German exchange student killed in Montana by home owner.

[HumblePie]

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.



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.



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.

1) It was in the evidence cited and linked previously that the garage door was mostly closed and only just off the ground in terms of being opened.

2) MT law regarding castle doctrine and use of force.

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.


I have not ignored it at all. In MT you can legally use lethal force to stop ENTRY into your domicile if that is your only recourse to stop an intruder. The German student in this case had to fully open a garage door completely to open it up. The garage counts as a structure owned by the home owner and thus is part of castle doctrine. The shooting was not justified because the shooter decided to keep shooting at a target that was no longer a threat to finish killing the person.

 

[himkhan]

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?

Setting a trap and calling the cops to deal with it - legal
Setting a trap and acting like cops - go to jail for murder.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

1) It was in the evidence cited and linked previously that the garage door was mostly closed and only just off the ground in terms of being opened.

2) MT law regarding castle doctrine and use of force.

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.


I have not ignored it at all. In MT you can legally use lethal force to stop ENTRY into your domicile if that is your only recourse to stop an intruder. The German student in this case had to fully open a garage door completely to open it up. The garage counts as a structure owned by the home owner and thus is part of castle doctrine. The shooting was not justified because the shooter decided to keep shooting at a target that was no longer a threat to finish killing the person.

You are relying on "evidence cited," which was in fact just a statement by defense counsel. As juries are always instructed (sometimes to my chagrin), statements of counsel are not evidence. Do you have a link to something that actually is?

EDIT: Here is an actual photo of Dede in the garage, courtesy of the Kaarmas' baby monitor, just before he was killed. The door doesn't look "mostly closed," much less "only just off the ground in terms of being opened" to me:

As for the law, you are conveniently ignoring the salient portion of the statute you quoted. You have either intentionally omitted it or you don't understand its (obvious) significance:

(1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure. (2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

Merely breaking and entering and burglary are not forcible felonies under MT law, and there was no apparent basis to believe that the victim here intended to assault anyone. Accordingly, the use of deadly force was not legally authorized.

So, did you intentionally omit that language to "prove me wrong," or were you just being wildly careless? I find it hard to understand how you could have copied and pasted the statute - presumably from my post in this thread - while inadvertently omitting only the language that directly contradicted your argument (an argument that, as usual, you presented as an authoritative statement of the law). Real lawyers don't have the luxury of taking liberties like that, lest they be held in contempt, disciplined by their licensing body, or even disbarred. If you don't respond, I will presume you did this on purpose, and knowingly lied about the law.

 

[Jaskalas]

Setting a trap and calling the cops to deal with it - legal
Setting a trap and acting like cops - go to jail for murder.

Not the trap... that's beyond dispute here. Just the Castle Doctrine and advancing towards where you know the suspect to be.

"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, by itself, a crime?

 

[xj0hnx]

Give him the chair.

Good fry.

Pretty much. Setting a trap, and then randomly murdering anyone that happens to walk into it.

 

[HumblePie]

You are relying on "evidence cited," which was in fact just a statement by defense counsel. As juries are always instructed (sometimes to my chagrin), statements of counsel are not evidence. Do you have a link to something that actually is?

EDIT: Here is an actual photo of Dede in the garage, courtesy of the Kaarmas' baby monitor, just before he was killed. The door doesn't look "mostly closed," much less "only just off the ground in terms of being opened" to me:

As for the law, you are conveniently ignoring the salient portion of the statute you quoted. You have either intentionally omitted it or you don't understand its (obvious) significance:



Merely breaking and entering and burglary are not forcible felonies under MT law, and there was no apparent basis to believe that the victim here intended to assault anyone. Accordingly, the use of deadly force was not legally authorized.

So, did you intentionally omit that language to "prove me wrong," or were you just being wildly careless? I find it hard to understand how you could have copied and pasted the statute - presumably from my post in this thread - while inadvertently omitting only the language that directly contradicted your argument (an argument that, as usual, you presented as an authoritative statement of the law). Real lawyers don't have the luxury of taking liberties like that, lest they be held in contempt, disciplined by their licensing body, or even disbarred. If you don't respond, I will presume you did this on purpose, and knowingly lied about the law.

