Self-defense fails in Montana man's murder trial

[gfrlaser]

For those reasons, Kaarma's "castle doctrine" defense, which allows people to use deadly force to protect their home and family, failed him Wednesday. A Missoula jury convicted him of deliberate homicide.

Self-defense fails in Montana man's murder trial

 

[BC1]

Justice. He absolutely intended to bait the burglary and then setup for a kill. He was not an innocent victim, he was a lunatic.

 

[GryHounnd]

It may come to surprise you BC, but I agree with you. Justice was served in this case.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Just days before he killed a 17-year-old German exchange student, Markus Kaarma told hairstylists he had been waiting up to shoot some kids who were burglarizing homes. He told them they would see it on the news.

Kaarma hoped to bait an intruder by leaving his garage door partially open and placing a purse inside, Montana prosecutors said.

That is premeditated murder, the only unknown is who the victim would be. Place the bait, and pump 4 rounds from a shotgun into who ever took the bait.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Wow!

 

[N R A]

Justice in this case.

However, it is NEVER a great idea to shoot at people, if there is any other alternative. Shooting should ALWAYS be the final last straw. Even if it is within your rights, and it may well later be labeled justified, it is bettter to escape the castle and everyone live another day.

I do not say this because i want scumbags to hang around longer. I say this because another level of scumbags will hound you forever if you shoot someone. Lawyers.

 

[HoJo]

Kaarma's a b****. :sarcastic:

 

[BluesStringer]

I think the jury nullified the actual law in Montana. Specifically, their Castle Doctrine law that says either an imminent threat or a forcible felony being committed on one's property are grounds for using deadly force. If all but one of the circumstances in this incident remained identical in every respect, the jury would've acquitted, if Kaarma had even gone to trial to begin with. That circumstance is that he told someone(s?) about his preparations and plans to shoot whoever took the bait.

We have security cameras. There have been times when we're bringing groceries in or otherwise unloading one of the cars that a phone call or something else distracts us long enough for someone to enter the garage and steal something out of it or the cars. Would either of us open fire on 'em if we saw it on the security monitor? Probably not, unless we could see they were armed or headed into the house, but that's really not the question I'm focusing on. Would the Castle Doctrine law support my decision to open fire if that's indeed what I did decide to do? I believe it would, and I don't believe it would go to trial either. If it did, and either of us were convicted as Kaarma just was in MT, I believe it would render the Castle Doctrine law impotent at best, if not voided outright.

I am no fan of Kaarma's. I think like some of the other members have said that he's kind of a whack-job. But I don't see where planning ahead to use existing law to its full advantage on your own behalf equals breaking that law when it doesn't have any prohibitions written into it that address planning how you'll react. At the bottom line, the kid committed a crime that qualified him to have deadly force used upon him. Maybe he was aware of that fact, maybe he wasn't, but it is a fact, and I don't think this jury verdict is going to bode well for the strong Castle Doctrine laws throughout the country staying strong. I predict several states will start monkeying around with their versions to criminalize advance planning and/or removing the forcible felony parts of their laws from the books, putting it back to where most states were before CD laws became ubiquitous, with the homeowner having to meet the "reasonable person" standard of fear of great bodily injury or death before they can open fire in their own homes. Not that I want to open fire in my home or anywhere else, but I do like that my state's CD law leaves the decision mostly in my own hands, and puts the responsibility on the criminal for any injuries or death they might incur for committing their crimes.

So I'm a little less clear on whether this verdict was "justice" or not. Jury nullification is an extremely underused method of The People defeating unjust laws, and I encourage its use every chance I get. I'm not sure that the CD law in MT is unjust though, simply because one whack-job fed his blood-lust while remaining within the parameters of that law. I think it's a mistake for CD proponents to see Kaarma's conviction as an unequivocal, black-and-white example of "justice." I see a lot more gray in this case than I do black or white.

