• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Castle Doctrine Under Fire - Score One For Freedom-Haters

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
If this goes to trial I predict it becomes a national news story.

The antis are going to use it as evidence to ban guns.

I would think the trial has to be moved out of Missoula County and if that happens I predict they get a jury that is pretty sympathetic to homeowners and self defense.

It did go to trial, and the homeowner, Kaarma, was found guilty.

Justice perverted.

Prosecutors argued Kaarma was intent on luring an intruder into his garage and then harming that person. That night, Kaarma left his garage door partially open with a purse inside. He fired four shotgun blasts, pausing between the third and fourth shots, witnesses said. Three witnesses testified they heard Kaarma say his house had been burglarized and he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.

University of Montana law professor Andrew King-Ries noted state law does allow homeowners to use deadly force to protect their property, but it requires them to act reasonably.

"What the jury's saying here is, you have a right to defend yourself, but this isn't reasonable," King-Ries said. "Lots of people have guns here, and lots of people feel very strongly that comes with a responsibility to handle your weapon appropriately."
Source.​

The problem I have with the results is they seem to ignore the FACT that the perp, Diren Dede, was STILL trespassing on Kaarma's property, then inside his home (garage), in the early hours of April 27, 2014. That meets the requirements of the Castle Doctrine.

Link.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Sorry, but that case had nothing to do with castle doctrine. Not the way it was set up and not the way it played out.

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-103.htm

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.

It's that only if clause that folks need to pay attention to. In the case cited the best Kaarma thought was going to take place was a simple burglary.

While SCOTUS has said that cops do not need to know what the law actually is, we mere mortals are still stuck beind that "ignorance is no excuse" stuff.

stay safe.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Now if the law was like I want it to be wherein the guy could have shot anyone on his land with or without cause, he would be free today.

Really? You want to be able to just shoot anyone on your land with or without cause? School children taking a shortcut? A neighbor retrieving a wiffle ball or frisbee, perhaps a family pet?

This is what we should be petitioning our gov'ts for ... not "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" that leads to these types of convictions but simple to understand laws that say a land owner has the right to shoot anyone on his land.

Do you not hear how incredibly insane that sounds? Certifiable.

Makes the law very simple and easy to understand.

There are far better ways to keep the law simple without legalizing murder on the basis of real property ownership. Here are five simple steps towards that ideal:

Step 1: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's an absolute, not conditional.

Step 2: You cannot shoot someone merely for trespassing.

Step 3: You can shoot them if they refuse to leave. You must, however, give them reasonable opportunity to do so.

Step 4: You can shoot them if they're inside your home, provided they do not have a reasonable expectation of being allowed inside your home (invited guest, family member residing with you, emergency responder answering a call, etc.).

Step 5: You can shoot them anywhere on or off your land if they present a clear and present threat to life, limb, or property, EXCEPT when the individual in question owns property and you're on their property. Then, the ball is in his court, not yours.

Most people have no idea what they are doing in the jury box.

That's the first sane comment you've made this thread...

I would like to see the jury instructions for this case.....anyone have it?

I'll keep my eyes peeled.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Sorry, but that case had nothing to do with castle doctrine. Not the way it was set up and not the way it played out.

The author of the article also mentioned how Florida was crossing new grounds with respect to extending the castle law beyond the home, and specifically mentioned the Zimmerman/Martin case. That had everything to do with self-defense, and nothing to do with castle law.

While SCOTUS has said that cops do not need to know what the law actually is, we mere mortals are still stuck beind that "ignorance is no excuse" stuff.

How do we change that, skidmark? I strongly suspect if even 1% of Americans wrote their Congressmen often, clearly presenting "SCOTUS says the cops don't need to know the law, so why are we being held to a higher standard?", then Congress would get tired of hearing it and would act. If not, ramp it up to 5%.

I have repeatedly seen products of my own writing appear in bills. It DOES work.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
....

(referencing a comment about SCOTUS ruling that cops do not need to know what the law actually is)

How do we change that, skidmark? I strongly suspect if even 1% of Americans wrote their Congressmen often, clearly presenting "SCOTUS says the cops don't need to know the law, so why are we being held to a higher standard?", then Congress would get tired of hearing it and would act. If not, ramp it up to 5%.