Dede had to open the garage door further to enter. The fact you are showing a picture with him in the garage with the door opened up to just a height he can enter doesn't mean anything.

On top of that, a house and attached structures do not need to be locked nor even have closed doors to be considered non public areas. If I leave the front door to my house wide open that doesn't mean anyone can enter my house. Anyone that does is still considered BREAKING AND ENTERING by law.

As for needing knowledge of a forcible felony, that is a bunch of baloney. The moment someone is intruding upon your home, you do not know what their intent is. Even in Montana, one doesnt' have to wait until the intruder is harming someone is expressing a desire to harm for the homeowner to have reasonable fear. Otherwise no one could legally defend their home with a firearm in Montana and Castle Doctrine as a law means absolutely nothing.

Kaarma first action of shooting was justified. His second action of following up on the shoot to shoot again to make sure the intruder was dead was NOT justified. That is why he is going to prison and should remain there by Montana law and pretty much the laws of any state.

The baiting part means nothing. As you pointed out the "salient" part of the law and the argument boils down to a few things.

1) Did Dede unlawfully break and enter into the garage of Markus Kaarma? Yes
2) Can Markus Kaarma know at the time of the break in the true intent of Dede once he entered onto his premises? No

That's it. All that matters. That is why the first shooting is self defense and legal. Markus went full retard and after shooting once and verifying that Dede was injured from the first shot, he followed up to kill him. That isn't legal and is deliberate homicide which he was found guilty of.

Had there been a specific plan in place to lure Dede there specifically with an intent to kill him, then Dede would have received a murder 1 charge and most likely conviction while facing capital sentencing.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Dede had to open the garage door further to enter. The fact you are showing a picture with him in the garage with the door opened up to just a height he can enter doesn't mean anything.

And you are basing that on what, exactly? Where is your proof of this? I have provided an actual photo - let's see what you have.

On top of that, a house and attached structures do not need to be locked nor even have closed doors to be considered non public areas. If I leave the front door to my house wide open that doesn't mean anyone can enter my house. Anyone that does is still considered BREAKING AND ENTERING by law.

This is legally immaterial under MT law, as breaking and entering is not a forcible felony. That term is defined by Mont. Stat. sec. 45-3-101:

"Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

As for needing knowledge of a forcible felony, that is a bunch of baloney. The moment someone is intruding upon your home, you do not know what their intent is. Even in Montana, one doesnt' have to wait until the intruder is harming someone is expressing a desire to harm for the homeowner to have reasonable fear. Otherwise no one could legally defend their home with a firearm in Montana and Castle Doctrine as a law means absolutely nothing.

So, the actual statute is "a bunch of baloney"? See, in the United States, we have this thing called statutory law. It is the framework for our entire legal system. Here, MT law, as is true in many states, requires that there be a forcible felony or a reasonable fear of actual assault in order to use deadly force. Here, as the jury found, neither was true. Ironically, some of the pellets Kaarma shot entered the living area of his home, where his wife and child were. If anyone endangered his family that night, it was Kaarma.

You have intentionally misquoted the law, and are now arguing that the law as written is "baloney," and that the actual law is something different from what appears in the statute books. Typical HumblePie nonsense. You are the worst brand of arrogantly ignorant Internet wannabe lawyer.

Kaarma first action of shooting was justified.

Not under MT law, it wasn't.

His second action of following up on the shoot to shoot again to make sure the intruder was dead was NOT justified. That is why he is going to prison and should remain there by Montana law and pretty much the laws of any state.

That is true.

The baiting part means nothing. As you pointed out the "salient" part of the law and the argument boils down to a few things.

1) Did Dede unlawfully break and enter into the garage of Markus Kaarma? Yes
2) Can Markus Kaarma know at the time of the break in the true intent of Dede once he entered onto his premises? No

That's it. All that matters. That is why the first shooting is self defense and legal. Markus went full retard and after shooting once and verifying that Dede was injured from the first shot, he followed up to kill him. That isn't legal and is deliberate homicide which he was found guilty of.