Blues

 

[XD40scinNC]

But I don't see where planning ahead to use existing law to its full advantage on your own behalf equals breaking that law when it doesn't have any prohibitions written into it that address planning how you'll react. At the bottom line, the kid committed a crime that qualified him to have deadly force used upon him.

This is not planning to use existing laws, we all do that in the fact we are armed in the event we need to defend ourselves. I am armed as I sit in my living room and if someone busts down the front door as I type this, I will definitely put shooting them in the realm of possible actions.

This guy set a trap with the intent of killing the first person that takes the bait, as proven by his boasting before the event, then I think the guy got off light with 10 years.

Since this was a "bait" purse, was there anything of value in it, or would it have been classified as a misdemeanor due to lack of value, and when in hell did that become a capital offense? There was no 'forced' entry, there was no threat to the persons safety, it was petty theft, of property only. I know every states laws are different, but in most lethal force cannot be used to protect property only.

 

[vernsimpson]

If there break-ins and robberies in my neighborhood I would be on very high alert and would make sure I always had a weapon at hand. (I do that on a daily basis but not on high alert.) Then if and when the BG's targeted my home or me I would first draw my weapon to hold the BG's til the LEOs arrived. I would never shoot the BGs unless they came at me or pulled a weapon of their own.

I and others on this forum have said many times that we only want to take our guns out of the holster on the range, cleaning or to show a friend my pride and joy (unloaded of course)! IMHO anyone who starts their day hoping and/or planning on shooting someone is a wacko and should never have a gun, sharp instruments or blunt objects! I firmly believe that most if not all on this forum NEVER wants to shoot someone. I can say for a fact that I hope and pray that I never have to ever shoot anyone.

I have met many who do not understand why I like guns and shooting. I usually tell them that guns are like my love of my truck, if I have to explain it they would never understand!

 

[Paul_of_TX]

Since this was a "bait" purse, was there anything of value in it, or would it have been classified as a misdemeanor due to lack of value, and when in hell did that become a capital offense?

I really hate it when that is used. The criminal and the criminal alone is the person responsible for placing such a cheap price on their life. In this story there just happened to be two people who were doing wrong. They are both to blame for his death but only one of them is to blame for the cheap price he put on his life. Don't put a price on something if you are not willing to settle for that price. That goes for your life more so than anything else.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think the jury nullified the actual law in Montana. Specifically, their Castle Doctrine law that says either an imminent threat or a forcible felony being committed on one's property are grounds for using deadly force. If all but one of the circumstances in this incident remained identical in every respect, the jury would've acquitted, if Kaarma had even gone to trial to begin with. That circumstance is that he told someone(s?) about his preparations and plans to shoot whoever took the bait.

Blues

I must disagree that the jury nullified the Montana Statute. I think there was no evidence that the criminal was ever given a chance to threaten the family, let alone did actually threaten the family.

Montana Code:
Link Removed

45-3-101. Definitions. (1) "Force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm" within the meaning of this chapter includes but is not limited to:
(a) the firing of a firearm in the direction of a person, even though no purpose exists to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; and
(b) the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which a person is riding.
(2) "Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

The Montana Code requires a threat of violence against any individual - not just property.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the garage of the house is considered an occupied structure when the family is at home.
Link Removed

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.

Was the owner justified in using force? Absolutely, to terminate the other person's unlawful entry into the occupied structure. However, in order to escalate the force used to deadly force there must be a reasonable belief that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another. Montana's castle doctrine is actually incomplete because true castle doctrines have a presumption clause in their laws that the resident of a home can automatically assume that the intentions of an intruder are to commit a forcible felony. There is no such presumption I can find in Montana law, so there actually has to be some action taken by the intruder that would cause a reasonable person to determine that an assault was about to be committed. I'm willing to bet there was no evidence to indicate the intruder had taken any action that would indicate an assault was about to happen. I'll bet the homeowner entered the garage and started shooting immediately.

