PDA

View Full Version : Stay on the Outrage Bus! - VERDICT


chuks
1st Dec 2014, 08:30
A homeowner is going on trial in Missoula, Montana for the killing of a teenage German exchange student who had entered his (open) garage intent on stealing some beer.

There are two German attorneys acting as amici curiae, I assume, for the dead student's parents, alongside the prosecutor. (Just to liven things up a bit, as if that were necessary, the parents are of Turkish background.)

On the side of the homeowner there are five (5) defense attorneys, with the lead attorney asserting that the homeowner was in fear for his life. Why he did not stay in the safety of his bedroom and call the cops is a good question, one that the defense might have to answer. On the other hand, the defense already has researched the background of the student, planning to refute any prosecution attempt to present the dead student as a model of good behavior.

This case will probably replicate much of the stand-off we have seen over Michael Brown, to create a highly polarized discussion void of nuance.

Gordy
1st Dec 2014, 08:42
Old news already.....

chuks
1st Dec 2014, 08:48
The killing was old news, but here in Germany at least, the trial of the killer is what has been awaited: the examination of the issues behind the bare facts.

This will rake up all the negatives from both sides: criminality of youth on one side; too-ready American resort to deadly force on the other.

Expect to see the mouth-breathing American gun faction asking why the kid was only hit with a few rounds from a shotgun, matched by the bleeding hearts of Germany and elsewhere asking why he should not have been left to go on his way with a few beers, unmolested: vigilantism facing off against permissiveness.

Gordy
1st Dec 2014, 08:50
Reuters article from JUNE... (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/25/us-usa-exchangestudent-montana-idUSKBN0F02KD20140625)

German officials have expressed outrage at the killing and the teen's father suggested to a German news agency that U.S. gun culture was at least partly to blame for his son's death.

the death of Diren Dede of Hamburg, who authorities said was killed while "garage hopping" in Missoula in a possible search for alcohol.

Seems to me, that if you know of the "gun culture" in the US, one would refrain from trespassing in someones garage, regardless of the law, which will ultimately decide the case.

ExXB
1st Dec 2014, 08:52
From the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html?_r=0

“Whatever happened to turning the lights on and yelling, ‘Hey kids, go home’?”

“Or closing the garage door?”

Let's not turn this into a gun debate. While a gun was used I see the issue being the so called castle doctrine.

UniFoxOs
1st Dec 2014, 09:08
Let's not turn this into a gun debate

You've got a hope.

chuks
1st Dec 2014, 09:22
There you have it, I think: A young man from Germany probably would never imagine being shot over stealing a few beers from a garage. On the other hand, this American homeowner certainly did imagine doing exactly that, shooting someone for entering his unlocked garage through a partially open door. A German homeowner would never expect to get away with doing that.

You really could not get two more diametrically opposed mindsets than these, the German and the American.

Here we just had a very high-profile case of an elderly man who shot and killed a young man who was fleeing a violent home invasion, one in which the man had been beaten and robbed. He was put on trial by the state for murder and acquitted, but he's now the target of death threats from the family, who are from some foreign culture that still practices vendetta. That recent case may make this new case especially resonant.

bcgallacher
1st Dec 2014, 09:29
We in the rest of the western countries stopped executing people for theft a long time ago - it appears to continue in the USA. Being black and knocking on a door at night also results in execution along with many other activities. Having to arm yourself against your fellow citizens is a huge admission of a failed society under siege.

rh200
1st Dec 2014, 09:39
We in the rest of the western countries stopped executing people for theft a long time ag

Yes, hasn't that turned out to be a huge success.:ugh:

md 600 driver
1st Dec 2014, 10:04
Why don't we ship them off to Afghanistan

Mr Chips
1st Dec 2014, 10:21
Oh good, yet another "bash the American gun culture" thread :ugh:

Capot
1st Dec 2014, 10:23
Here we are again, with our US friends saying, essentially, that being shot is a fair and just penalty for being stupid.

Seems to me, that if you know of the "gun culture" in the US, one would refrain from trespassing in someones garage, regardless of the law, which will ultimately decide the case

Well, it's a point of view held by many, not only in the USA, and I'm not going to argue against it.

But, as before, it raises a legitimate question; if stupid people are shot in the USA, how come there are so many obese cops around?

ExXB
1st Dec 2014, 10:36
According to the NYT article I linked above:

... 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, 29, to an intruder’s presence.

... 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.

... His lawyer, Paul Ryan, says Mr. Kaarma feared for his family’s safety and panicked that night. “He doesn’t know who’s there, what they’ve got, anything,” Mr. Ryan said. “He just didn’t know what was going on. Then he started to shoot.”

...two recent burglaries had made Mr. Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, feel like targets inside their home, Mr. Kaarma’s lawyer said. Someone had entered their open garage — the couple kept it open so they could duck out to smoke cigarettes — and stolen a wallet and credit cards,

... Ms. Pflager bought motion sensors and a video camera to track the intruders should they return, and put a purse with some marked belongings inside, so that they could be traced to anyone who stole them.

... A hairstylist .. told the police that Mr. Kaarma had come into the ... 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.

... Mr. Dede’s host parents, Mr. Smith and Kate Walker, who say they have never locked their doors and have never been burglarized, have spent the last week grieving.

Obviously not all the facts. It would seem to me that this individual set about seeking revenge and laid a trap. In my view that is not self-defense.

Again this isn't about guns, the crime could have been committed with a baseball bat, but then the kid would have lived.

charliegolf
1st Dec 2014, 10:37
how come there are so many obese cops around?

Because with a bullet's velocity on your side, a foot race is not necessary?

CG

Flying Lawyer
1st Dec 2014, 12:00
chuksThere are two German attorneys acting as amici curiae, I assume, for the dead student's parents, alongside the prosecutor.

An amicus curiae (literally 'friend of the court') is, or certainly should be, neutral.


I can't, at the moment, understand why an amicus would appropriate in this case.
Perhaps that will become clear in due course.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Dec 2014, 12:07
Perhaps to explain the expectations of the deceased, and therefore provide some rationale for his actions, in terms of how this crime is treated in Germany?

You leave the door open, but set up motion sensors?
Opening my garage door takes a button press on the remote, and involves considerably less effort than setting up motion sensors. Or avoiding the loaded shotgun in the dining room. I'm with ExXB on this one.

Flying Lawyer
1st Dec 2014, 12:35
Perhaps to explain the expectations of the deceased .....You may be right. I'm not familiar with American court procedures/rules except in general terms.

However, it seems to me (on the limited information available) that the issues in this trial will be the defendant's actions: why he fired, what was in his mind when he did so, whether he was lawfully entitled to do so in the circumstances etc - not the expectations of the deceased.

Checkboard
1st Dec 2014, 13:20
Again this isn't about guns, the crime could have been committed with a baseball bat, but then the kid would have lived.
Well, it IS difficult to beat a kid to death with a baseball bat, and then claim you never saw the intruder...

A gun is a powerful thing - it lends that power to the possessor, and opens up fatal options that a normal person wouldn't otherwise contemplate. That is, a gun gives you the ability to shoot, no gun makes you think about locking your door and calling the police...

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 13:26
Nothing about obeying the laws of the visited nation?

Or having a general sense of what not to do in order to avoid having the locals thrash you?

Standards must be slipping...


I know nothing about this case.

Since I have loaded weapons in my home in the event I need them come some oh-dark-thirty intrusion, am I setting a trap?

Nothing about the fella who decides he wants to take a look at my stuff despite not having an appointment?

'Muricans. Whaddya gonna do with 'em?

Washington Mother Shoots Home Intruder To Save Children On Thanksgiving (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/30/Washington-Mother-Shoots-Home-Intruder-To-Save-Children-On-Thanksgiving)

Boudreaux Bob
1st Dec 2014, 14:13
The Home Owner (who shot the German/Turkish Fellow ) has some major problems in this if he was outside and shot blindly into the Dark.

Had he walked into the dark Garage and then encountered the Perp....then he would be on very solid ground.

As it is from what is reported so far in this thread....he better pack a Tooth Brush when the Jury/Judge announces the Verdict.

chuks
1st Dec 2014, 14:56
Flying Lawyer, from what I understand of this, the two German lawyers are not licensed to practice law in Montana, so that they are there in the status of amici curiae.

It might be technically so that the German lawyers are simply giving advice to the court, but here it has been made very clear that they are there on behalf of the victim and his German family, helping the prosecution to see that the American who shot the German is prosecuted to the fullest extent of Montana law for having done so.

As you may know, there was a case some years ago of a Japanese exchange student who was shot and killed after he merely rang a doorbell to ask directions of a Louisiana homeowner, who then shot him out of hand! Then the homeowner was acquitted on the basis of home defense, which made the Japanese government and people rather upset.

Here, it seems that the German government were worried that, without their participation, the shooter might get away without really having to answer for what he has done, given that he does have a law to hide behind or to depend on, according to your point of view.

Curious Pax
1st Dec 2014, 14:57
While not necessarily agreeing with you Brick, your position is a reasonable one to take as an American. However if you thought there was an intruder in your garage would you open fire into the dark without being able to see who/what you were shooting at? It could be a burglar, but it could be a toddler got out of next door and gone walkabout!

chuks
1st Dec 2014, 15:04
Read up on this shooting and then tell us, as a responsible gun owner, if you think this was the correct way to deal with someone pulling a burglary of your garage.

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 15:35
CP, it is my personal technique to ID my target before shooting to avoid a friendly fire. It is my most fervent hope that I never have to do so in a real-life situation in civilian life.

chuks, sorry, but I won't be doing much further research other than just read a WaPo article on it.

Homeowner had had enough of being robbed.

Set up his personal property to stop a further such occurrence.


That said, an ambush is illegal if out in the street.

A homeowner defending his property and the line gets clearer.

It appears the German was in the garage which was not his.

Under castle doctrine, and Montana is a pretty independent state, the homeowner has a pretty good defense.

His undoing, if the WaPo report is anywhere near accurate, is his action of going out, then onto his driveway, and then into his garage, firing blindly.

Self-defense may be harder to argue, but not impossibly so.

So, in summation, the homeowner was trigger-happy, but perhaps justifiably so. He did exercise poor judgment in firing blindly.

The German deliberately went into the garage. It is not ok to go into another's premise without permission.

He didn't have to. The German was stupid. In this case, terminally so.

Tragic, but the chain could've been broken by not trespassing. The homeowner may have had an itchy trigger finger, but this German, at least, would not be dead if not for his own actions of trespassing.

Gordy
1st Dec 2014, 15:56
birck: I agree 100%.

chuks:

Here, it seems that the German government were worried that, without their participation, the shooter might get away without really having to answer for what he has done, given that he does have a law to hide behind or to depend on, according to your point of view.

So how about the Americans go over to YOUR court system and try to enforce our beliefs and law in your country. Do you realize what you wrote?

Back to the old saying... "When in Rome".

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Dec 2014, 16:02
Anyone know what has happened to the burglary/petty crime rate in Missoula since this incident?

