Unusual intruder shooting case

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Setting up bait with the intention of unloading a firearm into whomever takes it is premeditation. Killing somebody, without determining their intent or whether they are armed, particularly when they have not broken into your home (in this case, they had walked into an open garage) is murder. Thus, this is premeditated murder. Whether a jury ultimately decides that this is the case I guess will be discovered in the future.

With respect to him having the right to bait his house:

If a guy sets up a "free candy" van on his lawn with the intention of baiting children so that he can rape and murder them, is that his right because it is his house? An extreme example certainly, but in the same vein. When you have intent to lure followed by further intent to commit heinous actions once an individual takes said bait, it is indeed relevant. This is why we have manslaughter and three degrees of murder with premeditation being reserved for the first degree.

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: 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.



He's admitted he hadn't seen or identified who he was shooting at. He told the hairdresser he wanted to shoot a kid. He stayed up 3 nights in a row before setting the trap.

I am saying this guy should go to jail solely on the basis that he was reckless with a gun. Had he missed his target, he should still go to jail.

 

[Sam2000]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: 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.


Setting up bait with the intention of unloading a firearm into whomever takes it is premeditation. Killing somebody, without determining their intent or whether they are armed, particularly when they have not broken into your home (in this case, they had walked into an open garage) is murder. Thus, this is premeditated murder. Whether a jury ultimately decides that this is the case I guess will be discovered in the future.

With respect to him having the right to bait his house:

If a guy sets up a "free candy" van on his lawn with the intention of baiting children so that he can rape and murder them, is that his right because it is his house? An extreme example certainly, but in the same vein. When you have intent to lure followed by further intent to commit heinous actions once an individual takes said bait, it is indeed relevant. This is why we have manslaughter and three degrees of murder with premeditation being reserved for the first degree.


Overkill, as you're in Canada, you suffer from the idea that you have to exercise your individual rights within reason and with a duty of care to others. Here we understand that all that matters are our individual rights and we have no responsibility to others whatever the consequences. So long as we can use some argument that relates, however tenuously to the defense of us as an individual or even better our material belongings, we can justify anything.

 

[aquariuscsm]

The fact of the matter is,there`s some crazy people out there,and if someone has the balls to walk right on in someone`s house when they`re actually at home,you can have no idea what the intruder`s state of mind is,and like I mentioned earlier,some will take any action necessary to make sure they`re not caught by the homeowner or the fuzz. If an intruder enters my house in the middle of the night,I can promise you he will die before I will.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
...

He's admitted he hadn't seen or identified who he was shooting at. He told the hairdresser he wanted to shoot a kid. He stayed up 3 nights in a row before setting the trap.

I am saying this guy should go to jail solely on the basis that he was reckless with a gun. Had he missed his target, he should still go to jail.


You are adding terms to the statute, if that is the correct one, that are simply not there. It speaks not of "seen" or "identified" or "reckless with a gun" but of "unlawful entry".

The defendants statements are in no way helpful to him, assuming he really made them and they're correctly reported. They will certainly be tested, and great effort will be made to exclude them. It's my experience that most Judges let them in.

Shooting off his mouth is probably at least as damaging to his defense, if not more so, than shooting off his gun.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Sam2000
....

Overkill, as you're in Canada, you suffer from the idea that you have to exercise your individual rights within reason and with a duty of care to others. ....


Unpersuasive argument.

As has been pointed out, ad nauseum, this decedant had a duty not to be in that nimrods garage in the middle of the night, and if he had followed that duty, he'd likely still be alive.

 

[Sam2000]

Montana has a castle law with a “stand-your-ground” clause. Under the law, the use of deadly force is permissible to prevent felonies from being committed in one’s home or to protect against assault within one’s home.

The statute reads:

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.



It will be interesting to see how the homeowner argues he had a reasonable cause to use force. He said he was scared but seeing that he couldn't see the person and his wife heard a voice that said "Hey" & "Wait", I can't see it myself. The homeowner was clearly intent on shooting someone as displayed by what he told the hairdresser, how he stayed up for 3 nights, how he set this up and how he shot 4 times in a spread pattern without warning.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
The fact of the matter is,there`s some crazy people out there,and if someone has the balls to walk right on in someone`s house when they`re actually at home,you can have no idea what the intruder`s state of mind is,and like I mentioned earlier,some will take any action necessary to make sure they`re not caught by the homeowner or the fuzz. If an intruder enters my house in the middle of the night,I can promise you he will die before I will.


Enters the HOUSE? Sure. But this was a garage. And there was no ascertaining the degree of threat, there was shooting blindly into the dark until somebody was dead.

That's the point I've tried to make several times. If somebody breaks into my home, that's quite a bit different from them entering my open garage. And my responses to both actions would be quite different. If I felt the lives of my family members were at risk would I take actions necessary to ensure their safety? Of course. However that was not the case here. Nobody's life was on the line, there was a trap set and a guy shot dead. He never entered the house. He was blown away for trespassing, and it wasn't like the guy told him to stop or he'd shoot, had him clearly in his sights....etc. Nope, he just knew the guy was in the garage and unloaded wildly in the general vicinity. He didn't even know what he was shooting at.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
..... If somebody breaks into my home, that's quite a bit different from them entering my open garage. And my responses to both actions would be quite different. If I felt the lives of my family members were at risk would I take actions necessary to ensure their safety? Of course. .....