Had there been a specific plan in place to lure Dede there specifically with an intent to kill him, then Dede would have received a murder 1 charge and most likely conviction while facing capital sentencing.

Again, you are misstating the law, and engaging in totally bogus conjecture regarding how the case was charged and what the jury found. Montana does not have degrees of homicide like many other states do - they only have "deliberate homicide" (the most serious charge, and the one Kaarma was convicted of), "mitigated deliberate homicide," and "negligent homicide." You can see for yourself at http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/45_5_1.htm

The crime for which Kaarma was convicted is this:

45-5-102. Deliberate homicide. (1) A person commits the offense of deliberate homicide if:
(a) the person purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being;
(b) the person attempts to commit, commits, or is legally accountable for the attempt or commission of robbery, sexual intercourse without consent, arson, burglary, kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, felonious escape, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, or any other forcible felony and in the course of the forcible felony or flight thereafter, the person or any person legally accountable for the crime causes the death of another human being; or
(c) the person purposely or knowingly causes the death of a fetus of another with knowledge that the woman is pregnant.
(2) A person convicted of the offense of deliberate homicide shall be punished by death as provided in 46-18-301 through 46-18-310, unless the person is less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, by life imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than 10 years or more than 100 years, except as provided in 46-18-219 and 46-18-222.

No aspect of this shooting was lawful. If you would actually read the law you quoted (from me!) in its entirety, you would see that. Again, though, your arrogance and desire to "prove me wrong" are getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

 

[HumblePie]

And you are basing that on what, exactly? Where is your proof of this? I have provided an actual photo - let's see what you have.



This is legally immaterial under MT law, as breaking and entering is not a forcible felony.



So, the actual statute is "a bunch of baloney"? See, in the United States, we have this thing called statutory law. It is the framework for our entire legal system. Here, MT law, as is true in many states, requires that there be a forcible felony or threat of actual assault in order to use deadly force. Here, as the jury found, neither was true.

You have intentionally misquoted the law, and are now arguing that the law as written is "baloney," and that the actual law is something different from what appears in the statute books. Typical HumblePie nonsense. You are the worst brand of arrogantly ignorant Internet wannabe lawyer.



Not under MT law, it wasn't.



That is true.



Again, you are misstating the law, and engaging in conjecture regarding how the case was charged and what the jury found. No aspect of this shooting was lawful. If you would actually read the law you quoted (from me!) in its entirety, you would see that. Montana does not have degrees of homicide like many other states do - they only have "deliberate homicide" (the most serious charge, and the one Kaarma was convicted of), "mitigated deliberate homicide," and "negligent homicide." The crime for which Kaarma was convicted is this:

I did not misquote the law. You have completely derided the intent of the law.

The law specifically states a person has to have reasonable belief that the intruder may commit a forcible felony to use deadly force. That is not a standard that is enforceable unless you expect the home owner to already be in the process of being harmed before they can use deadly force for self defense or that the intruder had to previously communicate their intent to use force.

Otherwise there is no legal way to defend your home in Montana by firearm and we know that is not true. So the intent of the law is that the act of breaking and entering onto a premise after certain hours allows for reasonable belief the person may be intending potential harm or there is no reasonable intent to the law for self defense of a home. Which do you think is the real intent of the law?

So if the intent of the law is to allow a home owner to use up to deadly force in self defense prior to any acts of physical aggression that would include harm to the homeowner then the first shot has to be lawful.

Again, the law allows for REASONABLE belief on part of the homeowner. The home owner cannot know the true intent of anyone breaking into their home if they don't know the person previously. So the breaking and entering as an act allows for reasonable belief of the home owner that the criminal, who has demonstrated their desire already to commit crimes, has the potential for more criminal actions which may include a forcible felony.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I did not misquote the law. You have completely derided the intent of the law.

The law specifically states a person has to have reasonable belief that the intruder may commit a forcible felony to use deadly force. That is not a standard that is enforceable unless you expect the home owner to already be in the process of being harmed before they can use deadly force for self defense or that the intruder had to previously communicate their intent to use force.