Curious Pax
1st Dec 2014, 16:06
I think you'll find that Chuks is an American abroad, so perhaps uniquely qualified to comment!

west lakes
1st Dec 2014, 16:07
So how about the Americans go over to YOUR court system and try to enforce our beliefs and law in your country

I woould have thought that any person/state/country that felt that their court and legal system was correct would welcome outside scrutiny, rather than throw accusations at others!

Unlike China that will not permit UK MPs into Hong Kong to investigate the recent riots

Flying Lawyer
1st Dec 2014, 16:07
chuks It might be technically so that the German lawyers are simply giving advice to the court, but here it has been made very clear that they are there on behalf of the victim and his German family, helping the prosecution

You may be right but if that is their role then they would not be classified as amici curiae in any jurisdiction within my knowledge. The role of an amicus is to be neutral and objective - which assisting one of the parties is clearly not.

I have assisted (at their request) lawyers acting for parties in two jurisdictions in which I did not have 'rights of audience'/a licence to practice. (Aviation cases, criminal and civil.) On all occasions I advised on the aviation aspects of the relevant law, suggested strategies and, in advance of and during the hearings, suggested questions/areas on which witnesses should be cross-examined etc.
No licence to practice was required because I did not address the court myself.
My role was definitely not that of an amicus; I was there to assist the lawyers employing me to present their case.

Dushan
1st Dec 2014, 16:32
Why he did not stay in the safety of his bedroom and call the cops is a good question,

Because when seconds count, cops are minutes away.

Effluent Man
1st Dec 2014, 16:37
Without wishing to offer an opinion on US gun culture this is what happens when shooting irons are legion. The homeowner goes to investigate,probably fully expecting to be shot at and gets his retaliation in first. I can see why if you think the intruder is armed you might want to do that.

This case seems to have many elements similar to the Tony Martin one.

mad_jock
1st Dec 2014, 16:45
As a matter if interest how many home owners are taken out by robbers?

Effluent Man
1st Dec 2014, 16:49
I would imagine in the US a lot.

ExXB
1st Dec 2014, 17:05
Some more up to date information from the missoulian (http://missoulian.com/news/local/trial-begins-monday-for-missoula-man-who-fatally-shot-exchange/article_82064e42-85ee-5df5-be0d-328e7caaa9b6.html).

Wonder if the Germans will request extradition, if the US court fails to convict?

(I didn't see anything here about German lawyers involvement in the trial, so that may be a red herring)

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 17:13
From the news article:


An unarmed juvenile shouldn’t be killed for trespassing in a garage.”


Don't trespass.

Really cuts down on the chances of being shot by a homeowner.

As to extraditing, I bet this Administration would roll-over in a heartbeat.

It also reads that the homeowner is a world-class jerk/stoner.

Don't trespass.

Not rocket (oops, too close to mentioning the war?) science...

fabs
1st Dec 2014, 17:40
Unlike China that will not permit UK MPs into Hong Kong to investigate the recent riots

To be fair I wouldn't trust a UK MP to investigate anything.

chuks
1st Dec 2014, 17:57
FL ... that's probably my mistake about the role of an amicus, then. I assume that the German lawyers are there to assist the prosecutor, acting on behalf of the family of the late student, rather than to give impartial advice in general, acting in the way you tell us that amici must. As reported here, their role is not an impartial one.

I'm sure that the lawyers want the defendant prosecuted according to Montana law, not German law.

Under German law he probably would not have had a shotgun in the first place, but it would have been quite clear in any case that he would have been facing a murder charge for acting as he did. There's no such thing here as "stand your ground" or whatever it's called. He would have been expected to just sit there in the bedroom waiting for the cops to show up. No cops, just let the perp run off with whatever it was he could steal from the garage, when the cops could try to catch him later. If it came to an invasion of the bedroom, a threat to the homeowner and his family, that would have been a different matter, but going out to gun down a burglar ... not allowed here, not at all!

If this fellow cared so much about his property, then why didn't he lock, or at least close, his garage door? An open door is an invitation to theft.

For an example of German law, we have a CCTV system, but it's not allowed to show anything but views of our own property. We can't have it show anything of the street right in front of the house, for example. Privacy, and the right to life, are rated much higher in Germany than the right to keep your property safe from theft.

As well as the two lawyers who are participating in some capacity, I believe that a German diplomat is attending the trial as an observer.

There have been cases of the USA prosecuting crimes against our citizens that were committed abroad, so that I assume, given an extradition treaty, it must be possible to extradite this citizen of ours for trial before a German court for the killing of a German national in the USA.

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 18:32
An open door is an invitation to theft.

Absolutely.

But not permission.

The German not trespassing would have made this a non-event.

The dope-smoking homeowner not setting up a (successful) trap would have made this a non-event.

But, given the facts presented thus far, the dead German is the one who committed the original crime of trespass and thus, under common U.S. understanding (I do not know Montana law on this) within his rights to defend himself, his family, and his property with up to deadly force.

Circling around to shoot from the driveway into the garage (wonder what the backstop is/was? Ironic if his blind firing had penetrated into his home and hit his family.) may not pass the smell test for a clean acquittal, but not murder, IMO.

rgbrock1
1st Dec 2014, 18:42
brick:

Montana’s Expanded Self Defense Law

You can use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if you are in a place lawfully and there is a reasonable belief it is necessary to prevent imminent death or seriously bodily harm to yourself or another person.

You can use that same deadly force to defend an occupied structure when it is reasonably believed that it is necessary to prevent assault against yourself or another.

Duty to Retreat: No, in certain locations

Where the Law Applies: Your home or anywhere else where you legally have the right to be, so long as you are not engaged in unlawful conduct.

Gordy
1st Dec 2014, 18:43
Under German law

Again---who cares. I am with brick on this one----it happened in the US NOT Germany, and the German started the whole process by trespassing.

In life there are consequences.

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 18:47
rgb, thanks.

Stupid, but dead, German trespasser.

Stupid, but alive, dope smoking homeowner.

Who went, according to media (so massive salt intake), outside his home, circled back up the driveway and unloaded his shotgun multiple times without knowing what or whom he was shooting.


Negligence in there somewhere, I bet.

Capot
1st Dec 2014, 18:54
Here's a story; A had his car stolen from his drive one day. He heard that there was a small gang of thieves, maybe just one person, operating in his area. He boasted in the diner/pub that he would get the little scrote, called B.

So A bought a used car, and parked it in a little used car park one evening, leaving the door open and the key in the ignition.

He retired to a point about 100m away, where he concealed himself in a firing position with his rifle and NV sight (this is the USA). When B appeared and got into the car, as A knew he would, A waited until he ran the engine, then shot B in the head.

A turned himself in immediately, saying that he was defending his property, and that B deserved what he got.

I'm interested in the views from the USA about this; it's not an exact parallel, but it is a development of the German-in-the-garage matter, with the same features of a carefully laid trap, and a killing when there was no real threat to the life of the shooter.

Would you give A a lethal injection or a medal?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Dec 2014, 19:04
Car theft does not, rightly, carry the Death sentence.

The root of the problem lies in the inability of the Police in some jurisdictions (worldwide, not just the USA) to protect the life and property of individuals. This in turn is a fundamental failing of Government. Indeed, the protection of the individual is the primary function of Government.

In the USA in 2012, 88.1% of vehicle theft cases were not cleared (i.e. someone arrested and handed over to the court system), i.e. In 8 out of 9 cases, no one was apprehended. This is the National average, but also the average for cities the size of Missoula.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances

con-pilot
1st Dec 2014, 19:07
I guess they could go for murder one, but my bet would be some kind of manslaughter conviction.

The door to the garage was left partially open, but then there is no law saying that a home owner or renter must close and lock all of their doors. In a perfect world there would be no reason for locks on doors. My maternal grandparents lived in a small town in New Mexico and I’m not too sure they even had locks on their doors, I know that my grandfather always left the keys to his vehicles in the vehicles.

Once I rode with my grandfather to a store in his pickup, when we got out of the truck he left the keys in the ignition. When I asked him about this, he replied that everybody knew it was his pickup, so why take the keys out of the truck.

Now, my grandfather had a shotgun and usually left the side door to the garage open. But for him to shoot someone that went into the garage would have been unthinkable. As it would be to me, unless there was a clear and present danger to my family, pets or myself.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, theft does not deserve a death sentence. That’s what insurance is for.

With the case in Montana, the home owner left the garage door open to trap someone, anyone, so he could shoot them. At least that is my take on it from all the media reports, but we know how accurate the media is. However, if the media reports hold up in court, this guy should go to prison for involuntary manslaughter at the least.

wings folded
1st Dec 2014, 19:08
It is frightening that trespass is regarded by some here as a crime which can be punished by summary execution without trial.

In some other jurisdictions, trespass is a civil matter, with civil penalties concordant with the "damage" caused. (Used to be six pence or one shilling, if I remember correctly). If theft occurred, it was not trespass, but theft. There are in most jurisdictions sanctions in place in criminal law for that transgression.

Anybody "unsure of present position" should crap themselves if that happens when they are in the USA. They might be trespassing. Best to have made a will and provided for their dependants.

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 19:12
He retired to a point about 100m away


See, raht thar's yer problem.

Y'all 're usin' that thar metricky system.

It don't work here.

Now if A had been in his car, then it's game on.

Kinda like a certain cop in a certain Missouri town recently.

rgbrock1
1st Dec 2014, 19:12
Capot:

Your scenarios smells very badly of "entrapment." And I doubt "B" will get away with his crime.

As far as the doper in Montana is concerned: As a firearms owner myself I would never, ever shoot blindly into anywhere or anyone. Target acquisition and identification are the least things a responsible firearms owner should do. And preferably aligned with a possible discovery of what the other person's intent is.

I don't think the Montana homeowner is going to get away with his crime. Even reading Montana's self-defense laws one should note that a perceived threat to life and or property is needed for this. I do not see how Mr. doper could have perceived any sort of threat without first identifying the target of that threat. Additionally, it can be argued that by placing whatever it was he placed in the garage as a lure, that it constitutes entrapment.

con-pilot
1st Dec 2014, 19:12
I'm interested in the views from the USA about this; it's not an exact parallel, but it is a development of the German-in-the-garage matter, with the same features of a carefully laid trap, and a killing when there was no real threat to the life of the shooter.

Would you give A a lethal injection or a medal?

Sorry, didn't this see before I posted my prior.

As far as I am concerned, that is premeditated murder, as in murder in the first degree.

So, as I posted above;

as far as I am concerned, theft does not deserve a death sentence

That applies in this case as well.

rgbrock1
1st Dec 2014, 19:14
con-pilot wrote:

As it would be to me, unless there was a clear and present danger to my family, pets or myself.

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, theft does not deserve a death sentence. That’s what insurance is for.

With the case in Montana, the home owner left the garage door open to trap someone, anyone, so he could shoot them. At least that is my take on it from all the media reports, but we know how accurate the media is. However, if the media reports hold up in court, this guy should go to prison for involuntary manslaughter at the least.I 100% agree with you buddy. 100%. :ok::D

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 19:15
But, to play devil's advocate (and defense attorney), no matter what I placed as bait in my own garage, the crime is the trespass and theft.

Doper home-owner did stupid things, potentially negligently criminal, but not murder, IMO.