I have repeatedly seen products of my own writing appear in bills. It DOES work.

You are right on target. SCOTUS has said time and time again that if the country is unhappy with how a law was interpreted it should get Congress to repeal that one and write a new one that makes the intent clear(er).

"No person shall be indicted, charged, or made to stand trial for a charge that is not an actual violation of law, and any such person brought to trial shall have the charge dismissed with prejudice.

It is the obligation of law enforcement officers to assure that any charge they bring is an actual violation of law, and shall only hold an arrested person in investigative custody for a reasonable time to determine the existence and applicability of the law claiming to have been violated. Failure to verify the existence and applicability of the law for which a charge has been brought shall be prime fascia evidence of gross negligence and indifference; as such it shall void any claim of immunity from civil or criminal prosecution."

That took me about 3 minutes to dream up and type. (Yes, I type slowly.) Now I need to figure which existing law(s) would be a good vehicle for amending with that little gem. All suggestions and offers of assistance will be welcomed.

My Congressman probably will consider it.

My Senators (both of them) will send it as evidence my name should be put on yet another watch list. :banana::monkey:banana:

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
You are right on target. SCOTUS has said time and time again that if the country is unhappy with how a law was interpreted it should get Congress to repeal that one and write a new one that makes the intent clear(er).

"No person shall be indicted, charged, or made to stand trial for a charge that is not an actual violation of law, and any such person brought to trial shall have the charge dismissed with prejudice.

It is the obligation of law enforcement officers to assure that any charge they bring is an actual violation of law, and shall only hold an arrested person in investigative custody for a reasonable time to determine the existence and applicability of the law claiming to have been violated. Failure to verify the existence and applicability of the law for which a charge has been brought shall be prime fascia evidence of gross negligence and indifference; as such it shall void any claim of immunity from civil or criminal prosecution."

That took me about 3 minutes to dream up and type. (Yes, I type slowly.) Now I need to figure which existing law(s) would be a good vehicle for amending with that little gem. All suggestions and offers of assistance will be welcomed.

My Congressman probably will consider it.
My Senators (both of them) will send it as evidence my name should be put on yet another watch list. :banana::monkey:banana:

stay safe.
SCOTUS has also stated that they cannot hold a future set of Congress Critters to the acts of our current batch of Congress Critters. Then again, SCOTUS has done a masterful job of dodging the issue of what the meaning of "shall not be infringed" really means.

The law that I'm pressing my Congress Critter into filing...have the DH banished as not being real baseball, Pittsburgh Steelers sent packing to the CFL, and Nickleback to pay us to listen to them at the same rate a radio station pays them to play their "music."

I'm sure that the majority of the country will encourage their Congress Critters to support this bill and to urge the POTUS to sign it into law.
 

RugarRev

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
61
Location
Des Moines
//snip// Three witnesses testified they heard Kaarma say his house had been burglarized and he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.//snip

Convicted by his own words ... or 'here-say':question:
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
//snip// Three witnesses testified they heard Kaarma say his house had been burglarized and he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.//snip

Convicted by his own words ... or 'here-say':question:

Do you really not understand

1) it is hearsay, not "here-say"? (You need to put a smiley or some note after something that you want to be read as "cutesy" if there is a possibility it will not be recognised as being "cutesy")

2) the difference between testifying about what a person said to the person giving testimony and what a person testifying says someone else said someone else said?

And regardless what neighbors might have testified to/about, Kaarma's behavior did not conform to the exceptions stated in the law.

stay safe.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Do you really not understand

1) it is hearsay, not "here-say"? (You need to put a smiley or some note after something that you want to be read as "cutesy" if there is a possibility it will not be recognised as being "cutesy")

2) the difference between testifying about what a person said to the person giving testimony and what a person testifying says someone else said someone else said?

And regardless what neighbors might have testified to/about, Kaarma's behavior did not conform to the exceptions stated in the law.

stay safe.

