A Montana man who set trap convicted of homicide.
- Thread starter datech
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 02SE
In other news, burglaries are down in Missoula, Montana..
Unfortunately not. Because of this Missoula has a murder and its theft rate is still more than double of the national average.
In other news, burglaries are down in Missoula, Montana..
Unfortunately not. Because of this Missoula has a murder and its theft rate is still more than double of the national average.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I said in the original thread the homeowner is a criminal. Now is it is official. Ambushing and killing people like game is not justice only intellectually challenged individuals can not distinguish the difference between murder "justice".
So extending your logic a little here.
- The homeowner committed murder.
- He has supporters who feel what he did was not murder.
- Is it reasonable to assume that since they support his acts, they are potentially capable of doing the same thing?
- If so, and even if the probability is very very low, should we be scared of his supporters?
I said in the original thread the homeowner is a criminal. Now is it is official. Ambushing and killing people like game is not justice only intellectually challenged individuals can not distinguish the difference between murder "justice".
So extending your logic a little here.
- The homeowner committed murder.
- He has supporters who feel what he did was not murder.
- Is it reasonable to assume that since they support his acts, they are potentially capable of doing the same thing?
- If so, and even if the probability is very very low, should we be scared of his supporters?
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
This reminds me of the movie Death Wish with Charles Bronson.
He is walking through a ghetto neighborhood at night with a expensive Nikon camera on his shoulder baiting a thug who will eventually snatch it from him, then he kills the thief.
Does this make it 'legal' since Charles Bronson was a victim of crime ?
In Hollywood movies it is OK to bait and kill someone...... In real life you are facing some serious prison time.
As was mentioned, police have bait cars, bait drug dealers and do all sorts of tricky stuff to lure in criminals. Why is it legal for them to do it? And don't tell me that they are trained because they will shoot to kill at the slightest provocation.
I'm not trying to defend the home owner, but I am truly curious.
This reminds me of the movie Death Wish with Charles Bronson.
He is walking through a ghetto neighborhood at night with a expensive Nikon camera on his shoulder baiting a thug who will eventually snatch it from him, then he kills the thief.
Does this make it 'legal' since Charles Bronson was a victim of crime ?
In Hollywood movies it is OK to bait and kill someone...... In real life you are facing some serious prison time.
As was mentioned, police have bait cars, bait drug dealers and do all sorts of tricky stuff to lure in criminals. Why is it legal for them to do it? And don't tell me that they are trained because they will shoot to kill at the slightest provocation.
I'm not trying to defend the home owner, but I am truly curious.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I said in the original thread the homeowner is a criminal. Now is it is official. Ambushing and killing people like game is not justice only intellectually challenged individuals can not distinguish the difference between murder "justice".
So extending your logic a little here.
- The homeowner committed murder.
- He has supporters who feel what he did was not murder.
- Is it reasonable to assume that since they support his acts, they are potentially capable of doing the same thing?
- If so, and even if the probability is very very low, should we be scared of his supporters?
The homeowner had illegal drugs, so he had to be careful about involving the police. He took matters into his own hands. He was kind of careless about leaving his stash in the garage with the door half open.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I said in the original thread the homeowner is a criminal. Now is it is official. Ambushing and killing people like game is not justice only intellectually challenged individuals can not distinguish the difference between murder "justice".
So extending your logic a little here.
- The homeowner committed murder.
- He has supporters who feel what he did was not murder.
- Is it reasonable to assume that since they support his acts, they are potentially capable of doing the same thing?
- If so, and even if the probability is very very low, should we be scared of his supporters?
The homeowner had illegal drugs, so he had to be careful about involving the police. He took matters into his own hands. He was kind of careless about leaving his stash in the garage with the door half open.
The video camera and baiting is what got him.
If he was just carrying a gun in his house, heard something in the garage went to investigate and the situation deteriorated from their he would have probably been fine.
Even in my horrible state of CT I can legally carry any gun I want around my house and I have no duty to retreat in my house.
About a year ago right down the street from my house a homeowner put a couple slugs into an individual who tried to break into his house twice and succeeded the second time before the police showed up. Said individual was on bath salts and didn't die, sadly. I don't believe any charges were ever filed against the homeowner. In this particular case the homeowner was protecting very young sleeping grand kids up stairs so even if he blew the guys head off on the back deck and the DA was a **** no jury in the world would have convicted him.