My money will be on some sort of manslaughter.

charliegolf
1st Dec 2014, 19:16
The shooter has been charged. Isn't the outrage a bit early?

CG

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 19:17
Never too early.

Poor blacks, or Europeans.

Both classes of victims for white Americans.

It's the law today.

rgbrock1
1st Dec 2014, 19:18
brick:

Round II of devil's advocate: So, with what you are saying you agree, then, with the verdict in Oscar Pistorius's trial i.e., manslaughter but not murder? Just curious.

con-pilot
1st Dec 2014, 19:22
I remember a case, many years ago and to be honest I cannot recall if it happened in the US or England when I was living there.

A farmer had been having a lot of thefts of his farming equipment. So he rigged a shotgun pointing at the barn door, where it would fire if the door was opened.

Sure enough a few nights later the thefts returned, one opened the barn door and the shotgun fire killing the guy behind him.

The farmer was convicted of murder.


And the more I think about it, I really believe that this happened here in the US.

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 19:30
rgb, can't say.

I did not follow the trial. What I think I know:

He shot his girlfriend through a closed door.

He claimed he was in fear for his life and shot through a closed door not knowing who it was he was firing at.

Prosecution couldn't prove murder, but did prove he opened fire without knowing what/who he was aiming at.

Manslaughter sounds right in a legal sense to me.

I defer to those who either followed the trial or know the South African laws.

Con's scenario is pre-meditated and negligent. But what if Farmer Brown had hired a security guard and the same result occurred?

Things get tricky. Common sense should apply.

Things like:

Don't go into someone's house or garage without their explicit permission.

Don't shoot blindly into a darkened room without knowing what, if any, the threat is, and where that threat is.

Doper homeowner could have easily been taken out by a smarter bad guy with a gun - dark outside, blam! blam! blam! in the center of the garage, but I'm flattened against the side wall and now have a flash point to aim for.

Lots of stupid in the Montana case to go around.

wings folded
1st Dec 2014, 19:35
brickhistory
Who went, according to media (so massive salt intake), outside his home, circled back up the driveway and unloaded his shotgun multiple times without knowing what or whom he was shooting.


Negligence in there somewhere, I betYou call that negligence? It all sounds a bit deliberate to me. But then again I do not live in your country.

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 19:59
Maybe.

The circling back part seems to negate his self-defense.

However, firing a shotgun on/in his own property at an intruder might counter that negation.

Discharging a firearm without knowing at what/whom he was shooting seems (emphasis seems as I don't know Montana law on firearms discharge) negligent to me.

radeng
1st Dec 2014, 20:10
Brick quoted :

Washington Mother Shoots Home Intruder To Save Children On Thanksgiving

Firstly, good for her. it appears she only shot him once, which is a pity - all 6 bullets should have been used. Secondly, in capturing a dangerous criminal, the state should have paid for the bullet.....

Compare with ( and I don't have the link) the case last week of the sentencing of four Polish guys who forced their way into a house in London, severely beat the owner such that he may lose sight in one eye, tied his wife with duct tape to a chair and demanded money. Fortunately, his daughter and her boy friend were able to lock themselves in her bedroom and called the police. Being a fluffy minded liberal, I would like them to have had the capability of shooting all four of the perps, who had, what is to my mind, derisory sentences - nothing less than a minimum of 50 years is, to my mind, called for.

ExXB
1st Dec 2014, 20:19
Aren't we making a big assumption that the 17 year old was trespassing? No one, not even his friend, knows what his thinking was. Perhaps he just wanted to be a good neighbour and to secure the open garage. Perhaps not.

And we will never know, will we?

brickhistory
1st Dec 2014, 20:28
Wow.

From your own post (#34) in this thread.

Trial begins Monday for Missoula man who fatally shot exchange student (http://missoulian.com/news/local/trial-begins-monday-for-missoula-man-who-fatally-shot-exchange/article_82064e42-85ee-5df5-be0d-328e7caaa9b6.html)



Dede’s friend, an Ecuadorian exchange student named Robby Pazmino, told police they had participated in an activity called “garage hopping” before.


“Garage-hopping” is illegal. Teenagers enter garages looking for alcohol or
other substances.

Pazmino, who was with Dede the night of the shooting, said on several
occasions prior to April 27 they had stayed in the car while their friends
entered other open or partially open garages.

On this particular night, Pazmino and Dede were walking down the street, when Dede wordlessly slipped into Kaarma’s open garage. Pazmino told police that while he stood waiting for his friend to return, he heard an unfamiliar voice say, “I see you there.”

He ran away after hearing the first shot.

chuks
1st Dec 2014, 20:41
Well, this guy who shot a German citizen will, if he is extradited and put on trial in a German court, that's who!

I assume that is an option that Germany might use if the guy walks. If he's convicted of manslaughter, say, and jailed for a few years, that would probably be enough for his family to feel that justice had been done. Let's see what the verdict is.

Simplythebeast
1st Dec 2014, 20:55
An American being extradited to Germany having been tried in his own Country for the offence? Good luck with that.

wings folded
1st Dec 2014, 21:01
Con's scenario is pre-meditated and negligent.

"Negligent" must therefore be one of those words whose meaning is different to you folk from its meaning to others.

For many, "negligent" connotes having failed to think through the act or failed to perform the act.

E.G it is negligent to have opened the gas tap on the cooker without igniting the gas.
But if you want to blow up your premise and those around you, it would be pre-meditated to open the gas tap without igniting the flow, with a view to an inevitable later explosion.

Lonewolf_50
1st Dec 2014, 21:36
I suspect the DA will be able to get a negligent homicide out of this, or a manslaughter. Probably won't get a second degree murder rap out of a jury, though.

Anyway, if there is a betting line in Vegas, that's where the smart money will go.

radeng
1st Dec 2014, 21:46
I guess my outrage goes on the basis that people illegally entering a property and then stealing, have only themselves to blame if they get shot. Or if they pull something down on them that injures them.

Which is why I believe Tony Martin should have had a medal, not a conviction. But it was easier to get a conviction than to protect people's property....

Gordy
1st Dec 2014, 21:50
Well, this guy who shot a German citizen will, if he is extradited and put on trial in a German court, that's who!

And you really think this will happen?

The guy did not know the trespasser was a German citizen, which in reality matters not. Good luck with the extradition...... I suspect it will never happen.

con-pilot
1st Dec 2014, 21:53
Or if they pull something down on them that injures them.


No, then they can sue the home owner for the injuries that they suffered.

Think I'm kidding, I'm not.

5 Victims of Horrible Crimes (Who Got Sued by the Criminal) | Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/article_20605_5-victims-horrible-crimes-who-got-sued-by-criminal.html)

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-ten-frivolous-lawsuits

charliegolf
1st Dec 2014, 21:56
I don't think Americans do extradition. Of Americans, I mean.

CG

Dushan
1st Dec 2014, 22:02
and the German started the whole process by trespassing.

In life there are consequences.

And we all know where that led, in the 30s...

John Hill
1st Dec 2014, 22:04
I don't think Americans do extradition. Of Americans, I mean.

They have their own procedures to handle that sort of thing. In this case the appropriate action would be for a team from Germany to go armed with explosives to the guys home and blow up the entire neighbourhood. An alternative and equally valid action would be for Germany to bomb Tallinn.

con-pilot
1st Dec 2014, 22:15
I don't think Americans do extradition. Of Americans, I mean.




Yes we do.

One that comes to mind.

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

Flash2001
1st Dec 2014, 22:26
OK So the United States has a "Gun culture". Maybe then out-of-towners should be aware of that before garage hopping. Maybe there should be signs in the airports of entry that say "You've just arrived in a GUN CULTURE, screw around with the natives with this in mind!

After an excellent landing etc...

Eric T Cartman
1st Dec 2014, 23:04
I wonder how this would have played out if the "intruder" turned out to be a passing policeman who noticed the garage door was open &, knowing about "garage hopping", went to investigate, with the same result ..... ?

con-pilot
1st Dec 2014, 23:17
Uh, the home owner would still be on trial, except for the killing of a thief, it would be for the killing of a cop.

Eric T Cartman
1st Dec 2014, 23:33
@con-pilot
My thoughts too, but I'll bet there'll be a rush of posts from the usual gun/cop hating crew suggesting he wouldn't have lived long enough to go to trial etc etc .....

John Hill
1st Dec 2014, 23:42
Eric, can you be a bit more specific please, black or white homeowner, black or white cop?

Matari
1st Dec 2014, 23:49
Why is this even a story? I guess because like most outrage bus rides, it's a one way ticket into all the prejudices, fears, stereotypes and bigotry that a Very Concerned European can muster. It must also makes them feel so much better about themselves, what with the war being such an unpleasant subject.

I don't think I would have popped the poor German kid, but I don't think I would have been a stoned and armed home owner, either. A sad recipe for trouble, especially for the poor parents. But I didn't shed too many tears for the American kid who vandalized a bunch of cars in Singapore, and got a severe caning for his trouble either.

What to make of all this? Not much, other than it must be great fun watching Deutsche Welle TV, and taking a shot of Jagermeister every time the host says "Amerikanische Cowboy."

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 00:07
Based on the reported details, I am as unsure as most here as to there accuracy, but the notion that a guy who sets a trap and then executes a guy who gets caught in that trap is somehow an OK guy bemuses me, doesn't surprise me but does bemuse me........

con-pilot
2nd Dec 2014, 00:08
but the notion that a guy who sets a trap and then executes a guy who gets caught in that trap is somehow an OK guy bemuses me........

Okay, got me here, just who here has posted that this idiot is an "OK guy"?

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 00:10
Okay, got me here, just who here has posted that this idiot is an "OK guy"?


Have we been reading the same thread?

con-pilot
2nd Dec 2014, 00:12
Have we been reading the same thread?

Yes, so I guess you will have to give me an example.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 00:18
Yes, so I guess you will have to give me an example.


#24 then on from there......................

Mr Chips
2nd Dec 2014, 00:25
Not even post #24 suggests the homeowner is an ok guy, it discusses his defence under law.
So, in summation, the homeowner was trigger-happy, but perhaps justifiably so. He did exercise poor judgment in firing blindly.

Nobody is saying the homeowner is an ok guy, they are discussing the likely outcome of the case. Yes, I've read the whole thread, just now.

Matari
2nd Dec 2014, 00:25
@ seldom... Kinda reading into that what you want, aren't you?

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 00:31
@ seldom... Kinda reading into that what you want, aren't you?


Nope, just reading it...........

Matari
2nd Dec 2014, 00:35
I realize you're on some sort of mission to paint brickhistory as some sort of post-modern Alley Oop, but really, try to give it a rest. I suspect you'd much rather have him as a neighbor than your garden - variety UK chavs.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 00:41
I realize you're on some sort of mission to paint brickhistory as some sort of post-modern Alley Oop, but really, try to give it a rest. I suspect you'd much rather have him as a neighbor than your garden - variety UK chavs.


Absolutely, and I have no doubt that over a few beers he and most folk on here would find me to be a 'same wave length' guy however the notion that the the 'subject' of this thread is not guilty of cold blooded murder is beyond me.