That is, after all is said and done, the bottom line.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Sorry, but that case had nothing to do with castle doctrine. Not the way it was set up and not the way it played out.

http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-103.htm
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.



It's that only if clause that folks need to pay attention to. In the case cited the best Kaarma thought was going to take place was a simple burglary.

While SCOTUS has said that cops do not need to know what the law actually is, we mere mortals are still stuck beind that "ignorance is no excuse" stuff.

stay safe.

And regardless what neighbors might have testified to/about, Kaarma's behavior did not conform to the exceptions stated in the law.

stay safe.

How do you know it does not conform? He said he feared for his life. You may not believe him. But your guess about his belief is hardly proof to make a claim that his behavior did not conform.

All he knew was he had been robbed before. He did not know if he had been robbed by an unarmed student or a gangsta with an Uzi.
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
696
Location
Utah
It did go to trial, and the homeowner, Kaarma, was found guilty.

Justice perverted.

Prosecutors argued Kaarma was intent on luring an intruder into his garage and then harming that person. Source.​

The problem I have with the results is they seem to ignore the FACT that the perp, Diren Dede, was STILL trespassing on Kaarma's property, then inside his home (garage), in the early hours of April 27, 2014. That meets the requirements of the Castle Doctrine.

Link.

Just because the court says he did that intentionally, does not mean it is so.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
One could say Wilson 'lured' Brown by his not following procedure, which directly caused the attack that led to the shooting.

While the guy may have lured the intruder, the intruder still intruded and was a threat. If we hold this man's feet to the fire, we must hold everybody's feet to the fire, including Wilson.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Rediculous Reasoning

So now, any homeowner who accidentally leaves his garage door open, or the sensor doesn't let the garage door close, might be suspected or accused of luring a burglar in?

Ridiculous!

My friend has stickers warning any potential thief they will be shot if they try to steal anything. The warning goes on to warn that there is nothing inside worth losing your life over.

I wonder if that would have made a difference? A warning to thieves that they are risking life and limb.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
It's funny how a biased view point in an article can influence even staunch self defense supporters. The truth is whatever his plans and talk may have been, when someone invaded his home, in the darkness of the garage no one knows if he believed his life was in danger. Whatever the bravado was before, in that darkness with someone invading he probably was ******* himself. I imagine I would be.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
So now, any homeowner who accidentally leaves his garage door open, or the sensor doesn't let the garage door close, might be suspected or accused of luring a burglar in?

Ridiculous!

My friend has stickers warning any potential thief they will be shot if they try to steal anything. The warning goes on to warn that there is nothing inside worth losing your life over.

I wonder if that would have made a difference? A warning to thieves that they are risking life and limb.

You are rapidly earning a negative reputation, of ignoring reported details when you reply and show a lack of knowledge regarding the law.

The homeowner placed a purse where it could be seen and waited (baiting or luring), state law does not appear to allow deadly force to protect property.

Such signage likely would be used as an indicator of premeditation.

You seriously need to consider why you are here - whether to be a provocateur or a positive contributor.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
This is a bad precedent, while the home owner may have baited that is no excuse for burglary. If the burglar was shot in front and not behind I am inclined to believe the burglar was a threat. Really there is no such thing as baiting, criminal behavior cannot be baited only opportunities can. Either they are a criminal or they are not, if they are not you should be able to stack a million dollars in an open garage. A honest person is not going to touch it.

However the burglar got there the question is "Was he threat at that moment in time?" Maybe USER can weigh in? He has posted in the past that a threat is a threat.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
This is a bad precedent, while the home owner may have baited that is no excuse for burglary. If the burglar was shot in front and not behind I am inclined to believe the burglar was a threat. Really there is no such thing as baiting, criminal behavior cannot be baited only opportunities can. Either they are a criminal or they are not, if they are not you should be able to stack a million dollars in an open garage. A honest person is not going to touch it.

However the burglar got there the question is "Was he threat at that moment in time?" Maybe USER can weigh in? He has posted in the past that a threat is a threat.

Well, there is an individual who shall remain nameless around that can read peoples minds and intents, so maybe the justice system can hire them to determine any future cases.:lol:
 
Top