Unusual intruder shooting case

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.


I agree. Hopefully, the shooter gets the maximum sentence allowed by law.


No. You've twisted the intent of my post.

The shooter had every right to defend his private property from trespassing, period. These two perps CHOSE to enter his property
NOBODY forced them to. It's a good bet that these two perps had previously broken and entered into his home repeatedly, and it's also likely that they had been doing this to other properties as well.

The best thing is that these two criminals won't be trespassing, breaking and entering, or any other crimes ever again, that is the best punishment I can think of, and not only that it is a huge deterrent to other thieves as well. The message has been sent by property owners, if you trespass and break into a homeowners property you will be killed.

I'm pleased that some states still allow aggressive justice to so that ordinary citizens can do what they need to in order to protect their safety and security in an increasingly lawless society. Were I live in this case we are speaking of, the local law enforcement and justice system including the judges would say that the criminals got what they deserved. They made a choice and paid the price.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.


I agree. Hopefully, the shooter gets the maximum sentence allowed by law.


No. You've twisted the intent of my post.

The shooter had every right to defend his private property from trespassing, period. These two perps CHOSE to enter his property
NOBODY forced them to. It's a good bet that these two perps had previously broken and entered into his home repeatedly, and it's also likely that they had been doing this to other properties as well.

The best thing is that these two criminals won't be trespassing, breaking and entering, or any other crimes ever again, that is the best punishment I can think of, and not only that it is a huge deterrent to other thieves as well. The message has been sent by property owners, if you trespass and break into a homeowners property you will be killed.

I'm pleased that some states still allow aggressive justice to so that ordinary citizens can do what they need to in order to protect their safety and security in an increasingly lawless society. Were I live in this case we are speaking of, the local law enforcement and justice system including the judges would say that the criminals got what they deserved. They made a choice and paid the price.


You sir, sound like a lunatic.

So, using the case presented in the OP, the German guy didn't actually steal anything. He wasn't armed, the homeowner didn't know his intent, didn't even know if he was actually going to steal anything, he could have just been walking into the open garage to knock on the door and tell them the bloody thing was open, you have NO IDEA! In fact, up here in the GWN, we've had that exact thing happen! A knock on the (garage) door to tell somebody something has been left open, left out....etc.

So, if you came onto my property to tell me my dog had escaped, saw my garage door open and assumed that's how I entered the house, was unaware that I was "trollin' for thieves" and I then proceeded to unload a shot of .338LM into your forehead, you are OK with that outcome? I mean I had no idea why you were in my garage, what your intentions were, whether you were armed or not....etc. You were on my property so I shot you dead. That doesn't sound a bit extreme to you? That doesn't sound a bit like first degree murder? Because it is.

"Reasoning" like this is just the kind of ammo (pardon the pun) that the lefties need to paint gun owners as awful homicidal maniacs and not the respectful and careful people most of us are. Astro did an excellent job of explaining things earlier and I would be willing to bet that there is only a VERY small percentage of gun owners who wouldn't agree with him.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.


I agree. Hopefully, the shooter gets the maximum sentence allowed by law.


No. You've twisted the intent of my post.

The shooter had every right to defend his private property from trespassing, period.

Just to clarify, are you saying deadly force is reasonable for trespassing?

 

[datech]

I have heard that in some countries, perhaps in the middle east, thieves had their hands chopped off. Maybe some would consider this a suitable punishment, although most would consider this pretty severe for petty theft and even grand larceny.

But at least the thief still had his life to live.

Apparently some feel the death penalty is suitable for breaking and entering but I think most people would consider it barbaric and extreme.

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: datech
I have heard that in some countries, perhaps in the middle east, thieves had their hands chopped off. Maybe some would consider this a suitable punishment, although most would consider this pretty severe for petty theft and even grand larceny.

But at least the thief still had his life to live.

Apparently some feel the death penalty is suitable for breaking and entering but I think most people would consider it barbaric and extreme.


You're talking about Sharia law.

It's saying something when Sharia law is too lenient for antiqueshell.

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

ZERO TOLERANCE for criminals.

You sir, sound like a lunatic.

So, using the case presented in the OP, the German guy didn't actually steal anything. He wasn't armed, the homeowner didn't know his intent, didn't even know if he was actually going to steal anything, he could have just been walking into the open garage to knock on the door and tell them the bloody thing was open, you have NO IDEA! In fact, up here in the GWN, we've had that exact thing happen! A knock on the (garage) door to tell somebody something has been left open, left out....etc.

So, if you came onto my property to tell me my dog had escaped, saw my garage door open and assumed that's how I entered the house, was unaware that I was "trollin' for thieves" and I then proceeded to unload a shot of .338LM into your forehead, you are OK with that outcome? I mean I had no idea why you were in my garage, what your intentions were, whether you were armed or not....etc. You were on my property so I shot you dead. That doesn't sound a bit extreme to you? That doesn't sound a bit like first degree murder? Because it is.

