okay gun folks...is this homeowner guilty or not guilty ??

http://missoulian.com/news/local/up...cle_f7551102-cf0e-11e3-9619-001a4bcf887a.html


Murder or self defense ?

After reading the article it's a tuff call.. but I would have to keep it simple. The kid was in this man's garage that late at night. The fact that they set a trap to catch the burglar who had already stolen items for their garage is irrelevant to me. If the kid wasn't in his garage he would not have been shot. I personally would not have opened fire into my house like that but that's just me. And with out seeing my target I would not shoot.

But I think the fact they made comments about setting the trap to shoot someone will be what gets him a murder charge.

More evidence will come out, but I haven't heard any statements or evidence yet that suggests the teenager in the garage did anything to suggest a threat to the safety of the shooter.

The shooter himself, and his wife, both said the garage was dark.

Basically it sounds like the shooter opened fire simply because someone was in his garage.

onus said:

More evidence will come out, but I haven't heard any statements or evidence yet that suggests the teenager in the garage did anything to suggest a threat to the safety of the shooter.

The shooter himself, and his wife, both said the garage was dark.

Basically it sounds like the shooter opened fire simply because someone was in his garage.

Click to expand...

I agree there is no evidence the kid was a threat.

But the defense is going to use the fact the garage was dark and could not see if he was armed or not. It's easy for us to armchair the debate, but a jury will make the call.

With the info in the article I don't know how I would call it if I was on the jury. But I do believe the man has a right to protect his property. And if he was burglarized multiple times and no results from the police he needed to do something.

conandan said:

But I do believe the man has a right to protect his property.

Click to expand...

I don't think Montana law gives homeowners the right to use deadly force to defend property.

The law up there gives wide latitude under the "castle doctrine" though.

Sounds like the shooter does not understand the phrase "never talk to the cops!"

Like I said, the fact there are witnesses that heard them say they planed to shoot someone coming into their garage is going to be what nails the guilty verdict. That shows premeditation.

But here's another question though. Would if be a different story had it not been a 17 year old kid. Say a 30 something drug addicted guy. Do you think they would still press charges on him.

conandan said:

Like I said, the fact there are witnesses that heard them say they planed to shoot someone coming into their garage is going to be what nails the guilty verdict. That shows premeditation.

But here's another question though. Would if be a different story had it not been a 17 year old kid. Say a 30 something drug addicted guy. Do you think they would still press charges on him.

Click to expand...

I plan to shoot anyone that comes into my house uninvited. Is that premeditation?

conandan said:

Like I said, the fact there are witnesses that heard them say they planed to shoot someone coming into their garage is going to be what nails the guilty verdict. That shows premeditation.

But here's another question though. Would if be a different story had it not been a 17 year old kid. Say a 30 something drug addicted guy. Do you think they would still press charges on him.

Click to expand...

Both points are valid.

Although there is nothing illegal about "baiting" someone into breaking into your home it looks bad. Plus his alleged statements about shooting people are going to look really bad to a jury.

On the second point......if it was a 30 yr old with a criminal history then I think the public would say "good riddance and good shoot".

conandan said:

Like I said, the fact there are witnesses that heard them say they planed to shoot someone coming into their garage is going to be what nails the guilty verdict. That shows premeditation.
.

Click to expand...

And so does carrying a gun .. said the anti

If I read the article correctly, the police recommended not filing charges but the DA disagreed and will file.

notalawyer said:

I plan to shoot anyone that comes into my house uninvited. Is that premeditation?

Click to expand...

Now you know how messed up the courts are in Florida. It would be tough to win unless the intruder was armed. And I have no doubt if the state could get a witness to say you would shot anyone coming into your house, you know they would use it to show premeditation.

davidmcbeth said:

And so does carrying a gun .. said the anti

Click to expand...

Right... we are all nuts just waiting to shot someone. (Sarcastic)...

Based on just the information in the linked article:

What imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury was this guy facing when inside his house looking at the baby monitor screen?

The law gives homeowners some leeway in setting traps to catch folks who try to steal from them, but pretty much draws the line at going from the safety of your home to arming up, going outside, and shooting pretty much blindly into your garage. "I heard a noise" is not going to stand up once the fact is introduced - and hammered away at - that the guy left the safety of his home to go shoot somebody - anybody - because he was tired of getting ripped off.

“It wasn’t his intent to kill because he didn’t know who was in there, and where the person was, and what was in the person’s hands as far as weapons.” Tell me another fairy story. He knew there was someone in the garage and he took a gun to go look for that person when there was no imminent threat to himself or his wife. What was he going to do - shoot to wound someone? And why would he even shoot to wound if he did not know what was in someone's hands?

I feel sorry for the guy. I am greatly puzzled why a German exchange student who is reported to be such a goody-two-shoes would be out burglarizing a garage.

But most of all I am saddened to read how many would approve of what this guy did. He just became the next poster boy of the anti-gun crowd that will be used to show that we are all just waiting to shoot someone.

The only reluctance I would have as a juror at his trial would be knowing that the judge will not allow me to chew him out.

stay safe.

I don't see many "approving" just saying that it may have been reasonable.

Don't want to get shot don't go steal things in the dark on others property.

sudden valley gunner said:

Don't want to get shot don't go steal things in the dark on others property.

Click to expand...

TRUTH!




None of the People (well maybe a few) complain when others "bait" LEOs. In this case someone died.

my .02 buck

To me this guy baited to hunt a PERSON. If he was worried about being ripped off, he COULD have SHOULD have tightened his security to the garage. He shouldn't have left the door open and a pocket book laying out. We as responsible gun owners and protectors of ourselves and family don't go out and bait people. From what I read, it's an unjustified homicide. If they wanted to trap a suspect, then install the garage door opener INSIDE the house. When the suspects walk in, then shut the door. Average dummie wouldn't think to open the safety in the overhead to get out. They'd be locked in a dark garage, and waiting for a cop. That is a better trap for a perp/suspect/dumb kid. And his "gun control" was attrocious...Spray and pray, and no clue who was in there.

A charge of voluntary manslaughter would probably stick. He'll plead down to that at trial I suspect.

It does not matter. Now, he is just another poster boy for the gun control crowd!

skidmark said:

Based on just the information in the linked article:

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Completely agree.
You can't leave safety (Castle) and then claim that as a defense for shooting back into it.