And another incident
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27243115
Printable View
And another incident
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27243115
Castle Doctrine. The name is asinine. A home is not a fortress. In most States the doctrine allows the use of deadly force against an intruder provided one surmises his life is in imminent peril from the intruder. In Montana the doctrine may have a more lax proviso.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
In this case, the shooter (Markus Kaarma) claims to have been burgled twice in the past few months. He told his hairdresser that he had been waiting for the past three nights with his shotgun to shoot "some fucking kid." Sounds more like premeditation rather than fear of "immanent peril". Sounds to me, like he reasoned, before the shooting, that the punishment for theft should be death. The victim was a German exchange student named Dede. No articles I've read up to this time speculate on why Dede came into Kaarma's garage that evening. But he did, and he set off the alarms. Without shouting any warning, Kaarma fired four shots blindly into the dark of the garage in four distinct directions.
My opinion, this was a case of Bad Kaarma.
Sounds like they baited their garage like a mouse trap...seems the prosecution might be able to argue premeditation.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
At least in the following case the man was found guilty,especially since he was stupid enough to include a sound recording under some surreal belief it would somehow help in his defense ...warning: the included sound recording in the article quite graphic: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1776145
When will Congress put the brakes on these lethal loonies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Never, and that's the saddest and angriest word I've typed in quite a while.
Sounds like pre-meditated murder to me.
Every state law is different regarding this but the traditional common law rule is that you aren't allowed to use deadly force in defense of property alone. Every state law should at least comport with that. I agree with Trish (and others) that this was murder. He didn't reasonably believe he was in peril, but planned to kill someone he thought was a thief.
Most of the time there is a common sense presumption that someone in your house is a threat to your safety. However, when you suspect they have already been there without harming you and you lay in wait to kill them (in your garage no less) you effectively rebut that presumption.
Good luck getting a jury in Montana to convict under these circumstances. Fucking disgusting.
I think we talked about this with stand your ground. Even when these absurdly named doctrines don't apply, they offer an invitation for jury nullification. They reflect a certain ethos and urge the jury to acquit based on shared values with the killer. I know I get pedantic on the legal issues so I won't get into the castle doctrine, except to say that it offers more of a rhetorical defense than a legal one.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This perhaps over simplifies it, but any law that values property above life is intrinsically and morally wrong.
Jesus Christ. Is there no end to the stupidity and arrogance of these people? Does anyone outside the armed forces actually NEED a fucking machine gun?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...nra-opposition