An example of a presumption of violence clause in state law is Washington's:
RCW 9A.52.040: Inference of intent.

RCW 9A.52.040
Inference of intent.

In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.

 

[BluesStringer]

This is not planning to use existing laws

I disagree. I believe that everything he did was within the parameters of the law, which would strongly suggest that he read it, understood it, and planned around it. I am not endorsing or even condoning his planning, I'm just looking at the law, comparing it to the verdict, and finding I can't reconcile the two.

This guy set a trap with the intent of killing the first person that takes the bait, as proven by his boasting before the event, then I think the guy got off light with 10 years.

Regardless of what you think about the sentence or the trap that was set, it was a forcible felony (burglary) perpetrated by the kid who tripped the trap's wire, and MT's law should've supported Kaarma in court for that, even though your own take is perfectly valid because he's not entitled to public support. With all the same circumstances except for the planning, this likely would've never gone to trial, but almost assuredly would've ended in an acquittal if it had.

Since this was a "bait" purse, was there anything of value in it, or would it have been classified as a misdemeanor due to lack of value, and when in hell did that become a capital offense?

The value of the purse or its contents have nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine law. Kid got shot for the burglary, and the law provides the homeowner that option.

There was no 'forced' entry, there was no threat to the persons safety, it was petty theft, of property only. I know every states laws are different, but in most lethal force cannot be used to protect property only.

Actually, you're mistaken about deadly force against property crimes in "most states." As I recall, CD laws that allow property to be protected with deadly force are right around 50/50 at present. It might be weighted more towards the allowable side, not positive about the exact number, but it's certainly not rare or unusual for states to support the citizen's and/or property owner's right to determine for themselves who/what/when/and where they're facing a criminal whose crimes qualify them to have lethal forced used against them.

And the "forced entry" was the burglary. The kid knew it wasn't his garage, or his purse, or his anything except for his crime that he was committing. I don't think he should've died, and it's for damn sure he wouldn't have if it had been my property that he was burglarizing under the same circumstances, but again, I'm just looking at the law and the verdict and not seeing how they get reconciled. Mark my words, this is going to enure to the detriment of Castle Doctrine laws somewhere, if not everywhere they currently exist.

I must disagree that the jury nullified the Montana Statute. I think there was no evidence that the criminal was ever given a chance to threaten the family, let alone did actually threaten the family.

Montana Code:
Link Removed

45-3-101. Definitions. (1) "Force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm" within the meaning of this chapter includes but is not limited to:
(a) the firing of a firearm in the direction of a person, even though no purpose exists to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; and
(b) the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which a person is riding.
(2) "Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

The Montana Code requires a threat of violence against any individual - not just property.

The part about threat is preceded by the statement that the following definitions are not the totality of legal definitions for that specific code section, therefore, you have to look elsewhere for more authorizing language.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the garage of the house is considered an occupied structure when the family is at home.

No need to assume anything - it's a single level with attached garage with direct access to the house:

Link Removed

Link Removed

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.

The law you cited, and that I verified for myself is current and accurate, clearly gives the homeowner authority to use deadly force in either instance, a threat or to prevent or terminate a felony.

I contend that is the "elsewhere," or one of the elsewhere's, that one has to look to find the full (or fuller) forcible felony definitions.

An example of a presumption of violence clause in state law is Washington's:
RCW 9A.52.040: Inference of intent.

I agree that MT's law is missing that important aspect of most CD laws, but that oversight doesn't lessen the force of law that the existing language does give the homeowner, and that language clearly says that preventing or terminating a burglary is an authorized use of deadly force.

Blues

 

[XD40scinNC]

Regardless of what you think about the sentence or the trap that was set, it was a forcible felony (burglary) perpetrated by the kid who tripped the trap's wire, and MT's law should've supported Kaarma in court for that, even though your own take is perfectly valid because he's not entitled to public support. With all the same circumstances except for the planning, this likely would've never gone to trial, but almost assuredly would've ended in an acquittal if it had.