"Reasoning" like this is just the kind of ammo (pardon the pun) that the lefties need to paint gun owners as awful homicidal maniacs and not the respectful and careful people most of us are. Astro did an excellent job of explaining things earlier and I would be willing to bet that there is only a VERY small percentage of gun owners who wouldn't agree with him.


I think antiqueshell is talking about a different case.

In any case, zero tolerance for criminals and similar messages help contribute to lunatics taking lunatic like actions. In that regard, antiqueshell is far from alone on this site and in society and on juries.

 

[Win]

My first impression was that this was a murder, and, it may be. But the statute does leave room for defense.

Is a garage attached to an occupied residence, an occupied structure? Without looking at the Montana case law, my gut reaction is that it would be. If so, this is probably the pertinent statute:

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

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

(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

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

(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

Deconstructing that, gets you this:

45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

(1) A person is justified in the use of force .... when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes .... is necessary to .... terminate .... unlawful entry into ..... an occupied structure.

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

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

(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

(my emphasis added)

The fact that the decedant was an exchange student, or a German, or a Turk, or a teen ager, is irrelevant. No one knows what was in the decedant's mind when he was in that garage at 1:00 AM ish, and he'll never be able to relate it. The idea that he was there, to advise the homeowners that the door was open, is implausible at best. Unfortunately for the homeowner, he made statements to others about what was in his mind, that will not be in any way helpful to him, and his lawyers will have to work hard to exclude those, if they even can be.

A Montana forcible felony is: "any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual".

I don't know what assault means under Montana law; at common law, it was merely placing someone in apprehension of physical harm.

If the garage is not an "occupied structure", then the defense of the homeowner becomes more problematic.

 

[Tempest]

Great break down, Win. I'm just not seeing the intruder engaging in any force in this case.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Win
The idea that he was there, to advise the homeowners that the door was open, is implausible at best.


I had a drunk guy wake me up at 1:00AM (by knocking on the door and it freaked out my wife) to tell me that there was something on my lawn. When I was a University student we'd be out roaming way past 1:00AM and it certainly wouldn't be implausible that being half-tuned, with somebody leaving their door open, that somebody would walk into the garage and write something like "your door was open doo dee doo" in the dust on the back window of the car for example.

The idea that without knowing whether somebody was armed, what their intent was and certainly including the fact that they did not BREAK IN; the door was WIDE OPEN, that many feel this person deserved a death sentence to me is quite shocking. If somebody BROKE INTO my house (broke a window, broke down the door) and I had reasonable fear for the safety of myself and my family and so decided to use lethal force, that's one thing. But to BAIT somebody into intentionally trespassing, with no actual "break and enter" occurring, no determination of an actual threat, and then dispatching of their life in a half-hazard manner without even determining if they were a threat? Well, that's a completely different ball of wax. That's first-degree murder.

 

[datech]

Was the shooter 'reasonable' in believing that force was 'necessary' when the intruder was unarmed and would have willingly left when simply confronted with a shotgun?

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Win
The idea that he was there, to advise the homeowners that the door was open, is implausible at best.


I had a drunk guy wake me up at 1:00AM ... (snip) .... That's first-degree murder.


It came across as murder to me, and I like to think that I would take a higher road as well.

But the statute is devoid of emotion - it says what it says. On the scant facts we now know, the case is defensible. To a defendant, defensible can mean the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter, or even acquital. As more facts come out, it may get better - or worse.

It only takes one person to hang a jury.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Win

But the statute is devoid of emotion - it says what it says. On the scant facts we now know, the case is defensible. To a defendant, defensible can mean the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter, or even acquital. As more facts come out, it may get better - or worse.

It only takes one person to hang a jury.



Here's hoping.

To be clear, I don't like what happened, however the criminal element must be curbed, and examples like this one are immensely helpful in getting the message across. If you invade a man's
castle (breaking and entering) or attempt to steal his property you will pay a serious price that could include death.

The lesson..... "do NOT commit crimes".

The best thing I can hope for is that other miscreants will see examples like this and think twice about breaking and entering
(trespassing) or theft. These elements in our society are usually not stupid and can learn lessons. Let's hope they do.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
If you invade a man's
castle (breaking and entering) or attempt to steal his property you will pay a serious price that could include death.

The lesson..... "do NOT commit crimes".


He didn't break and enter!! The door was OPEN!! It was a BAITED situation and he didn't even take the bloody bait! There was the possibility, no matter how remote, that he was just being an idiot and was in there to draw something in the dust on a dirty window, pee in a corner....etc. We DON'T KNOW, because he is DEAD. And he is DEAD because the moron with the gun didn't ask questions, didn't ascertain whether the guy was a threat, he didn't do a [censored] thing except shoot blindly into his garage and in doing so managed to kill another person. Last time I checked, blowing somebody's brains out was not a reasonable response to trespassing.

