Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Thoughst on Missoula murder verdict (self-defense case)...

I think the baiting had to do with a deliberate intent to lure one of these burglars into his garage, so he could kill the burglar, and it would be justified.

If it wasn't for the deliberate baiting, and a homeowner encountered a burglar inside his home or garage and killed him, it wouldn't be a crime.

It's all about intent in this case.

I don't care if he left a million dollar pile of gold coins on the garage floor and lit it up with a glass of milk and a plate of cookies.

A thief is a thief is a thief. People lament the lack of unlocked doors and cars and the need for security measures for hearth and home, because of the lack of common decency not to steal someone elses schit. Were this more common practice them sticky fingers might stay put.

The justice is: there are no repeat offenders...

Hopefully the appeal will take place in Montana, not Missoula.

Kind of figured that's how it would go. Now the appeals begin.

Jason,

I don't disagree with your sentiment.

My observations/opinions on the outcome of the trial were based more on my limited understanding of the law.

Understood Shane by letter of the law dude may very well be phouced.

But damn, hard to swallow. I can tell you I'll not shed a tear for the departed.

Why do you hate the 2 officers?


Why do you keep bringing up the gay sex crap with me? I told you I have no issue with your homosexuality, but have no interest in engaging in the practice myself.

If I was pissin' about in someone else's garage, and they showed up, I'd expect there a good chance I'd get shot. I had no business being there, in another persons castle.

On a personal level, for me this situation falls into the old category of...play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don't know all the fine points either but supposedly there had been a number of these garage thefts in the area and the police took a ho hum approach to the whole theft thing. So Kaarma set a trap for the kids by putting stuff inside the garage and leaving the garage door open to entice the kids to walk in and steal stuff usually beer. When he heard somebody in the garage he opened fire without identifying his target. According to the news reports and what has come out of the trial he supposedly bragged to his neighbors he was going to do this and allegedly was on pot at the time of the shooting.

If the papers are even 1/32 right Kaarma set himself up for his own fall. The only good thing I can see with this is that with a Republican House and Senate in Montana and now a conviction it will be harder to overturn Montana's castle doctrine.

Tragedy all the way around, but anyone who is concerned about preserving legitimate 2nd. amendment rights should turn their back on the shooter.

Most likely the appeal will go all the way to the State Supreme Court where Kaarma will lose. He's going to jail it's just a matter for how long.

There is nothing illegitimate about shooting someone stealing your schit.

Illegal? Apparently so.

This is a perfect example of emotions overriding reason.

The shooting should stand or fall on its legality....Not on how immature, spiteful or stupid the shooter was.

Two wrongs involved in this one. Both are getting what they deserve.

I think if Kaarma had not bragged about what he intended to do, if he had not deliberately left the garage open and unattended, had not just blindly fired into the garage without identifying his target he might not have been in trouble.

Like it or not only the State can lie and entrap people with immunity NOT the citizen. And therein lies the rub.

I agree but in a liberal mecca like Missoula, home of the University of Montana, that ain't going to happen.

I agree with this (don't faint Derb ). What sets this case apart is that there was evidence that Khaarma (sp?) sought an opportunity for a confrontation in which he was fully armed and ready to rock. The evidence of possible baiting (deliberately leaving the garage door open and a purse inside with statements to neighbors of the plan---if in fact that was the evidence) really took the legs out from under his claim that he was in fear of his safety or that of his family. (You don't "set-up" and invite a confrontation while simultaneously claiming you're in fear of your life from that confrontation).

The leftists in Montana (which is what, about half the state now? ) want badly to do away with the Castle Doctrine, but in reality this case showed that the Castle Doctrine worked, i.e., the jury did not buy the defense argument made in reliance on the Castle Doctrine. Of course, this assumes the jury got it right, but on the facts I've been able to ferret out of the very one-sided media coverage, it appears the jury did get it right. Frankly, though, I'd have preferred a Voluntary Manslaughter conviction over deliberate murder.

My .02 worth.


Jordan

P.S. What the &*^*&(*% you Montana boys doing letting all those libs take over your state. You boys seriously ^&%&%^'d up.

my understanding is that in MT. lethal force can only be used to defend human life.

two different dumbasses ran into each other, one is dead, and one is toast.

I hope all the high schoolers that taught the german kid to steal beer feel good about themselves.

the shooter apparently had a few run-ins with the law previous, including in Seattle.

I think the high schoolers had stolen some of his pot.

IF I had pot in my house, I'd damn sure lock up the house.

Sycamore