Otherwise there is no legal way to defend your home in Montana by firearm and we know that is not true. So the intent of the law is that the act of breaking and entering onto a premise after certain hours allows for reasonable belief the person may be intending potential harm or there is no reasonable intent to the law for self defense of a home. Which do you think is the real intent of the law?

So if the intent of the law is to allow a home owner to use up to deadly force in self defense prior to any acts of physical aggression that would include harm to the homeowner then the first shot has to be lawful.

No, no, no.

There are states, like Texas, that allow for the use of deadly force to protect property. MT is not such a state. This is why the law states:

A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

So what does that mean? In practice, it would mean that the person who entered the home had manifested some behavior (such as holding a gun, rushing toward the property owner or saying "I'm going to kill you!") that would create fear of assault or a forcible felony in a reasonable person. Merely entering a garage is not conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear these things. Your interpretation effectively renders the language I quoted meaningless and unenforceable. That goes directly against the canon of construction presuming that legislation has meaning, and that the legislature didn't include meaningless language.

You are saying I have "derided" (a word whose meaning you don't seem to understand) the intent of the statute by quoting the entire statute, and daring to presume the legislature included it for a reason. Unbelievable.

You really should throw away your internet wannabe lawyer shingle once and for all. You always seem to end up embarrassing yourself.

 

[bshole]

No, no, no.

There are states, like Texas, that allow for the use of deadly force to protect property. MT is not such a state. This is why the law states:



So what does that mean? In practice, it would mean that the person who entered the home had manifested some behavior (such as holding a gun, rushing toward the property owner or saying "I'm going to kill you!") that would create fear of assault or a forcible felony in a reasonable person. Merely entering a garage is not conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear these things. Your interpretation effectively renders the language I quoted meaningless and unenforceable. That goes directly against the canon of construction presuming that legislation has meaning, and that the legislature didn't include meaningless language.

You are saying I have "derided" (a word whose meaning you don't seem to understand) the intent of the statute by quoting the entire statute, and daring to presume the legislature included it for a reason. Unbelievable.

You really should throw away your internet wannabe lawyer shingle once and for all. You always seem to end up embarrassing yourself.

How can you be so right on with this and then turn around and blow it so badly on Bill Cosby?

 

[HumblePie]

No, no, no.

There are states, like Texas, that allow for the use of deadly force to protect property. MT is not such a state. This is why the law states:



So what does that mean? In practice, it would mean that the person who entered the home had manifested some behavior (such as holding a gun, rushing toward the property owner or saying "I'm going to kill you!") that would create fear of assault or a forcible felony in a reasonable person. Merely entering a garage is not conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear these things. Your interpretation effectively renders the language I quoted meaningless and unenforceable. That goes directly against the canon of construction presuming that legislation has meaning, and that the legislature didn't include meaningless language.

You are saying I have "derided" (a word whose meaning you don't seem to understand) the intent of the statute by quoting the entire statute, and daring to presume the legislature included it for a reason. Unbelievable.

You really should throw away your internet wannabe lawyer shingle once and for all. You always seem to end up embarrassing yourself.

The problem is already being challenged by the poor wording of the law versus the intent.

By the time a homeowner, in the dark during a home break in, can recognize the intruder may have a weapon in their hand could be TOO LATE for the home owner to properly defend themselves.

So the question of the law is does the mere fact that someone broke into your house in Montana allow for reasonable belief that they may be there to commit a forcible felony? To force that decision upon the homeowner to make a snap decision like that where their life may depend upon the decision is ludicrous. This is why since the change in 2009 to the law, which before did not allow home owners in Montana to use deadly force at all in defense of the law has allowed home owners in Montana to shoot at intruders first without receiving a murder conviction in many cases. For example THIS CASE is precedent to what I am talking about.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/sh...cle_6713fc72-aee6-11e3-956e-001a4bcf887a.html

Man in the same area shot and killed a burglar into his home in Montana and was not convicted.

Here is another.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/2...confronted-him-about-an-affair-with-his-wife/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/u...tal-montana-shooting.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Which also happened to be in a open garage as well.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Those cases do not contradict what I am saying - they support it.