If he was just carrying a gun in his house, heard something in the garage went to investigate and the situation deteriorated from their he would have probably been fine.
Even in my horrible state of CT I can legally carry any gun I want around my house and I have no duty to retreat in my house.
About a year ago right down the street from my house a homeowner put a couple slugs into an individual who tried to break into his house twice and succeeded the second time before the police showed up. Said individual was on bath salts and didn't die, sadly. I don't believe any charges were ever filed against the homeowner. In this particular case the homeowner was protecting very young sleeping grand kids up stairs so even if he blew the guys head off on the back deck and the DA was a **** no jury in the world would have convicted him.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
This reminds me of the movie Death Wish with Charles Bronson.
He is walking through a ghetto neighborhood at night with a expensive Nikon camera on his shoulder baiting a thug who will eventually snatch it from him, then he kills the thief.
Does this make it 'legal' since Charles Bronson was a victim of crime ?
In Hollywood movies it is OK to bait and kill someone...... In real life you are facing some serious prison time.
As was mentioned, police have bait cars, bait drug dealers and do all sorts of tricky stuff to lure in criminals. Why is it legal for them to do it?
Because they're not looking to shoot the one who takes the bait.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
This reminds me of the movie Death Wish with Charles Bronson.
He is walking through a ghetto neighborhood at night with a expensive Nikon camera on his shoulder baiting a thug who will eventually snatch it from him, then he kills the thief.
Does this make it 'legal' since Charles Bronson was a victim of crime ?
In Hollywood movies it is OK to bait and kill someone...... In real life you are facing some serious prison time.
As was mentioned, police have bait cars, bait drug dealers and do all sorts of tricky stuff to lure in criminals. Why is it legal for them to do it?
Because they're not looking to shoot the one who takes the bait.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.
If the thief broke into the home, that's different.
Exactly. I am very pro 2nd amendment and I usually side with the homeowner against the crooks. This homeowner set out to lure someone in and shoot them though. As you say that is hunting not self defense.
Nothing wrong with what the homeowner did, if he felt he was being targeted for a crime, up to the point of grabbing his gun and going out and shooting the guy. What he should have done once he saw the guy in there was lock the garage( if possible )and call the Police.
You don't purposely lure someone into your garage and then shoot them. That is nuts!
Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.
If the thief broke into the home, that's different.
Exactly. I am very pro 2nd amendment and I usually side with the homeowner against the crooks. This homeowner set out to lure someone in and shoot them though. As you say that is hunting not self defense.
Nothing wrong with what the homeowner did, if he felt he was being targeted for a crime, up to the point of grabbing his gun and going out and shooting the guy. What he should have done once he saw the guy in there was lock the garage( if possible )and call the Police.
You don't purposely lure someone into your garage and then shoot them. That is nuts!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.
If the thief broke into the home, that's different.
Exactly. I am very pro 2nd amendment and I usually side with the homeowner against the crooks. This homeowner set out to lure someone in and shoot them though. As you say that is hunting not self defense.
Nothing wrong with what the homeowner did, if he felt he was being targeted for a crime, up to the point of grabbing his gun and going out and shooting the guy. What he should have done once he saw the guy in there was lock the garage( if possible )and call the Police.
You don't purposely lure someone into your garage and then shoot them. That is nuts!
Yes, it's nuts, but the homeowner had to resort to this because he had illegal drugs. He was no doubt hoping to get away with it via the "castle principle" or something, but didn't quite make it.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.
If the thief broke into the home, that's different.
Exactly. I am very pro 2nd amendment and I usually side with the homeowner against the crooks. This homeowner set out to lure someone in and shoot them though. As you say that is hunting not self defense.
Nothing wrong with what the homeowner did, if he felt he was being targeted for a crime, up to the point of grabbing his gun and going out and shooting the guy. What he should have done once he saw the guy in there was lock the garage( if possible )and call the Police.
You don't purposely lure someone into your garage and then shoot them. That is nuts!
Yes, it's nuts, but the homeowner had to resort to this because he had illegal drugs. He was no doubt hoping to get away with it via the "castle principle" or something, but didn't quite make it.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
So extending your logic a little here.
- The homeowner committed murder.
- He has supporters who feel what he did was not murder.
- Is it reasonable to assume that since they support his acts, they are potentially capable of doing the same thing?
- If so, and even if the probability is very very low, should we be scared of his supporters?