If this case is ANYTHING, it is a "HOW NOT" guide on gun ownership. This guy did everything wrong and turned it into not only a homicide but a bloody case of first degree murder. He is the definition of everything that is wrong with gun ownership and because of idiots like him we have people pushing for greater restrictions of firearms, magazine size limits....etc. Responsible gun owners are PUNISHED when these things go down. And that's not fair either.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


He didn't break and enter!! The door was OPEN!!


But they did trespass. Just as serious. Bottom line is that they made a CHOICE and paid for it.

NOBODY FORCED THEM TO COME ONTO THE PROPERTY AND ENTER THE HOME.

The "baiting" argument holds no water.
They were capable of reasoning with normal IQs, and made a choice to enter. They knew that there could be serious consequences.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell

But they did trespass. Just as serious.


Are you on glue? How the heck is trespassing just as serious as breaking and entering? If I find somebody in my back yard that's a whole heck of a lot less concerning than somebody busting down my door and ending up in my home. And my response to those situations would be VASTLY different as well, because they are NOT just as serious as one another; the one situation is far more serious than the other.


Quote:
Bottom line is that they made a CHOICE and paid for it.


Right. He walked into a garage. He then ended up dead. You walk up my driveway uninvited, do you think that gives me the right to blow you away? Do you think we should be blasting Jahova's witness folks off our front porches for trespassing big guy?


Quote:
NOBODY FORCED THEM TO COME ONTO THE PROPERTY AND ENTER THE HOME.


He entered the bloody GARAGE, NOT THE HOME!!

Quote:
The "baiting" argument holds no water.
They were capable of reasoning with normal IQs, and made a choice to enter. They knew that there could be serious consequences.


LMAO! Right, so leaving a purse out in a garage with the door open, which by itself defines premeditation, holds no water? How about you try it and see how far you get on YOUR first degree murder trial?

This is ridiculous. Your whole argument is ridiculous. You are defending a planned homicide. And trying to do so under the guise of "self defence" or the "castle doctrine". When you PLAN TO KILL SOMEBODY, it is NOT SELF DEFENCE.

 

[Sam2000]

Take away the planned part of this and the homeowner should still get life.

Why? He shot without knowing who or why and people with guns have to be more responsible.

Imagine if his own relative or friend had come to visit him and for whatever reason decided to go into the garage eg out of concern.

Would they deserve to get shot too?

When people speak in absolutes such as all trespassers deserve to die, then its clear there is a predominately emotional reason for that viewpoint, often unpleasant experience(s) that shape the point of view.

 

[Sam2000]

Btw, there was a second person who ran away.

Wonder if they will show up.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Here`s the way I see it. It`s in the middle of the night,someone enter`s the victim`s domain. "Breaking and entering" doesn`t mean they have to actually "break" something to violate someone`s domain. If victim forgets to lock his front door one night,someone walks on in his house (a stranger will NEVER walk in someone`s open or unlocked door with honorable intentions),the homeowner`s negligence gives the [censored] no right or free reign to enter the home. Homeowner sees the criminal (he`s violating the law and therefore is now a criminal),and has no idea if he`s armed,high,crazy,etc. If that were me,I wouldn`t say "Pardon me sir,are you armed and intending on harming me and/or my family?" Once I realize it`s someone I don`t know,if I can`t physically kill him with my bare hands,he`ll be the recipient of the full clip of my gun.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Take away the planned part of this and the homeowner should still get life.

Why? He shot without knowing who or why and people with guns have to be more responsible.

Imagine if his own relative or friend had come to visit him and for whatever reason decided to go into the garage eg out of concern.

Would they deserve to get shot too?

When people speak in absolutes such as all trespassers deserve to die, then its clear there is a predominately emotional reason for that viewpoint, often unpleasant experience(s) that shape the point of view.


Cases are decided on the actual facts and the law, not "what ifs", at least in my experience.

At issue is not the shooting of a relative, nor a nun, a police office, the Easter Bunny, or any other speculative, emotionally appealing, straw man. The issue is the shooting of an intruder, in a garage, in the middle of the night, whose intentions were unknown. Perhaps they were mere mischief "peeing in the corner". Perhaps not.

The "baiting" aspect, while morally troubling, does not seem to have any legal significance given the wording of the statute, if that is the one that applies.

 

[aquariuscsm]

BUT,even if he "baited" his house,he has every right to do so,it`s his house. Scum bag had no right walking inside his house,garage,etc,PERIOD,baited or not.

What if he in fact "baited" his house,and scum bag decided that if he gets caught,he`ll just kill the homeowner. Homeowner has no idea what scum bag has in mind,what`s going through his head,what his intentions are,etc.