From the first article:

After Bishop broke a window and entered the house, the homeowner encountered the intruder inside. The homeowner ordered Bishop not to move, but he allegedly turned toward the homeowner.

Based on the intruder’s actions, the homeowner feared for his life and shot Bishop with a handgun, the sheriff said. After being shot, Bishop fled through the same broken window and ran a short distance into the yard, where he collapsed and died.

From the second article:

On Sept. 22, Fredenberg walked into the garage to confront Harper about the alleged romantic relationship with Fredenberg’s younger wife. He was unarmed, but Harper shot Fredenberg three times. The fact that the shooting occurred in the garage rather than a few feet away on the sidewalk made all the difference. The Flathead County attorney Ed Corrigan declared that Montana’s “castle doctrine” law allowed Harper to use lethal force. He found that it was justified for Harper to run into the bedroom and retrieve his gun and return and shoot the unarmed man as self-defense: “Given his reasonable belief that he was about to be assaulted, Brice’s use of deadly force against Dan was justified.”

In those cases, there was at least some indication that the person entering the property might assault the homeowner. The entry itself was not justification for the use of deadly force - the justification was the perceived threat. The reason these cases went to trial is that the jury had to decide whether the homeowner reasonably believed there was a threat.

In this case, the only "threat" was entering a garage to, according to DeDe's friend, steal beer. There was no indication DeDe intended to enter the home, much less assault anyone, when Kaarma started blindly shooting. The other evidence, including Kaarma leaving a purse full of "marked" items in the garage, setting up a motion detector and baby cam, and telling people he intended to leave his wife's purse in view in his garage, then shoot anyone who came to take it, made it clear that this was a premeditated plan, not a response to any perceived danger.

There is no conflict between the "intent" of the law and its wording. If the law were intended to mean what you say, they would have omitted the language requiring that a resident be in reasonable fear of assault or a forcible felony before deadly force is authorized (as is true in TX, among others). The conflict is between your baseless belief about what the law says, and what it actually says.

Just stop this nonsense. These discussions always end badly for you. Do yourself a favor and cut it out.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem is already being challenged by the poor wording of the law versus the intent.

By the time a homeowner, in the dark during a home break in, can recognize the intruder may have a weapon in their hand could be TOO LATE for the home owner to properly defend themselves.

So the question of the law is does the mere fact that someone broke into your house in Montana allow for reasonable belief that they may be there to commit a forcible felony? To force that decision upon the homeowner to make a snap decision like that where their life may depend upon the decision is ludicrous. This is why since the change in 2009 to the law, which before did not allow home owners in Montana to use deadly force at all in defense of the law has allowed home owners in Montana to shoot at intruders first without receiving a murder conviction in many cases. For example THIS CASE is precedent to what I am talking about.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/sh...cle_6713fc72-aee6-11e3-956e-001a4bcf887a.html

Man in the same area shot and killed a burglar into his home in Montana and was not convicted.

Here is another.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/2...confronted-him-about-an-affair-with-his-wife/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/u...tal-montana-shooting.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Which also happened to be in a open garage as well.

Just stop, please. I have no idea why you continue to insist on arguing criminal law with an actual lawyer who has years of experience in the area. It never ends well for you.

 

[HumblePie]

Just stop, please. I have no idea why you continue to insist on arguing criminal law with an actual lawyer who has years of experience in the area. It never ends well for you.

Stop what? where there are case precedents like this one as well?

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/ma...cle_96e12812-c3fa-11e2-a509-001a4bcf887a.html

I am pointing out that reasonable belief in Montana has been upheld as just having an intruder in your home, or even in your garage as allowing a home owner to believe the intruder may be willing to commit a forcible felony. Which as shown in the past has been allowed in Montana since the change to the 2009 law. Which that was the intended spirit of the change to the law in 2009 as stated by the original AG in that state.

He is stating that a home owner has to see a weapon in the intruders hand, or already have physical violence acted upon the home owner or someone in the household, or be threatened by the intruder of physical violence to allow the home owner in MT to use deadly force in self defense in their house.

The answer to that, as I clearly have shown with previous cases, is nope. He was incorrect in his assumption about the interpretation of the law.