First where is the force? Didn't break a door/window, nor threaten force on any person.

Second, he is on his way to prison, so I'm not the only one that believes he cross the line.

And finially he had not set the trap and baited it, he would just be a looser still looking for someone to shoot.

 

[N R A]

I heard reported, he told people he was going to bait, and kill whoever he could. That is not protecting a castle, that is using your house, to kill someone. That was not the intent of Castle Doctrines. Premeditated murder, gets jail. No way around that. Lucky he did not get death himself.
.

GOA Member, NCGR Member
Former NRA member - my membership renounced after I received a robo-call endorsing an anti-gun, anti 2A candidate that sides with Bloomberg.
.

If you hale a cab, and he turns the wrong way once, do you redirect him, or get out and hale another cab? I am a life supporter of both, and I am active in both.

 

[BluesStringer]

First where is the force? Didn't break a door/window, nor threaten force on any person.

From the sub-section (1) in the law cited by Navy and again by me:

(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.

Unlawful entry into an occupied structure, besides being synonymous with burglary into an occupied structure, is often referred to as a "home invasion." It is, in and of itself, a forcible felony.

Second, he is on his way to prison, so I'm not the only one that believes he cross the line.

I'm not suggesting that you or the jury don't have the right to form your own opinions on Kaarma's actions, I'm just trying to find exactly what law the jury says he violated, and I don't see it.

And finially he had not set the trap and baited it, he would just be a looser still looking for someone to shoot.

Well, duh.

Be nice to have a legal argument in reply to legal questions. You made a minimal attempt with point 1. Thanks for that.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

45-3-101. Definitions. (1) "Force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm" within the meaning of this chapter includes but is not limited to:
(a) the firing of a firearm in the direction of a person, even though no purpose exists to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; and
(b) the firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which a person is riding.
(2) "Forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

The part about threat is preceded by the statement that the following definitions are not the totality of legal definitions for that specific code section, therefore, you have to look elsewhere for more authorizing language.

Blues

I am afraid you are reading the definition incorrectly, Blues. The "includes but not limited to" statement in the statute refers ONLY to the definition of deadly force, NOT to the definition of forcible felony. The definition of deadly force, containing the phrase "includes but not limited to" is paragraph (1), and "includes but not limited to" refers to (a) and (b) below paragraph 1 and is limited to paragraph (1). The definition of deadly force does not fall under paragraph (1), it starts it's own new paragraph (2) and there is no phrase "includes but not limited to" that applies to paragraph (2).

 

[XD40scinNC]

GOA Member, NCGR Member
Former NRA member - my membership renounced after I received a robo-call endorsing an anti-gun, anti 2A candidate that sides with Bloomberg.
.

If you hale a cab, and he turns the wrong way once, do you redirect him, or get out and hale another cab? I am a life supporter of both, and I am active in both.

A robo call is amounts to more than a wrong turn, and I expressed my displeasure directly to the NRA, exchanging emails with several people in their damage control, I mean P-R department. They were polite, and thanked me for contacting them, and never addressed my concerns.

And I would hail a cab :tongue:

 

[S&W645]

45-2-101 General definitions. Unless otherwise specified in the statute, all words must be taken in the objective standard rather than in the subjective, and unless a different meaning plainly is required, the following definitions apply in this title:
.......
(24) "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

By that definition, the property owner was not justified in the use of deadly force unless it could be proven that the student threatened the owner.

In 45-3-101, the (1) " but is not limited to:" is not inclusive of

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

(1) stands alone from (2). There is no "and", "or", or comma joining the two. There is a period at the end of (1) (b)'s last line.

And funny, while I was typing, XD40scinNC also came to the same point as I did. The period ends the "not limited to" before the (2)

 

[BluesStringer]

OK gents, I stand corrected. Thanks for the free education.