There is very little logic in this post.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
Setting up traps to ambush people with the intent to commit homicide even people that are committing crimes is murder. That is how the law is written and enforced. I am for protecting ones property and self defense including up to and including homicide if your life is in danger.
What you fail to point out in your stance is very simple. Lying in ambush to commit homicide is murder in the first degree. "First-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim."
There is nothing admirable about killing people and ambushing people with bait to kill in one's garage is downright low.
So extending your logic a little here.
- The homeowner committed murder.
- He has supporters who feel what he did was not murder.
- Is it reasonable to assume that since they support his acts, they are potentially capable of doing the same thing?
- If so, and even if the probability is very very low, should we be scared of his supporters?
There is very little logic in this post.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
Setting up traps to ambush people with the intent to commit homicide even people that are committing crimes is murder. That is how the law is written and enforced. I am for protecting ones property and self defense including up to and including homicide if your life is in danger.
What you fail to point out in your stance is very simple. Lying in ambush to commit homicide is murder in the first degree. "First-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim."
There is nothing admirable about killing people and ambushing people with bait to kill in one's garage is downright low.
Thank you for clarifying. None of us including myself are perfect.
Just like that case in Minneapolis, the guy killing 2 teens... his logic was crazy and irrational.
I would have installed a security system, cameras, have a gun/shotgun and my German Shepherd. Only if someone broke in my house I would have no option than to unload at close range.
I would have installed a security system, cameras, have a gun/shotgun and my German Shepherd. Only if someone broke in my house I would have no option than to unload at close range.
Heard a little discussion about this on a talk radio station on way home from work.
What happened in this case (only caught some), the results would depend on location (state laws) - i.e. Texas laws are different than California law regards to protecting property. I didn't catch the Montana law on this (didn't catch the whole talk show).
If I heard right, there has been a spike of theft in the neighborhood/area and local authorities weren't stepping up response for the area, typically not responding to some or several calls. Since the spike of theft came a spike of frustration to those getting ripped off and not getting police response expected.
We'll this fella was frustrated and determined to do something about it if he could, and he did.
What if going into the garage (hearing noise) then the thief happens to pull out a weapon.... or made a motion like he was about to pull something out, or (and I think this is what I heard) he pleaded for his life at the home owner (home owner has him at gun point).
Video.... business do it, traffic cams, increase of home owners do it (look at all the package theft this time of year)................ I got on the driveway at home & had to cut it there.
Years ago, co-worker got his new radio stolen from his car. He soon installed a new radio, shortly after stolen again. More damage to his dash, but he again installed a third but behind & around the radio he wired a bunch of sharp fishing treble hooks. Couple days go by, get in to go to work and found the radio disturbed, blood and a little skin & meat snagged in the hooks, but the radio was still there. When he reported it again as he did the prior times, this time he told them what he had done and found. He was told this is a trap and would be liable for the medical and charges, but nothing came up on the thief. Also no more attempts to take the radio. He didn't have a car alarm and wasn't going to pay for one either.
What happened in this case (only caught some), the results would depend on location (state laws) - i.e. Texas laws are different than California law regards to protecting property. I didn't catch the Montana law on this (didn't catch the whole talk show).
If I heard right, there has been a spike of theft in the neighborhood/area and local authorities weren't stepping up response for the area, typically not responding to some or several calls. Since the spike of theft came a spike of frustration to those getting ripped off and not getting police response expected.
We'll this fella was frustrated and determined to do something about it if he could, and he did.
What if going into the garage (hearing noise) then the thief happens to pull out a weapon.... or made a motion like he was about to pull something out, or (and I think this is what I heard) he pleaded for his life at the home owner (home owner has him at gun point).
Video.... business do it, traffic cams, increase of home owners do it (look at all the package theft this time of year)................ I got on the driveway at home & had to cut it there.
Years ago, co-worker got his new radio stolen from his car. He soon installed a new radio, shortly after stolen again. More damage to his dash, but he again installed a third but behind & around the radio he wired a bunch of sharp fishing treble hooks. Couple days go by, get in to go to work and found the radio disturbed, blood and a little skin & meat snagged in the hooks, but the radio was still there. When he reported it again as he did the prior times, this time he told them what he had done and found. He was told this is a trap and would be liable for the medical and charges, but nothing came up on the thief. Also no more attempts to take the radio. He didn't have a car alarm and wasn't going to pay for one either.