Set a trap then kill...............

con-pilot
2nd Dec 2014, 00:46
Set a trap then kill...............

This may come as a total shock to you, but I agree.

Assuming that you meant to post; "Set a trap then to kill.........."

Bronx
2nd Dec 2014, 00:46
some sort of mission to paint brickhistory as some sort of post-modern Alley Oop
Brickhistory doesn't need any help doing that.

I suspect you'd much rather have him as a neighbor than your garden - variety UK chavs.
If that was the only choice, so would I.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 00:51
This may come as a total shock to you, but I agree.

Assuming that you meant to post; "Set a trap then to kill.........."


Absolutely...........


Killing in defence is one thing but setting a trap then killing is another.


Not sure I would see that as a self defence thing at all........

rh200
2nd Dec 2014, 00:55
The main problem here is that he supposedly set a trap, something which is general frowned upon in our society. After all, if you have a predictable problem, the police should be able to deal with it.

As some people have mentioned, we generally don't get the death sentence for stealing, maybe thats part of the problem. The fact is the system is failing, and its only getting worse.

Someone asked was there a drop in theft or break ins after that, who knows. But for something like that to have a sustainable effect, it would need to be acknowledged and accepted as okay by society. Another words, "you steel a mans stuff he can kill you". Sort of puts some perspective on the whole piece of sh!t stealing stuff, because you can scenario. But whats the side effects of such a policy?

The side effects will obviously have an increase in innocent people being killed. The other is crim's will most likely just arm up more and be more violent from the get go. Hence it is a trade off of risk versus reward.

The fact we are not allowed to set mantraps in our society and if thats what he did, he will most likely pay a price for it, regardless of the morality of it.

Boudreaux Bob
2nd Dec 2014, 01:00
What defense shall the Defendant use in this case.....Self Defense, Castle Doctrine Law....Stand Your Ground? Each is an option but each comes with its own peculiar liabilities under Montana Law.

The Evidence and Testimony is going to be a tough obstacle to get over in proving Innocence. A key issue to consider is the fact the Home Owner was in fact charged with a crime by the Prosecutor in this Case.

That suggests the facts point to the Home Owner being seen to be outside the strictures of the pertinent Laws.

Missoula teen's killing could test 'castle doctrine' (http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-teen-s-killing-could-test-castle-doctrine/article_4732de74-cf01-11e3-981a-0019bb2963f4.html)



Bronx, coming from a Law and Order City like the Big Apple as you do....well at least until the past two Mayors anyway....I should think you and Brick would be far closer to agreeing than you would differing on how to handle Criminals?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Dec 2014, 01:05
The other is crim's will most likely just arm up more and be more violent from the get go.

I doubt teenagers will arm up to steal beers from garages. They will likely just stop doing it.

Boudreaux Bob
2nd Dec 2014, 01:11
Why is it I have a complete inability to understand people who "Steal" anything?

Just as I do not understand people who Lie....especially when they know they shall get found out.

I kind of like the Muslim way of dealing with Thieves....at least you can much easily spot them as anyone minus a Hand or Hand and Foot might just be worth keeping an Eye on if they get near your valuables.

BenThere
2nd Dec 2014, 02:12
Not so long ago in Montana they used to hang horse thieves and cattle rustlers as soon as they were caught. There was, you might say, zero tolerance for such anti-social behavior.

What this homeowner did that repulses me is, if the reportage is correct, was to shoot blindly at his target with little assessment of a threat to his safety or that of his family.

I'd like to bring up this question to our European interlocutors:

What if the homeowner said he had been drinking all day and was quite drunk when he became aware of the intrusion? Say he claims he had been on the internet reading about Ferguson, the erosion of rule of law, and in his state of reduced judgment and rising anger, went out to the garage to confront this violator of the sanctity of his home.

What would you charge him with, and what sort of sentence would you think reasonable?

Boudreaux Bob
2nd Dec 2014, 02:31
Nice try.....he did not check himself into Rehab and formally admit to an illness called Alcoholism. Now if he had done that....he would have been Home Free!

chuks
2nd Dec 2014, 05:53
Here in Germany you often read about people being excused for having done something because they were so drunk that they were not in control of themselves. Another good one is claiming some sort of mental black-out.

You often see a typical German defendant sat there not saying a word. There's a very high-profile case running right now, in fact, the trial of a woman, Beate Zschäpe, who's accused of complicity in the neo-Nazi murders of a whole lot of foreigners and a German policewoman. She's the only survivor of a trio and she refuses to say very much about what she knows, making the task of the prosecution very difficult.

By the way, the homeowner doesn't need to prove his innocence; the state needs to prove his guilt. Big difference!

westhawk
2nd Dec 2014, 05:55
If the defendant acted under a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to protect himself or other persons in the house at the time, then shooting the intruder would be allowed under Montana state law. If the actions taken were not done so under that reasonable belief, then the action taken was not in accordance with the law and was a criminal act.

That is the question for the jury to decide. The above is likely to be included in the instructions to the jury from the judge before they begin their deliberations.

This case isn't about guns. It's about the intent of the defendant when he made the choice to shoot. If his purported belief that shooting the intruder was necessary to protect himself or another is found not to meet the reasonableness test, he loses.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

westhawk

fabs
2nd Dec 2014, 08:53
The nationality of the boy who died (and the law in his homeland) is irrelevant I agree. My take is that he was killed while committing a crime, harsh but tough. Had he not been committing that crime he'd more than likely be alive today so whereas his family get my sympathy and condolences there is no moral high ground for them to speak from.
But....
That doesn't mean (IMHO only) that the shooter is innocent here. Given the 'reported' facts so far he was at the very least reckless or negligent. Garage door open 'so he can smoke' despite being a victim of a number of past burglaries? Did he really think he was in danger? I call BS on that, door open, motion sensors on, loaded shotgun to hand. My guess is he wanted to scare someone. Not firing considered, no more than necessary, aimed shots at an effective (I.E. dangerous) target is a crime. If guilty he should be punished, regardless of gun ownership law.

ExXB
2nd Dec 2014, 08:55
Some more information from. Jury to be determined Tuesday morning in Kaarma murder trial (http://missoulian.com/news/local/jury-to-be-determined-tuesday-morning-in-kaarma-murder-trial/article_1b243781-2bb3-5c0c-8d6d-f92668da5f49.html)



***

Dede's parents, Celal and Gulcin Dede, arrived in Missoula last week and observed the jury selection process from the first row of the courtroom Monday.

Gulcin wore a T-shirt with her son's photo on it and a German quote on the back. Translated into English, it says, "You will always live in our hearts." She started crying when Deputy County Attorney Jennifer Clark, who is assisting Paul, introduced herself and shook her hand.

Two prominent German attorneys, Andreas Thiel and Bernhard Docke, accompanied Dede's parents.

Docke said he traveled to Missoula to help the family understand the court proceedings and translate for them. The couple will remain in Missoula with Thiel for the duration of the trial; Docke will have to leave in mid-December. An unnamed Turkish exchange student studying at the University of Montana is also accompanying the parents and translating into their native tongue.

Docke said he doesn't know if the family will file a civil lawsuit against Kaarma if the outcome isn't what they hope for but indicated that in Germany, Kaarma's actions wouldn't be considered self-defense if the evidence supports what has been reported by law enforcement and prosecutors.

"If the Missoulian is right on the facts, the defendant announced his actions at a barber shop," he said. "And if the Missoulian is right, he left the garage door open and installed video equipment, and he put a purse in the open garage. It seems that he was waiting (for) someone to trespass in the garage."

This explains the roles of the two German lawyers, to help the family and not the court.

Effluent Man
2nd Dec 2014, 09:19
Seldom, You got tugged on the same rap that you are always trying to catch me on. You and I both know the feelings of those posters towards the perp but they use the fact that they didn't actually use the term "OK guy" to allow some wriggle room.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 09:33
Ef,

The consensus amongst several posters here is the guy has not done much, if anything at all wrong and that under state law he probably/should get away with it. In fact some would say the only guilt belongs to the deceased for stealing in the first place.

I am certain that I can't ever once remember on any gun thread contesting the rights of US home owners to use lethal force in defence of their homes, I have taken the [email protected] lots about the notion that many think they are Raylen Givens but would probably wet themselves come the day but never contested their rights on this matter.

This however is totally different and if the facts as reported are true how this is not a cold blooded murder is beyond me. The guy set and baited a trap then executed the first person that walked into it and I am not seeing any kind of defence scenario in that.

ExXB
2nd Dec 2014, 10:21
In fact some would say the only guilt belongs to the deceased for stealing in the first place.

Yet there is no evidence to suggest the teenager was stealing, had any intent to steal, or had been involved in stealing in the past.

brickhistory
2nd Dec 2014, 13:12
Ah, that tireless Mr. Smiley is still at it, I see.

Gently tugging on threads to weave a fabric. Subtly exploring the evidence to expose flaws in the plan.

Pity the patch formed is of pink velvet and the hole is on a dinner jacket, but never mind, it is the careful observation and meticulous tradecraft application that is key.

Simple items like pejorative adjectives in front of "homeowner" are to be ignored since they are simply a way of disguising the true thoughts of the writer.

Ignoring the simple fact of Herr Dede the Younger actually entering illegally the premises of another is something not germane to the issue at hand.

The indicted homeowner apparently set a trap. The German willingly, of his own choosing, and under his own power, entered the home of another looking, according to a fellow trespasser on numerous other such events, for "whatever could be stolen."

Nope, the fault rest entirely on the shooter.

Never mind the fact that this German could have not been shot if he hadn't gone into another's garage without permission.

Like me attempting to preach the New Testament Gospels in Saudi Arabia or Britain, such actions can have very real, very immediately physical consequences in various countries around the world, including the U.S.

Someone else may have eventually been shot according to the media reports of the homeowner's mindset. (And those are being accepted at face value despite countless examples of said rags getting the facts wrong, sometimes inadvertently, many times deliberately). Caveats about "massive amounts of salt" are likewise lint on the threads being pulled.

Indeed, such is the sheer analytical horsepower applied combined with decades of relentless experience, that Mr. Smiley can 'suss' out who would willingly have a drink with him. Differing opinions are merely inconvenient to the logical conclusions. I'd almost think Mr. Smiley has taken residence at 221 Baker Street.

A junior assistant to Mr. Smiley repeatedly posts "We'll never know what the kid's intentions were" despite posting a media report where the above co-criminal admits they had done such dozens of the times before and that Herr Dede the Younger did it again in this instance. Trolling? Non-native English speaker? Stupid? The possibilities are nearly endless.

If such sartorial repairs are to be attempted in the future, please remember, that one, of course, dresses to the right.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 13:37
Someone else may have eventually been shot according to the media reports of the homeowner's mindset. (And those are being accepted at face value despite countless examples of said rags getting the facts wrong, sometimes inadvertently, many times deliberately). Caveats about "massive amounts of salt" are likewise lint on the threads being pulled.



Absolutely, which is actually the point in question. I know you struggle with my balanced thought processes on these threads but lets be clear about what I have said at, #78 I wrote


Based on the reported details, I am as unsure as most here as to there accuracy, but the notion that a guy who sets a trap and then executes a guy who gets caught in that trap is somehow an OK guy bemuses me, doesn't surprise me but does bemuse me........


