany.

The nationality of the home owner doesn't really matter.

 

[CitizenKain]

The purse doesn't matter. The garage door wasn't fully open, otherwise it "might" have counted as bait.

The garage door was mostly closed and no one from the outside would be able to see anything potentially valuable inside without opening the garage further and going in. That the intruder had to completely open the door is by law breaking and entering which is legal to use self defense by lethal force for CD in MT.

Again, the reason he received the murder rap level he did, and not murder 1, was because he followed up on his shots to make sure the person was dead. You don't do that as it is illegal in all states.

Had there actually been an intent to murder with a baited trap as you keep thinking, Kaarma would be on the rap for murder 1 and looking at possible death penalty for his actions. That is not the verdict.

On top of that, they have already stated they are filing to appeal the verdict. I don't think it will get overturned because of what I have stipulated all along, the "finishing" shot is the illegal action that makes him guilty.

They have not sentenced him yet. That is in January. I don't think he will get the death penalty, and he shouldn't, but I doubt he will see the outside of a prison for decades.

 

[Zaap]

To "bait" someone has to be presented a bait. No bait is presented in this case as the "valuables" were never in plain sight.

Also, that is one slippery slope. What defines bait even if it can be seen from the outside? Someone looking in through my windows of my house right now can probably see some nice furniture, my lovely holiday tree with presents underneath, and possibly some other valuable items worth stealing. Just because they can be viewed from outside my house is that now "bait" that I setup in the event someone intrudes into my home with the intent to steal my stuff?

That's a good point. I would hope that the overall context would matter the most. Your example situation I would hope is never labeled a bait setup. But maybe leaving a safe in full view, open, with a trail of large bills leading from it to an open door, while you lay in wait in the closet with a shotgun...

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Is that how Castle Doctrine works, you must stand your ground or retreat - but advancing towards the suspect to protect your property is not allowed?
I mean, in the totality of the circumstances he set a trap - sure... but if that part is taken in isolation, is it considered illegal?

Not sure there. In Texas breaking into an occupied home is considered a violent crime and killing the burglar is 100% legal, though I'm not sure a garage counts as being inside the home.