Yes, fish hooks are always an option. For a while I had trouble with (kids) climbing over part of my chain link fence. I coated the top rail with black grease. I didn't have a way to really monitor the area closely but I kine of figure it might have helped somewhat.
In this case the kid was snatching some of the homeowner's pot. That does make things more complicated but maybe he could have devised some other way to deter the kid. Or to deal with him that night he caught him red handed.
Every case is going to be a little different but this guy made a big miscalculation about how to deal with the situation.
In this case the kid was snatching some of the homeowner's pot. That does make things more complicated but maybe he could have devised some other way to deter the kid. Or to deal with him that night he caught him red handed.
Every case is going to be a little different but this guy made a big miscalculation about how to deal with the situation.
Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.
If the thief broke into the home, that's different.
Exactly. I am very pro 2nd amendment and I usually side with the homeowner against the crooks. This homeowner set out to lure someone in and shoot them though. As you say that is hunting not self defense.
Nothing wrong with what the homeowner did, if he felt he was being targeted for a crime, up to the point of grabbing his gun and going out and shooting the guy. What he should have done once he saw the guy in there was lock the garage( if possible )and call the Police.
You don't purposely lure someone into your garage and then shoot them. That is nuts!
Yes, it's nuts, but the homeowner had to resort to this because he had illegal drugs. He was no doubt hoping to get away with it via the "castle principle" or something, but didn't quite make it.
I didn't know when I replied that these other aspects of the situation applied such as the drugs. Even still the guy is nuts!
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Except that the defendant baited the person into the garage. He hid concealed and coaxed the man in and then shot him. That's called hunting and we can do that to deer, but not to people.
If the thief broke into the home, that's different.
Exactly. I am very pro 2nd amendment and I usually side with the homeowner against the crooks. This homeowner set out to lure someone in and shoot them though. As you say that is hunting not self defense.
Nothing wrong with what the homeowner did, if he felt he was being targeted for a crime, up to the point of grabbing his gun and going out and shooting the guy. What he should have done once he saw the guy in there was lock the garage( if possible )and call the Police.
You don't purposely lure someone into your garage and then shoot them. That is nuts!
Yes, it's nuts, but the homeowner had to resort to this because he had illegal drugs. He was no doubt hoping to get away with it via the "castle principle" or something, but didn't quite make it.
I didn't know when I replied that these other aspects of the situation applied such as the drugs. Even still the guy is nuts!
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: 02SE
In other news, burglaries are down in Missoula, Montana..
Unfortunately not. Because of this Missoula has a murder and its theft rate is still more than double of the national average.
I'll spell it out: In the case of burglaries committed by the now-dead burglar, they are way down.
On the plus side, the dead burglar is a candidate for a Darwin Award.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
In other news, burglaries are down in Missoula, Montana..
Unfortunately not. Because of this Missoula has a murder and its theft rate is still more than double of the national average.
I'll spell it out: In the case of burglaries committed by the now-dead burglar, they are way down.
On the plus side, the dead burglar is a candidate for a Darwin Award.
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: 02SE
In other news, burglaries are down in Missoula, Montana..
Unfortunately not. Because of this Missoula has a murder and its theft rate is still more than double of the national average.
I'll spell it out: In the case of burglaries committed by the now-dead burglar, they are way down.
On the plus side, the dead burglar is a candidate for a Darwin Award.
Committing crime to quell other crimes does not do anything but create more criminals. Also the theft rate in Missoula has not significantly dropped it is still quite higher than the national and Montana average. The convicted felon is the ultimate Darwin award winner that is going to be saved from his Darwinian fate by spending a good portion of his life behind bars.
WOW! That just blows your mind. Does it not?
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: 02SE
In other news, burglaries are down in Missoula, Montana..
Unfortunately not. Because of this Missoula has a murder and its theft rate is still more than double of the national average.
I'll spell it out: In the case of burglaries committed by the now-dead burglar, they are way down.
On the plus side, the dead burglar is a candidate for a Darwin Award.
Committing crime to quell other crimes does not do anything but create more criminals. Also the theft rate in Missoula has not significantly dropped it is still quite higher than the national and Montana average. The convicted felon is the ultimate Darwin award winner that is going to be saved from his Darwinian fate by spending a good portion of his life behind bars.
WOW! That just blows your mind. Does it not?
- Status