I am quite clear as to how I arrive at my opinion which I suspect you have missed.


When the case comes to court the 'facts' will no doubt be revealed but based on what has been written here the highlighted part of your text above is without doubt 100% accurate.

west lakes
2nd Dec 2014, 13:38
entered the home of another looking, according to a fellow trespasser on
numerous other such events, for "whatever could be stolen."



So where does that snippet come from?

Reading the link in post#34 the other person appears to have not entered the premises.
On this particular night, Pazmino and Dede were walking down the street, when Dede wordlessly slipped into Kaarma’s open garage. Pazmino told police that while he stood waiting for his friend to return, he heard an unfamiliar voice say, “I see you there.”

as for the previous events

Pazmino, who was with Dede the night of the shooting, said on several occasions prior to April 27 they had stayed in the car while their friends entered other open or partially open garages.

Trial begins Monday for Missoula man who fatally shot exchange student (http://missoulian.com/news/local/trial-begins-monday-for-missoula-man-who-fatally-shot-exchange/article_82064e42-85ee-5df5-be0d-328e7caaa9b6.html)

Perhaps those that are so keen that folk use the information given correctly, should ensure they should do the same

MagnusP
2nd Dec 2014, 14:10
. . . Ah, so the getaway driver is not complicit in the bank job, one assumes.

Boudreaux Bob
2nd Dec 2014, 14:15
Yet there is no evidence to suggest the teenager was stealing, had any intent to steal, or had been involved in stealing in the past.

By mistake I left my Garage Door open and the entry door to the Kitchen unlocked. We have had two Break-In's and a series of thefts from Parked Cars in the Neighborhood in the past several Months.

If a Individual had found his way into my house and I awoke to discover him in the House....would I have been "Guilty" of setting a Trap?

If I had shot him dead upon encountering him would I have been "guilty" of "Executing" him?

What legitimate business did he have inside my Home WITHOUT properly announcing his presence and asking for permission to enter my Premises?

Intent is an easy thing to define both for the Home Owner and the Burglar.

rgbrock1
2nd Dec 2014, 14:27
Bob,

Let me ask you this. If instead of entering your home an intruder had, instead, started ransacking your garage would you, assuming you are armed, have entered the garage proper and without identifying the suspect, fired blindly into that garage?

west lakes
2nd Dec 2014, 14:42
Ah, so the getaway driver is not complicit in the bank job, one assumes
There is little doubt they were imnplicated by being there, the statement that he had entered homes on numerous other such events is patently not correct.

Yes he was there but sat in a car.

Similarly the other person is described as a trespasser yet in all probability stayed on the highway so did nor step on private property

chuks
2nd Dec 2014, 15:13
The focus now is on the homeowner; he is the one on trial.

It will be interesting to read about how the trial goes, I think. I will be surprised if the homeowner gets off by pleading self-defense. The simplest idea, that "Well, the student/burglar was in the guy's garage, so the guy had a right to shoot him because the student/burglar had no right to be in there .... " I just don't see that idea being accepted as correct.

There was a case in Florida not long ago when a deliveryman was shot dead, just for being on some fellow's property. The shooter tried to use this sort of "stand your ground" law, but ended up being convicted of either manslaughter or murder.

There, of course, things were much clearer, but even in this case it seems clear that the student/burglar was no real threat to the homeowner, safe up in his bedroom as the incident began. That the student/burglar was a threat to his property, well, yes, but then the obvious question must be, "Why did you leave the garage door open in the first place, if you were so worried about being burgled again?"

It really does look as if the homeowner was much more focused on killing a burglar by setting a baited trap than he was on keeping his property safe.

Boudreaux Bob
2nd Dec 2014, 15:29
RGB,

The mere fact the Burglar was inside the Garage which in my case is an integral part of the House itself (remember the Kitchen Entry Door) then under my State Law he is inside my Home.

I would never shoot "Blindly" as I am trained to shoot either Center of Mass or Head depending upon the situation, distance, lighting, level of threat,etc.

In my State, if a Burglar is inside your Home after Dark or during the Normal Times you sleep (assuming you work nights...sleep days) then the Law is very lenient about the use of Deadly Force. Pretty much the Burglar forfeits any protection so long as he presents a threat to anyone in the Home.

That same State Law does not grant that same leniency to your Car out in the Driveway or a Detached Garage or Tool Shed. The Thief, in those cases and not Burglar, is free to do what he is doing without having to worry about being shot on sight as he would be inside the Home.

As long as the Thief runs away...walks away....but does not pose a threat to the Home Owner while outside the Home he is safe.

If he advances upon the Home Owner or poses a threat by displaying a gun or displays some other kind of weapon and offers violence, all that changes.

It is all Situational and every event has to be investigated by the Police who usually will consult with the Prosecutor to determine if Charges are warranted.

In my County, shooting a Burglar is almost considered a Civic Duty by the current Sheriff and Prosecutor, much like Voting, Jury Duty, and rescuing drowning people.

Gordy
2nd Dec 2014, 15:32
it seems clear that the student/burglar was no real threat to the homeowner,

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

So let me pose this to Chuks:

How would you feel if this incident occurred in Saudi. The "students" have admitted to stealing correct? I believe the law in Saudi calls for amputation of a hand.

chuks
2nd Dec 2014, 15:52
What, about how the Saudis run things, decapitating women who run off to get married without permission, that sort of thing? Chopping off heads, hands and feet? Practicing one of the most brutal, intolerant, primitive forms of Islam currently found?

Gee, I don't really know how I would feel about how the Saudis might deal with a young man caught stealing, but why do you ask?

Ever stolen anything, anything at all, or perhaps merely found yourself under suspicion of theft? Are you ready to face having a hand chopped off? Me, no thanks; I have to eat with my hands, sometimes.

Do you have, perhaps, a son, one who sometimes does stupid or wrong things? I do.

I don't think my son would sneak into a garage to try and steal beer. He might, on the other hand, do what that Japanese fellow did, ring a stranger's doorbell to ask directions. My son certainly banged into someone's nice, shiny car, doing a crap job of parking his SUV (although he contacted the owner afterwards). If he did any of those things, I would not be reconciled to seeing him lose a hand or his life for that.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Dec 2014, 15:59
By mistake I left my Garage Door open and the entry door to the Kitchen unlocked. We have had two Break-In's and a series of thefts from Parked Cars in the Neighborhood in the past several Months.

If a Individual had found his way into my house and I awoke to discover him in the House....would I have been "Guilty" of setting a Trap?

If I had shot him dead upon encountering him would I have been "guilty" of "Executing" him?

What legitimate business did he have inside my Home WITHOUT properly announcing his presence and asking for permission to enter my Premises?

Intent is an easy thing to define both for the Home Owner and the Burglar.


Not what is being claimed here so not really a fair comparison......

brickhistory
2nd Dec 2014, 17:32
Kansas Minister Shoots Intruder In The Head | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/01/kansas-minister-defends-home-shoots-intruder-in-the-head/)

John Hill
2nd Dec 2014, 18:05
These guys are often seen walking into unlocked houses..

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article116300.ece/alternates/s615/dm-image-5-156595814.jpg

Gordy
2nd Dec 2014, 20:02
Gee, I don't really know how I would feel about how the Saudis might deal with a young man caught stealing, but why do you ask?

I ask because you seem to not agree with the fact that laws are different in different countries. The way I see it, if I break a law in Germany then I expect to be judged and punished based upon the laws of the land in which the crime was committed.

It appears that your argument is that the defendant in this case should be subject to German law and not the law where he lived. Conversely, you seem to be saying that the trespasser did nothing wrong.

And yes, I have been charged with an offense many years ago in a foreign country and was subject to their laws and punishment. I did not complain and claim to be a foreigner and ask to be subject to my home country laws. And NO I would not steal in Saudi, because I would not want to lose a hand...........

chuks
2nd Dec 2014, 20:56
I wrote that the American defendant may be extradited to be tried in Germany under German law for a crime against a German citizen that was committed in the USA. It's not that he should or should not be, just that he may be. That's a fact of German law and, I assume, an extradition treaty between Germany and the USA; it's not my personal opinion.

You may commit a crime against some country from outside that country, yet find yourself subject to trial in that country. For instance, we often try and convict dopers for their smuggling activities when the actual crime took place outside the USA.

The fellow who killed Danny Pearl in Pakistan? He's locked up in Guantánamo right now: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He never did anything wrong in the USA, did he?

Personally, I don't think that shooting this German was correct, even though he certainly seemed to be burgling the shooter's garage. Let's see what the jury has to say about that after hearing the testimony, shall we? You might think it was okay to kill him, I might not, but it's the jury's call on that, not ours.

It's not that this fellow has a choice about which set of laws he's going to be tried under. First he has to answer to the State of Montana for killing that German, there in Montana. Then he may have to answer to the German state for the same crime, killing one of their nationals, and never mind where. I guess he should have picked someone from right there in town to shoot, huh?

brickhistory
2nd Dec 2014, 21:12
chuks, you and numerous others, seem to be giving the dead German a pass in culpability for his own demise.

I don't condone what the homeowner apparently did. The circling back part combined with the shooting blindly plus the threats to shoot somebody don't bode well for him being totally acquitted of any crime.

The line between self-defense/castle doctrine and an ambush does appear to have been crossed.

But, the deceased would NOT be deceased by the actions of the homeowner if the deceased had not trespassed.

Someone else might, but not this German on that day.

There is definite personal choice involved by both parties in this incident.

One choice got him killed. The other is likely to get him jailed.

But both took actions that led to this outcome.

Seldomfitforpurpose
3rd Dec 2014, 00:12
I don't condone what the homeowner apparently did. The circling back part combined with the shooting blindly plus the threats to shoot somebody don't bode well for him being totally acquitted of any crime.

The line between self-defense/castle doctrine and an ambush does appear to have been crossed.

Good to see you onboard with the general consensus on this one, this does 'seem' to fall outside accepted norms with regard to home defence.

The court will reveal all in the fullness of time but you have to wonder what the ramifications of this home shooting might be.

arcniz
3rd Dec 2014, 01:11
Chucks: Your comments about the indignation and righteousness of the German People in connection with this Missoula incident suggest a modern German consciousness that, if your theory is correct, falls somewhere between self-righteous and absurd... and augurs ill for the future of everybody.

The German nation and its people collectively and methodically organized themselves to initiate and engage in three concerted programmes of mass-murder, compulsive rape, and methodical pillage among their European neighbors during the 20th century - all for the own profit of Germans, themselves, and for imagined future advantages of rule and exploitation. That vicious initiative collectively resulted in the premature or sudden deaths of perhaps 50 to 80 million completely innocent people who were so unfortunate as to get in the way of the Deutsche Volk during one of their repeating homicidal binges.

The same Germanic families, geographically and ethnically speaking, have a better-than 2000-year long running history of criminally predatory pillage and murder as their social, cultural, and economic mainstay, policy and theme.