 

[HumblePie]

Those cases do not contradict what I am saying - they support it.

From the first article:



From the second article:



In those cases, there was at least some indication that the person entering the property might assault the homeowner. The entry itself was not justification for the use of deadly force - the justification was the perceived threat. The reason these cases went to trial is that the jury had to decide whether the homeowner reasonably believed there was a threat.

In this case, the only "threat" was entering a garage to, according to DeDe's friend, steal beer. There was no indication DeDe intended to enter the home, much less assault anyone, when Kaarma started blindly shooting. The other evidence, including Kaarma leaving a purse full of "marked" items in the garage, setting up a motion detector and baby cam, and telling people he intended to leave his wife's purse in view in his garage, then shoot anyone who came to take it, made it clear that this was a premeditated plan, not a response to any perceived danger.

There is no conflict between the "intent" of the law and its wording. If the law were intended to mean what you say, they would have omitted the language requiring that a resident be in reasonable fear of assault or a forcible felony before deadly force is authorized (as is true in TX, among others). The conflict is between your baseless belief about what the law says, and what it actually says.

Just stop this nonsense. These discussions always end badly for you. Do yourself a favor and cut it out.

In none of those cases there was any indication the person entering the home "might' have tried to assault someone. Asking a person to not move and having them turn their head towards you is not an indication they are attempting to assault you. Nice try.

As I said, here is this one.

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/ma...cle_96e12812-c3fa-11e2-a509-001a4bcf887a.html

No one was at home when the man coming home found an intruder in his house. He shot and killed the intruder legally. The intruder had no weapon in hand and the mere fact of there being an intruder was the reasonable enough belief that the intruder may have been there to cause an assault on someone.

 

[fskimospy]

Stop what? where there are case precedents like this one as well?

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/ma...cle_96e12812-c3fa-11e2-a509-001a4bcf887a.html

I am pointing out that reasonable belief in Montana has been upheld as just having an intruder in your home, or even in your garage as allowing a home owner to believe the intruder may be willing to commit a forcible felony. Which as shown in the past has been allowed in Montana since the change to the 2009 law. Which that was the intended spirit of the change to the law in 2009 as stated by the original AG in that state.

He is stating that a home owner has to see a weapon in the intruders hand, or already have physical violence acted upon the home owner or someone in the household, or be threatened by the intruder of physical violence to allow the home owner in MT to use deadly force in self defense in their house.

The answer to that, as I clearly have shown with previous cases, is nope. He was incorrect in his assumption about the interpretation of the law.

That's not what he said at all, and he appears to be completely correct.

He quoted you the statutes and clearly explained how this case fit into them. You're not a lawyer. You have no relevant experience. He does. Why not learn something from him instead of continuing your quixotic crusade to somehow defeat him?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Stop what? where there are case precedents like this one as well?

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/ma...cle_96e12812-c3fa-11e2-a509-001a4bcf887a.html

I am pointing out that reasonable belief in Montana has been upheld as just having an intruder in your home, or even in your garage as allowing a home owner to believe the intruder may be willing to commit a forcible felony. Which as shown in the past has been allowed in Montana since the change to the 2009 law. Which that was the intended spirit of the change to the law in 2009 as stated by the original AG in that state.

He is stating that a home owner has to see a weapon in the intruders hand, or already have physical violence acted upon the home owner or someone in the household, or be threatened by the intruder of physical violence to allow the home owner in MT to use deadly force in self defense in their house.

The answer to that, as I clearly have shown with previous cases, is nope. He was incorrect in his assumption about the interpretation of the law.

This is complete hokum. Again, you are simply ignoring the law because it doesn't track with your baseless "interpretation" of it, which is directly contrary to what it actually says.

The Castle doctrine in MT means there is no duty to retreat in one's home. It does not mean you can shoot someone simply for entering your home. That is not what it was intended to say, or what it says. You have provided no authority for this proposition, nor can you. That is also not what any of the cases you have cited held.

Here is another article on the Stiffler shooting. http://www.krtv.com/news/investigat...oting-death-of-burglary-suspect-by-homeowner/ As it says, Stiffler had no duty to retreat, but he also would not have been authorized to shoot the intruder unless he reasonably believed the intruder was going to commit an assault or forcible felony.