An attached garage is a means of entry into the rest of the structure. It's probably a preferred means of entry, because, while lurking outside of windows or exterior doors presents a risk of being seen by neighbors or the odd cop driving by, a garage offers some security from public view.

It's not unreasonable to say that an intruder in one's garage presents a higher threat risk of entry into the dwelling than one elsewhere on the premises.

If someone were in my garage, in the middle of the night, I would definitely consider that a threat to the occupants of my home. I don't think I would be unreasonable in so doing.

And the way that statute is written, it does not appear that I personally have to feel threatened - If I reasonably perceive there is a threat to another person in the occupiable structure, that appears to be an enabler.

 

[expat]

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 (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.


I was talking to a friend about this case today. He told me, about a month ago, he was out walking his dog at night along the back lane of some nearby houses.
As he passed the back of one house, he heard the sound like that of a Baby crying coming from a Garage.
The door was open about 16" and there was no light inside.
When he heard the faint cry a second time, he entered the garage with his flashlight to investigate. He searched the garage and looked into the car in the garage (through the window) but did not see anything.
He then heard the cry a third time coming from OUTSIDE the garage!
Looking out through the garage window he could see two cats having a 'Stand-off'
Hearing the sound of the cats, and seeing the open door, I guess his imagination got the better of him.
But as he said, It sounded just like a child or infant, It could have been a child in there, or someone trapped under a car.
He had no Bad intentions going in to investigate. In fact he felt an obligation to do so

Perhaps the German kid was doing something similar when he got himself shot?

 

[Sam2000]

You know I checked out the map of where the incident took place and where the student lived and it was just a few homes away.

That could very well have been George Zimmerman, concerned neighborhood watchman investigating an open garage because there had been a spate of burglaries.

 

[datech]

I live near a college and one thing some of these fraternities do is require freshmen to just walk into somebody's house as part of their 'initiation'.

Once when I was a college student I was at my brother's girlfriend's apt, in the midst of a big complex. I took the trash out to the dumpster area and then when I returned I just walked right into some other student's apt. I put the trash can in the kitchen and walked into the living room talking to who I thought were people I knew. I got a big laugh when I realized it was a bunch of students I didn't know.

I wonder what the guy in this incident was doing in that garage, it might have been more innocent than the homeowner believed.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: 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.


when I drive around my neighborhood and see a garage is open I stop and I GO TO THE MAIN DOOR AND RING THE BELL.
I never enter anyone garage, even if I know the owner.

 

[demarpaint]

^^ When I drive around my neighborhood and see an open garage door I mind my own business and continue on my merry way. If I stopped every time I saw an open garage door and no one around I'd waste a lot of time.

 

[Trajan]

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.



Your post was twisted the minute you made it.

Said shooter left his garage door open on purpose.

Said shooter baited it. But it wasn't to catch an animal, but to shoot someone.

Said shooter proceeded to start shooting.

Walking through an open door is not a felony. Trespassing is not a major crime. Certainly not one that calls for an execution. Not in this country.

Now, if said shooter had instead rigged a net to fall on the guy, then called the cops to have him arrested, that is one thing.

But the fool didn't do that. Instead, he left a door open on purpose as a trap. (Can't claim the dead teen did a B&E now can he?) Then he baited the trap.

Then laid in wait in the hope someone would take it and he could shoot.

That's felony murder. Or 1st degree murder if you prefer.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: expat
I was talking to a friend about this case today. He told me, about a month ago, he was out walking his dog at night along the back lane of some nearby houses.
As he passed the back of one house, he heard the sound like that of a Baby crying coming from a Garage.
The door was open about 16" and there was no light inside.
When he heard the faint cry a second time, he entered the garage with his flashlight to investigate. He searched the garage and looked into the car in the garage (through the window) but did not see anything.
He then heard the cry a third time coming from OUTSIDE the garage!
Looking out through the garage window he could see two cats having a 'Stand-off'
Hearing the sound of the cats, and seeing the open door, I guess his imagination got the better of him.
But as he said, It sounded just like a child or infant, It could have been a child in there, or someone trapped under a car.
He had no Bad intentions going in to investigate. In fact he felt an obligation to do so

Perhaps the German kid was doing something similar when he got himself shot?

According to some posters, your friend should have been shot dead.
The ignorance of the homeowner, and those that agree with that him make me mind my own business more and more. If I witness a theft or other crime, what incentive do I have to help?

 

[Trajan]

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.




It was just the hand they used for the theft.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
^^ When I drive around my neighborhood and see an open garage door I mind my own business and continue on my merry way. If I stopped every time I saw an open garage door and no one around I'd waste a lot of time.


Exactly.

These two perps were not "helping" a neighbor who forgot to close his garage door. We ALL know this.

I love to be on juries for just this reason, no lawyer or prosecutor can [censored] me into thinking something other than the actual reality and facts with their nonsensical perceptions during a trial.


The homeowner is... "Not Guilty" on all charges.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
These two perps were not "helping" a neighbor who forgot to close his garage door. We ALL know this.

How do you KNOW this? Is your inside knowledge from the same source that said the Malaysian plane was landed safely at a US base?

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The homeowner is... "Not Guilty" on all charges.

Right on antique!