To suggest that one individual from the same culture, caught and killed while stealing from a private house some four thousand miles from Deutschland, is a basis or cause for an international incident or can be taken as insult to some righteous moral posture of the German people or State is absurdly presumptuous, wholly preposterous, and frightening for what it implies in the coming future of this perennially resurgent dark nexus for history in human civilization and affairs.

Boudreaux Bob
3rd Dec 2014, 01:13
SFFP,

Does it really matter why the doors were open to the Garage?

The Criminal is the one who wrongfully enters the domain of another.

In my State that removes all sorts of protections from that person and grants others to the Victim.

I like that Concept.

I have posted half in jest that we should incorporate parts of Sharia Law....especially the parts about Usury and the Lopping off of Hands and Feet of Thieves.

Granted in my County it would not matter one whit as our Sheriff's Office has a very poor resolution rate for Home Burglaries and Thefts.

About the only way they catch someone is when the Victim does it for them.

Which gets us back to the original situation as prompted the Defendant to do what he did that caused the Shooting after the Turkish-German committed the Burglary in a neighborhood plagued by such criminal activity.

brickhistory
3rd Dec 2014, 01:40
That Mr. Smiley, he a modest one albeit not entirely all-seeing.

His self-professed "balanced thought process" seems to have missed the earlier musings by your humble correspondent about "ambushes," "negligence," and other such high-falutin' words that I couldn't possibly know the meanings thereof.

But he does seem to duck the issue of the now dead German's actions and contributing factor to making himself that way.

Don't trespass and/or steal things and don't get shot by this homeowner.

Not complicated, certainly not nuanced. Perhaps that's why the thinking escaped that modest Mr. Smiley.

Seldomfitforpurpose
3rd Dec 2014, 08:43
SFFP,

Does it really matter why the doors were open to the Garage?


In this case that appears to be the whole basis of court case. The Germans criminality is not in question, how could it be considering where he was when he was killed. But again that is not the question in this thread or the court case.

The question is should a home owner be allowed to act in the manner being suggested by the OP?

When you consider that even Brick thinks him to have done wrong then if the courts find him guilty what are the possible repercussions for you current home defence laws?

Forget your own actions for such an eventuality for a second and ponder the actions of the home owner in question as suggested by the OP and tell us if you think he has done anything wrong.

chuks
3rd Dec 2014, 08:52
Golly, Arcniz! What's your beef with the Germans? Did you once own a Beetle that rusted out? You need to get over whatever that was. Go listen to some Wagner, drink a Beck's, and chill out, Dude. Buy an Audi next time; they are galvanized.

I think that blasting away with a shotgun seemed a bit more satisfying than just calling the cops, or even calling the cops and holding the burglar at gunpoint waiting for the cops to show up. I am sure that being arrested and put on trial has come as a very large shock to this fellow. That's not the way it works when John Wayne shoots someone!

Then there is the way that he's already been shown to the wide world as a doper with a criminal record, whatever further, official condemnation his trial may bring.

What the heck, though! You fire your shotgun into your own garage, never minding the damage you are causing to your own stuff, let alone the grave risk of killing someone? That's crazy.

It's not that this killing might cause an international incident; it already has caused one! The case and the trial is a matter of great interest here in Germany, just going by the press coverage so far.

ExXB
3rd Dec 2014, 10:20
Update on second day of proceedings from the Missoulian (http://missoulian.com/news/local/defense-attorneys-contend-slain-exchange-student-was-part-of-teenage/article_17dc42ea-0835-5d4a-97a2-7a09729b458c.html)

Octopussy2
3rd Dec 2014, 13:04
The unsubstantiated allegations made by the defence in that report suggest a tad of desperation, I think.

Boudreaux Bob
3rd Dec 2014, 13:20
SFFP,

Read back through the Thread....I have already said the Home Owner has diddled the Pooch in this.

One Man's actions will not be cause to change Montana Law but the Montana Law shall apply to his actions and that is how he will be judged.

Commonsense has to apply to One's actions.

Closing and Locking Doors, arming an Alarm System, and calling the Police should you think you have a Burglar in the House is something he should have done.

Picking up the Shotgun would be fine.

Waiting in the Bedroom would have been fine.

Searching the House while armed is fine.

Shooting an Intruder that poses a threat to you is fine.

The reported facts so far show the Home Owner to have gone beyond what One would consider normal commonsense driven actions. That is going to be his problem in defending his actions.

He has to square his actions with the requirements of Montana State Law.

Plainly, the State thinks he committed a Crime or he would not be on Trial.

Seldomfitforpurpose
3rd Dec 2014, 16:48
Bob,


It would seem we are in total agreement :ok:

Lonewolf_50
3rd Dec 2014, 17:49
If the defendant acted under a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to protect himself or other persons in the house at the time, then shooting the intruder would be allowed under Montana state law. If the actions taken were not done so under that reasonable belief, then the action taken was not in accordance with the law and was a criminal act.

That is the question for the jury to decide.
This case isn't about guns. It's about the intent of the defendant when he made the choice to shoot. If his purported belief that shooting the intruder was necessary to protect himself or another is found not to meet the reasonableness test, he loses.
For a few of the Eurotards participating in this thread:
I excerpted some salient points made by westhawk.
Please read for comprehension this time, if you bother to read before you bloviate.

Note this carefully:
The DA believes he has enough evidence to convict. That means he's looked into the law and precedent, and has reason to put forth that this guy crossed the line.
Were that not the case, jury selection would never happen. It would have been sorted out in a pretrial deal, or charges never brought.

flydive1
3rd Dec 2014, 18:05
Maybe, ROG, playing the ball rather than the man would further the attempts at conversation.


For a few of the Eurotards participating in this thread:
I excerpted some salient points made by westhawk.
Please read for comprehension this time, if you bother to read before you bloviate.


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

chuks
3rd Dec 2014, 18:19
This is the normal level of discourse for Jet Blast, isn't it? What's wrong? Did someone pull the fire alarm?

"Eurotards, gun fondlers" ... whatever, if it moves things along a bit. Rather like Ex-Lax, in fact.

flydive1
3rd Dec 2014, 18:27
This is the normal level of discourse for Jet Blast, isn't it? What's wrong? Did someone pull the fire alarm?

"Eurotards, gun fondlers" ... whatever, if it moves things along a bit. Rather like Ex-Lax, in fact.


Hey, fine with me.

Just find a bit ironic that he goes around telling others that they should not do what he does.;)

con-pilot
3rd Dec 2014, 20:13
Just find a bit ironic that he goes around telling others that they should not do what he does.

I don't know, works for President Obama. :p



Hmm, now that I think about that, it works for all politicians. :E

Seldomfitforpurpose
3rd Dec 2014, 20:18
I don't know, works for President Obama. :p




You suggesting that Lonewolf and President Obama are one and the same, not sure that will go down to well :E

con-pilot
3rd Dec 2014, 20:27
You suggesting that Lonewolf and President Obama are one and the same, not sure that will go down to well

Not at all, more along the goose and gander sort of thing. :E

Flying Lawyer
4th Dec 2014, 00:53
Lonewolf_50Note this carefully:
The DA believes he has enough evidence to convict ....etc.
I've noted it carefully, but I'm not sure I understand your point.
The DA considers that there is enough evidence to convict.
If he didn't, there would not be a trial.
Does that not apply to all trials - including those where a jury subsequently rejects a DA's view and acquits the accused?


Chuks
Re talk in Germany about the defendant being tried a second time there if he is acquitted in Montana.

I know nothing whatsoever about German law.

However, unless a defendant acquitted in America agreed to go voluntarily to Germany (or any other country) he/she would have to be extradited.
My knowledge of American law is limited but it seems to me that, if Germany sought extradition, then there would be a constitutional issue to consider: The protection afforded by the 'Double Jeopardy' clause of the Fifth Amendment and the jurisprudence which flows from it.


FL

rh200
4th Dec 2014, 01:48
Isn't this whole charging, convicting etc. people of crimes committed in other countries a slippery slope when the other country has a functioning legal system?

This is especially the case when some act is perfectly legal in said country, obviously not the case here.

Uncle Fred
4th Dec 2014, 02:02
Flying Lawyer

Regarding an amicus brief, I saw that the court/judge in the United States does not have to accept it. Apparently the discretion is left to the bench. Is this the custom under English law as well? Must the crafter of the brief have standing before the court or is it admissible from any source?

Even if it is accepted into the record, what role can it truly play? Certainly it cannot be considered evidentiary testimony can it? (Assuming of course that the crafters of the brief would even try to thread some kind of testimony to sway a decision...)

If the brief is however, accepted into the record does the opposition have the opportunity for rebuttal? Looking at this out on the web it seems to fall into a very discretionary aspect of the proceedings.

Not to get too far off on an arcane aspect of a court system that I am not familiar with, but I am just wondering what the German attorney could hope to gain? I would think that the judge and jury in this case are bound by the U.S. law and court guidelines.

Solid Rust Twotter
4th Dec 2014, 05:14
...what the German attorney could hope to gain?


New Porsche? Holiday home at the coast?

westhawk
4th Dec 2014, 05:38
Thanks for your comprehension Lonewolf!

Just to clarify a bit further:

The Montana law applicable to the use of force to defend oneself in their home centers around the reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary. As with any other law which relies upon the "reasonable person" doctrine to determine culpability, the jury will be charged with determining what a hypothetical "reasonable" member of society would do if placed in the same circumstances and whether the defendant's actions fit within that framework or not.

In a cases relying on the reasonable person concept, the legal ground will seem rather mushy to many, especially when there is disagreement over the moral rightfulness of the act. As in all such controversies we should keep a couple of things in mind when we make our own judgments. Firstly, reasonable people don't necessarily always agree or reach the same conclusions when presented with the same set of facts! And we all have our own personal biases which are formed over course of our own lives.

The best we can do as humans judging other humans is to have the intent to judge objectively and in accordance with the law of the land when tasked to do so. Having served on two trial juries myself, I found that for the most part I and my fellow jurors took this responsibility to heart when called upon. That's the best we can do. Judging these media frenzy jury trials as a spectator and relying on the media supplied information is problematic to say the least. I really try to apply the same objectivity standard that I swore to uphold as a juror, but find it very difficult to do knowing that that the information I see is presented through a media filter with a political/ideological/commercial agenda that leans one way or the other...

That's the challenge folks and I hope you end up feeling good about the ethical integrity of your judgment of this case. With all of it's faults, that's why the US system of justice relies upon juries for most trials. Like our politics, it might be the worst system in the world; except for all the others!


westhawk

ExXB
4th Dec 2014, 09:31
Regarding an amicus brief, I saw that the court/judge in the United States does not have to accept it. ... I am just wondering what the German attorney could hope to gain? I would think that the judge and jury in this case are bound by the U.S. law and court guidelines.

It was explained earlier, the German lawyers are present to assist the parents of the teenager - not to assist the court.

Those speculating on extradition, double jeopardy etc. should have a look at the US-Germany (actually the Federal Republic of West Germany / West Berlin) extradition agreement. Every point raised so far is covered. (It is easily found using your favourite search engine.)