Please stop this nonsense, for the sake of your own dignity. You are acting like a petulant child and making a fool out of yourself.

 

[HumblePie]

That's not what he said at all, and he appears to be completely correct.

He quoted you the statutes and clearly explained how this case fit into them. You're not a lawyer. You have no relevant experience. He does. Why not learn something from him instead of continuing your quixotic crusade to somehow defeat him?

Lol, he is stating his interpretation of what is considered reasonable belief in regards to the law for Montana for castle doctrine. I am stating his interpretation of that is wrong and has been born out by previous cases. Here is another.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140922/PC16/140929834

Old man walks to neighbors house to beat up a yapping dog. The beating of the dog in Montana is NOT a forcible felony. Yet the old man was shot and the home owner was not charged and was listed as he victim.

I list others up above. There have been several cases since 2009 when someone broke into a home and the home owner shoots first after seeing the intruder in their home to defend the home without being charged or convicted of a crime in Montana.

I am not saying that breaking and entering is a forcible felony. I said the act of breaking an entering is enough to allow for the legal definition of reasonable belief the intruder may intend to assault someone in the home to be met by the home owner.

In many of the cases I presented the intruder had no weapon, gave no threat, and harmed no one before they were shot.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol, he is stating his interpretation of what is considered reasonable belief in regards to the law for Montana for castle doctrine. I am stating his interpretation of that is wrong and has been born out by previous cases. Here is another.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140922/PC16/140929834

Old man walks to neighbors house to beat up a yapping dog. The beating of the dog in Montana is NOT a forcible felony. Yet the old man was shot and the home owner was not charged and was listed as he victim.

I list others up above. There have been several cases since 2009 when someone broke into a home and the home owner shoots first after seeing the intruder in their home to defend the home without being charged or convicted of a crime in Montana.

I am not saying that breaking and entering is a forcible felony. I said the act of breaking an entering is enough to allow for the legal definition of reasonable belief the intruder may intend to assault someone in the home to be met by the home owner.

In many of the cases I presented the intruder had no weapon, gave no threat, and harmed no one before they were shot.

 

[HumblePie]

This is complete hokum. Again, you are simply ignoring the law because it doesn't track with your baseless "interpretation" of it, which is directly contrary to what it actually says.

The Castle doctrine in MT means there is no duty to retreat in one's home. It does not mean you can shoot someone simply for entering your home. That is not what it was intended to say, or what it says. You have provided no authority for this proposition, nor can you. That is also not what any of the cases you have cited held.

Here is another article on the Stiffler shooting. http://www.krtv.com/news/investigat...oting-death-of-burglary-suspect-by-homeowner/ As it says, Stiffler had no duty to retreat, but he also would not have been authorized to shoot the intruder unless he reasonably believed the intruder was going to commit an assault or forcible felony.

Please stop this nonsense, for the sake of your own dignity. You are acting like a petulant child and making a fool out of yourself.

Ugh you are not getting the point of what I am trying to point out of what has been deemed previously as allowable to the fulfillment of reasonable belief. In previous cases the mere presence of an intruder in the home in MT was justification enough to allow for the home owner to reasonably believe the intruder may have been there to cause an assault.

Again, to make the home owner have to decide if the intruder has a weapon in their hand or intends to use violence puts far too much onus on the home owner and may end up costing them their life when milliseconds matter.

I am putting up previous cases where the burden to be met for reasonable suspicion didn't require the intruder to have a weapon in their hand, nor make any threats at the occupants of the household as you have stated is the burden to be met.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Lol, he is stating his interpretation of what is considered reasonable belief in regards to the law for Montana for castle doctrine. I am stating his interpretation of that is wrong and has been born out by previous cases. Here is another.

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140922/PC16/140929834

Old man walks to neighbors house to beat up a yapping dog. The beating of the dog in Montana is NOT a forcible felony. Yet the old man was shot and the home owner was not charged and was listed as he victim.

I list others up above. There have been several cases since 2009 when someone broke into a home and the home owner shoots first after seeing the intruder in their home to defend the home without being charged or convicted of a crime in Montana.