(In summary the US has agreed to extradite to Germany (and vv) people accused of breaking German law on US soil. That is unless they choose to prosecute in the US for the same crime. Seeing as the home owner is currently on trial for murder that would suggest extradition would not be possible.)

rh200
4th Dec 2014, 09:43
In summary the US has agreed to extradite to Germany (and vv) people accused of breaking German law on US soil.

[email protected]:(. You learn something new every day. As I pointed out earlier, I think that is a slippery slope. Whats the reasoning behind it?

ExXB
4th Dec 2014, 10:17
To prosecute criminals? Can't see that being a bad thing.

We have a similar situation in the Convention against air piracy. The country where the pirates are agrees to prosecute, but if they don't they are obliged to extradite them to the country of the aircraft/airline.

As for being a slippery slope the agreement was signed in June 1978, it is a common feature of treaties of this nature.

Flying Lawyer
4th Dec 2014, 11:30
Uncle Fred Regarding an amicus brief ……. There is a difference between someone addressing a court as an amicus and the submission to a court of an 'amicus brief'. Different jurisdictions have different rules. None apply here. It was a red herring.
It is the deceased's parents who hope to gain. Having their own attorneys present may gain them some peace of mind but American attorneys are highly unlikely to need any help from outsiders relating to the prosecution of a homicide.

ExXB
The Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to which I referred earlier is, for obvious reasons, reflected in the extradition agreement.

In summary the US has agreed to extradite to Germany (and vv) people accused of breaking German law on US soil.Neither of the contracting parties is bound to extradite its own nationals.
The 'Requested State' may do so, at its discretion.


rh200Whats the reasoning behind it?
In very brief summary, extradition treaties are intended to enhance international cooperation in law enforcement.

--

If anyone is interested, an indication of the instructions the trial Judge is likely to give to the jury can be found here (https://dojmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/chapter3.pdf)
I say indication because they are suggested instructions produced by the Montana Criminal Jury Instruction Commission. They have not, as far as I'm aware, been promulgated or formally adopted by a court.

rh200
4th Dec 2014, 12:50
In summary the US has agreed to extradite to Germany (and vv) people accused of breaking German law on US soil.

To prosecute criminals? Can't see that being a bad thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting at something that may be legal in a country, but not in the home country.

Of course if its illegal in both countries no problem.

chuks
4th Dec 2014, 13:15
I read something in German that was either mistakenly written, misunderstood by myself, or both, about the role of the two attorneys. That was when the German had been killed, but before the trial had started, and it was about a German consul and/or a German attorney becoming involved, when I thought they were involved on the side of the prosecution somehow.

I suppose that the German consul made it clear to the Montana authorities that the German government was concerned that the case be fully investigated and the shooter brought to trial if possible. That is pretty much what we would expect if one of ours were to be killed in a similar manner in Germany, for instance.

I now see that the consul and the attorneys are involved on the side of the family of the deceased, so that it's not a legal role that is being played but simply one of providing support to the parents of the deceased. It was also mentioned that a tri-lingual exchange student from some local university is helping the family with interpretation, since they come from a Turkish-speaking background.

I assume that the Germany attorneys are there on a pro bono publico basis, working without fee for the family. That is not unusual.

I suppose possible extradition to Germany was there as a fall-back if the shooter had not been indicted and put on trial, but that was not made clear in what I read, while I am no legal expert. I took it to mean that he might first be tried in the States and then subsequently tried in Germany, but I suppose that was another mistake.

As to extradition:

There was an interesting case of a fellow who fled to Italy after being charged with air piracy, when Italy refused to extradite him. It was all very complicated and romantic, with the fellow having fallen in lurve with some Italian lady and all.

Then there was Ronnie Biggs, who found shelter in Brazil for many years, at a time when there was no extradition treaty in place.

One of the highest-profile cases was that of Samuel Sheinbein, when even the US Secretary of State Madelyn Albright became involved in efforts to extradite him from Israel to Maryland, USA to face murder charges. (Extradition efforts finally narrowly failed because Sheinbein had become an Israeli citizen after fleeing to Israel, using Israel's "Law of Return," so that he was not subject to extradition.) Sheinbein was tried and convicted in Israel on murder charges and imprisoned, later dying in prison in a shoot-out using a smuggled gun.

Uncle Fred
4th Dec 2014, 13:18
Thank you flying lawyer. I did realize the difference between someone (or an orginization) serving as an amicus and an amicus brief but you answered my question that there is probably little to be gained in this case when the prosecutors have matters in hand.

ExXB

I knew that it is the German parents who are being assisted by the German attorney and that he representes their interests. I also did a good 30 to 45 minutes reading on the concept of an amicus and an amicus brief. The question that I was posing was not one of whom was being represented but rather one of what weight, if any, the bench/court has to give to a brief so filed. I could also not find whether one had to have standing before the court to file such a brief. My question was one of acceptance into the record and if it must be considered in deliberations. Flying Lawyer answered this question as well by pointing out that it seems to be a jurisdictional matter and not something that is enshrined in over-arching guidance for all courts in the U.S.

That of course all circles back to the idea of just what "help" an attorney from Germany acting as an amicus can really do in this matter?

Edit: I see that Chuks has fleshed out a bit more. I can see now that the German attorney might be acting as an amicus just to explain the court system to the parents and what is being played out. Terms, procedures, etc. that they are probably not at all familiar with.

chuks
4th Dec 2014, 15:37
The Flying Lawyer knows a lot more about this than I do, of course. Here I just looked up amicus curiae and had a read.

I think I misunderstood the function of someone in the role of amicus curiae. He or she is not on one side or the other, not on the side of the family of the dead German in this case, for instance.

Instead, an amicus raises concerns about broader issues, issues that may go beyond the facts of the particular case being argued.

Perhaps I want to argue as a defense that a law is unconstitutional, a law I might clearly have violated. Say there's a law that I can't yell "F*ck the police!" when I want to argue my First Amendment right to do just that. The prosecution, I suppose, would be focused simply on proving that I did violate the law. That might cause the state to file an amicus brief saying that the law is constitutional, weighing in on the matter at hand not to prosecute or defend me, but to defend the law itself, because if I win my case it creates a precedent in law.

In this Montana case, then, the German consul and the German lawyers are pretty clearly not there to raise any larger issues about this Montana law of self-defense, for example, what an amicus might be there to do. Instead, they seem to be there to show the deep concern of the German state that the case be properly investigated and tried (the German consul), and to support the family of the deceased during the trial (the German lawyers and the exchange student acting as an interpreter).

Flying Lawyer
4th Dec 2014, 19:58
Uncle Fred Edit: I see that Chuks has fleshed out a bit more. I can see now that the German attorney might be acting as an amicus just to explain the court system to the parents
No.

The word 'amicus' is a second-declension Latin noun which means friend. There is obviously nothing to stop anyone using the Latin word instead of 'friend' in ordinary language, although it might be considered a little odd.
However, in a legal context, amicus is an abbreviation of the legal term amicus curiae (literally, 'friend of the court') which has a specific meaning.
Someone accompanying the parents to help them understand the court system etc is not, however friendly he/she may be, acting as amicus curiae.Flying Lawyer ....... (pointed out) that it seems to be a jurisdictional matter and not something that is enshrined in over-arching guidance for all courts in the U.S. What I said was that different jurisdictions have different rules. For example, England and America have different rules relating to this aspect of the legal process. Both jurisdictions allow it in appropriate circumstances but the procedures are different.

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 08:01
Today's local papers give equal coverage to the Missoula case but also to the case of Mr Garner, the fellow who died being arrested for selling cigarettes in New York City. The dead German is reported in the headline as having begged for his life before being shot to death, while Mr Garner is reported as having been choked to death. Here we can see an emphasis on the most moving aspects of both cases.

There was nothing further about the young woman who died here in Germany after being attacked by a teenager. I suppose his trial, one that is being fast-tracked, will see renewed attention to that matter.

Last night's NDR television news program Aktuell ("up to date") led off with the Missoula case, giving extensive coverage to the opening of the trial, including on-the-scene reporting. I expect this coverage to continue throughout the trial.

ExXB
5th Dec 2014, 08:45
Here's Thursday's report from the Missoulian (http://missoulian.com/news/local/kaarma-s-partner-says-she-fantasized-about-catching-burglars/article_842d2a16-5075-5e17-b253-5505ac823318.html)

ExXB
6th Dec 2014, 11:00
Friday's (http://missoulian.com/news/local/kaarma-s-partner-changes-story-says-teen-didn-t-plead/article_0048cba0-232f-59f3-8ec1-40ef34e6b9c4.html). I think witness credibility will be critical.

chuks
6th Dec 2014, 18:22
This doesn't hang together. This family is so afraid of burglars that, post-burglary, they leave valuables in the garage, hoping, as one does, that the next burglars will enter through the open door, take them and leave? So what, exactly, were the motion detectors, the camera, and the shotgun for?

How about "Lock the garage door so that the burglars can't get in, next time!" You'd have to be pretty high on dope to think up anything but that if you really wanted to keep your stuff safe and were genuinely afraid of burglars. "Keep them out instead of letting them in," that sort of thing.

On the other hand, if they wanted to shoot themselves a burglar, then everything they did made perfect sense, aside from, of course, shooting that one particular burglar, since he turned out to be a young German exchange student. If only he'd been some sort of horrible old skag freak with a rap sheet as long as his arm then his killer might even have got a medal, but it looks as if the wrong burglar was killed, and in the wrong way.

ExXB
7th Dec 2014, 09:47
Well, I suppose it's up to the jurors to decide if he acted within the law.

Does anyone understand why his partner/wife isn't charged as well? I had understood that under US law one was considered an accomplice for helping the shooter in any way.

chuks
7th Dec 2014, 13:16
I think that was partly because, initially, she seemed not to have played such a large role in the shooting. Her husband was the one making the threats and then later going out to shoot the burglar, where she was the one who called the cops and then rendered first aid to the victim. (Somewhat tellingly, her husband did not take part in rendering first aid.)

Now she's claiming to have been the driving force behind the installation of the motion detectors and the camera, but that was not known prior to this trial.

Uncle Fred
7th Dec 2014, 16:49
Flying Lawyer

It seems as if I made a mash of my questions. I had more than enough Latin and know what amicus curiae means and that it would be they he/she who files an amicus brief.

Where I seemed to have gone off the tracks was in reading previous posts too quickly and thinking that for some reason that a German lawyer was acting as a friend to the family and then as an amicus curiae. I did not understand how this could be for, as you described, one could not act in both of those roles.

I am glad that you participate on these threads as you add a much valued insight into matters both related to aviation and current events.

BTW...remember Mutatis mutandis? Is that not the ablative plural neuter?

Flash2001
7th Dec 2014, 17:26
US Law?

For those who think that there is such a thing, be advised that most American criminal law is state law and thus varies from state to state. Civil rights stuff is federal.

After an excellent landing etc...

ExXB
8th Dec 2014, 09:43
Apologies, I should have said "In some US States ... "

Flying Lawyer
17th Dec 2014, 23:10
Verdict ....

Markus Kaarma guilty of German student's homicide (http://missoulian.com/news/local/markus-kaarma-verdict-guilty/article_18660484-56d2-5b60-80d5-6b4f81ad4e15.html)

Markus Kaarma, Montana man, convicted in death of German exchange student Diren Dede - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/markus-kaarma-montana-man-convicted-in-german-exchange-students-death/)

Boudreaux Bob
18th Dec 2014, 00:47
Seems the Jury and i agreed.

The Appeal will fail and the Home Owner shall be confined for Ten Years and with good Behavior will be out in about four years.

He will also be sued in Civil Court for Wrongful Death and lose.

The sad thing is the German Kid brought this upon himself by being a Thief.

That should be considered in the levying of Damages by the Civil Jury.

Boudreaux Bob
18th Dec 2014, 01:03
Why you think that?

con-pilot
18th Dec 2014, 03:01
Well for one, I'm not surprised and from what I've read about the case it was the correct verdict.

chuks
18th Dec 2014, 09:39
The emphasis in the local German papers seems to be on the reaction of the family: gratitude to the jury for convicting the killer of their son.

It will be interesting to see next what sentence is handed down. The minimum is ten years, is that correct, meaning four years with time off for good behavior? Then I suppose that is what Kaarma will get.

It's also interesting that the state did not charge the wife with anything, since she seems to have been part of the shooting in some essential way. There's anti-feminist bias on open show there, ignoring her role in the killing, but no feminists seem to have noticed.

In today's articles it was mentioned that the German prosecutors have asked for information from the States, hinting that Germany may still take some action against Kaarma. I wonder what action that might be. Perhaps it's information meant to assist the family in a further, civil, action against Kaarma.

ExXB
18th Dec 2014, 09:59
The sad thing is the German Kid brought this upon himself by being a Thief.

The only person who knew why this teenager went into the garage is dead. Without some sort of proof it is just speculation to suggest his intent was to steal.

Had he been caught stealing he likely would have incurred a fine and been deported.

But he is dead.

chuks
18th Dec 2014, 11:24
Well, I think that shooting that kid was fairly judged, even though it's technically correct to say that he probably was there in the guise of a burglar. What he wasn't though, was a threat to the lives of Kaarma, his wife, and their baby, so that shooting him was seen to be wrong.

Next, I suppose, comes some sort of civil action against the Kaarmas, along with waiting to see what sort of sentence Mr Kaarma is given, and if he appeals the verdict.

Boudreaux Bob
18th Dec 2014, 13:25
The only person who knew why this teenager went into the garage is dead. Without some sort of proof it is just speculation to suggest his intent was to steal.

Had he been caught stealing he likely would have incurred a fine and been deported.

But he is dead.

Check the news reports where the dead Thief's companion told Police why the Dead Thief was inside the Garage then tell us it is wrong to call the Dead Kid a Thief.

The Intent was announced and reported to the Police by the Companion.

Under the Law, had the Dead Kid not been killed....he would have faced Criminal Charges himself.

Under the current Administration of BH Obama, he would not be deported in all likelihood and would have remained right here in the United States.

I shall remind you that even Flying Lawyer has stated we are all welcome to our Opinions here at Jet Blast and that is yours....and this is mine.

If the Dead Man had gone to a Corner Store and paid for a Six Pack of Beer, and stayed out of the Garage that night.....he would still be alive and none of this would have happened.

There is no way to argue that the Dead Man has no culpability in his demise.

Keep your eyes and ears open when the Civil Proceeding occurs and you shall hear that argued successfully by the Defendant's Counsel. The Defendant will lose in the end but the Jury shall find that the Dead Man contributed to his death by feloniously entering the property of the Home Owner and the financial award shall be reduced as a result.

chuks
18th Dec 2014, 15:07
Do you have a son of your own, one who may have been young and stupid?

Were you ever young and stupid?

Count me in on both of those. I think that my son probably was never quite stupid enough to enter someone's garage looking for "Hey! Free beer!" but if he had been I would want to have seen him, as we say, "tried by twelve rather than carried by six."

That may well have been a childish dare rather than the dead kid doing this on his own, some sort of "You don't have the guts to score a beer off that jerk up the street the way we all did," that the kid took up.

I once became a Federal Offender in somewhat that way, serving as "wheelman" to a rather misdirected friend who wanted to blow up a man's mailbox that had been blown up two or three times before. What a stupid thing to do! My only excuse is that I would never have thought of doing that on my own, which is no real excuse at all. I ended up having an interview with the Connecticut State Police over that one, my first real lesson in keeping my mouth shut, which, luckily for me I did.

How lucky for us that Mr Mailbox was not waiting with a shotgun, eh?

Perhaps I have spent too much time now hanging around with "liberals," but I just do not see any proportionality between stealing beer and shooting a non-threatening burglar dead.

When it comes to a civil case then the seeming fact of the dead kid having been shot in the middle of a burglary may well have to be balanced against the wrong done by shooting him. I guess we will have to wait and see about that, but that fact didn't seem to be given much weight in this criminal case. Next must be learning what sentence the judge shall give Mr Kaarma.

Boudreaux Bob
18th Dec 2014, 15:26
Yes Chuks I have been both young and stupid.

Yes i did some really incredibly stupid things.

But....I never entered someone's house at night to steal.

I was never that stupid or criminally minded.

The German Kid was both....stupid and a criminal.

Read back through the thread, I very early on took the position the Home Owner was wrong in his actions and would be convicted in Court.

That does not erase the Truth of the Matter.

The German fellow was a Thief and was committing a criminal offense.

Had he simply bought and paid for a Six Pack of Beer at the Corner Store he would be alive today. Argue how you want.....that is how it is.

The Jury confirmed the Home Owners actions were illegal and convicted him.

The Civil Jury will find for the Plaintiff but they shall under the Judges Charge will have to consider the Plaintiff's conduct in the event when assessing Damages. His criminal conduct will be a factor that reduces that Award.

This issue is not whether the attempted theft of Beer deserves the Death Penalty as that is an illogical argument as it does not relate to the facts or laws that pertain to this tragedy.

The arguments about this event were made in Court.

They revolved around the Home Owners actions in response to a series of Crimes in the neighborhood that the Police were unable to solve or prevent, and the Home Owners Illegal response to those crimes.

The German Kid was part of the problem....break-ins and thefts in the neighborhood. He did not deserve to die over his decision to steal Beer rather than buy it in a normal legal acceptable fashion.

When he entered the property of another during the dark with the intent to commit a Crime, he accepted all of the risks that come with that situation.

Why he did that can be argued but simple ordinary commonsense would suggest that if you are old enough and smart enough to be an exchange student to a foreign country....you should be smart enough to know right from wrong and that just as in Germany the same actions as he committed would be a crime in the United States.

That he happened to pick the exact wrong house of many to enter that fateful night is what Luck, Karma, Fate, Destiny, and Probability are all about.

He picked the wrong one. He might have had help....but he still made a conscious decision to commit a criminal act.

He paid far too steep a tariff for it but it was his choosing that led to the levy.

I bet you one thing.....young folks in that Town buy their Beer now and do not see the Five Finger Discount being all that lucrative anymore.

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 15:31
chuks wrote:

I ended up having an interview with the Connecticut State Police over that one,

My condolences, you poor bastard.

Boudreaux Bob
18th Dec 2014, 15:45
Here is an example of a similar situation but handled quite legally.

Sadly it was a a Fourteen Year Young Man who had to stand up to the Criminals.

They have forced the situation upon him where he will now have to deal with the fact he as killed another Human....and despite it being fully justified and legal he will have to deal with the psychological fallout of that.

The system fails the Citizens and we pay the price.

CMGd Video Player (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid836881579001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAVzySnGE~,GJOLLPGiYiGXCOvXYf 3Be2lY4_yXrG-x&bctid=3948656050001)

419
18th Dec 2014, 17:39
If I was desperate enough for some alcohol and felt the urge to illegally enter someone's garage to see if I could get some beer, I might be tempted to do it in England where if caught by the householder I could get a bit of a kicking. Would I ever consider it in the USA where it's well known that many home owners are armed?
Not a chance in hell.

In reality it's no different to me being in the US and walking back to a hotel after having consumed a few beers. (something I have done on many occasions). It's generally not a problem doing this, but again, would I do the same in Saudi Arabia?

If you're going to break the law in any country, it makes sense to have a rough idea of what may happen if caught.

Lonewolf_50
18th Dec 2014, 17:55
US Law? For those who think that there is such a thing, be advised that most American criminal law is state law and thus varies from state to state. Civil rights stuff is federal.
I suggest you do a bit more research on federal statues and criminal codes. The book isn't that thin. :p However, I agree with your point on there being significant differences in jurisdictions.
@sprintman
Should be 25 years!
You don't get a vote. You weren't on the jury, and you weren't the presiding judge.
Deal with it. What I read in the on line paper's report was
Dede’s parents will give a victim’s impact statement in the courtroom and McLean
will set bail for Kaarma on Thursday at 10 a.m. Under state sentencing
guidelines, Kaarma faces prison time of "not less than 10 years and not more
than 100."
Did you not also read that? It was in Flying Lawyer's first link.
I also note that the verdict was on a charge of "deliberate homicide" not 'negligent homicide' so I guessed wrong on that. :p

Here's my abbreviated take on this story:
That kid is dead because he's stupid, and that man who shot him is stupid.
That man is going to jail because he's stupid.
No winners in any of this. :(

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 17:59
419 wrote:

If I was desperate enough for some alcohol and felt the urge to illegally enter someone's garage to see if I could get some beer, I might be tempted to do it in England where if caught by the householder I could get a bit of a kicking. Would I ever consider it in the USA where it's well known that many home owners are armed?

Better not come 'round my home then. You can steal anything you like out of my home, including the wife if you'd like, but my beer? NEVER. Shoot on sight for that crime. :}

Boudreaux Bob
18th Dec 2014, 18:01
Care to post some photos of the Missus?:E

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 18:07
Bob,

I could but I'll make you a deal. I'll post the photo AFTER I send her to a specific address in Louisiana. :E

Lonewolf_50
18th Dec 2014, 18:35
Back to the OP: the outrage bus boarded by some "across the ponders" looks to have again been the standard error in judgment.
The day in court arrived, and justice was done.

If some of you from that side of the pond would lay off of your kneejerk reactions to what happens on this side, you'd look less foolish.

rh200
18th Dec 2014, 21:27
Were you ever young and stupid?

As have everyone.

Societies for millennia have had issues keeping young bucks under control, and societies for millennia have developed ways to keep them under control, or at least to a manageable level.

The trouble with our new lefty huggy fluffy society is they have been able to run amuck, hence slowly but surely the "noise level" is increasing. Once upon atime the young bloke would have just gotten a simple hiding.

Once upon time police would etc. Now ? We have tried to codify to much, and in essence the police do too much lower level [email protected] that borders between social and criminal enforcement.

The end result is there is an explosion in lower level [email protected], and as such people are getting more and more frustrated. people shooting people in cinema for throwing popcorn in face, people shooting people for load music in car, people setting up traps to shoot people for sneaking into garage to steal what ever.

The end result is, things are only going to get worse, no amount of locking up frustrated Jo Bloh is going to stop that, the root cause needs to be addressed.