I am not saying that breaking and entering is a forcible felony. I said the act of breaking an entering is enough to allow for the legal definition of reasonable belief the intruder may intend to assault someone in the home to be met by the home owner.

In many of the cases I presented the intruder had no weapon, gave no threat, and harmed no one before they were shot.

Um, that case is in South Carolina.

Stop this nonsense. You are an arrogant ignoramus.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ugh you are not getting the point of what I am trying to point out of what has been deemed previously as allowable to the fulfillment of reasonable belief. In previous cases the mere presence of an intruder in the home in MT was justification enough to allow for the home owner to reasonably believe the intruder may have been there to cause an assault.

Again, to make the home owner have to decide if the intruder has a weapon in their hand or intends to use violence puts far too much onus on the home owner and may end up costing them their life when milliseconds matter.

I am putting up previous cases where the burden to be met for reasonable suspicion didn't require the intruder to have a weapon in their hand, nor make any threats at the occupants of the household as you have stated is the burden to be met.

I did not say my examples were "the burden to be met." I cited those as examples.

As I have stated at least ten times, the burden is that the homeowner must have a reasonable belief that he or another person will be the victim of an assault or forcible felony. Examples of actions that might create that reasonable fear could include the examples I mentioned or any number of other things, like, say, throwing a punch or kick, or wielding a knife. Mere entry, however, is not enough in Montana, though it would be in Texas.

Stop this nonsense for your own good.

 

[HumblePie]

I did not say my examples were "the burden to be met." I cited those as examples.

As I have stated at least ten times, the burden is that the homeowner must have a reasonable belief that he or another person will be the victim of an assault or forcible felony. Examples of actions that might create that reasonable fear could include the examples I mentioned or any number of other things, like, say, throwing a punch or kick, or wielding a knife. Mere entry, however, is not enough in Montana, though it would be in Texas.

Stop this nonsense for your own good.

LOL for your own good. Throwing out insults is the hall mark of a loser.

Again, this case still disproves it.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/ka...cle_6eaddc92-126f-11e2-9cf4-001a4bcf887a.html

One man was cheating on another man's wife. Other man finds out and decides to confront the cheater. He walks into the cheaters garage and was walking in broad daylight at the cheater. No weapon in hand. No punches thrown. No kicks thrown. No threats of violence made. Just walking straight at the cheater with an angry face. The home owner legally shot and killed the intruder in his garage. The mere entry of the intruder into the garage was enough to allow for reasonable belief the intruder may have been there to cause harm. For as far as the shooter knows, the guy could have only been there to yell at him angrily for cheating on his wife and had not intended to assault him by your standards.

 

[bshole]

One man was cheating on another man's wife. Other man finds out and decides to confront the cheater. He walks into the cheaters garage and was walking in broad daylight at the cheater. No weapon in hand. No punches thrown. No kicks thrown. No threats of violence made. Just walking straight at the cheater with an angry face. The home owner legally shot and killed the intruder in his garage. The mere entry of the intruder into the garage was enough to allow for reasonable belief the intruder may have been there to cause harm. For as far as the shooter knows, the guy could have only been there to yell at him angrily for cheating on his wife and had not intended to assault him by your standards.

I remember owning you over your claims to shoot bullseyes at 100 yards with a handgun. The amount of ownage of you in this thread is creeping slowly up to those epic levels. Dude the more you protest the weaker you look. You need to know when to fold 'em.

 

[HumblePie]

I remember owning you over your claims to shoot bullseyes at 100 yards with a handgun. The amount of ownage of you in this thread is creeping slowly up to those epic levels. Dude the more you protest the weaker you look. You need to know when to fold 'em.

You haven't owned me on anything you dumbshit. You are the one continually owned on these forums in every thread you post.

LOL, and did you not read an article lately of an officer shooting a man at greater than that distance. I also never stated 100 yards, but 50 yards. Nice lie again. Something you claimed was an impossible shot anyone could make with a handgun. Yet this story http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2412005 disproves that claim made by you as well. Owned by whom indeed. Go crawl back under your rock you troll.