Primus
Regular Member
Completely agree.
You can't leave safety (Castle) and then claim that as a defense for shooting back into it.
Good point. Agreed.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Completely agree.
You can't leave safety (Castle) and then claim that as a defense for shooting back into it.
"He took the steps that no one wants to take and shot,” Ryan said. “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.”
If he didn't know who was there, then why did he shoot?
If he didn't know where the person was, why did he shoot?
This lawyer is losing the case in his opening comments.
"The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death."
1. It was not forcible entry. They left the garage door opened.
2. It was not within his home. The garage is not where he lives.
3. If he claims he was at risk of serious bodily injury or death,
a. Why did he leave his home where he was safe?
b. He already claimed he didn't know who was in there, where they were or what they had in their hands. He can't say 'I didn't know what was going on' and then say 'I was afraid because I didn't know what was going on.'
This guys defense is stepping all over itself with contradictions and ignorance of the law.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/up...cle_f7551102-cf0e-11e3-9619-001a4bcf887a.html
Murder or self defense ?
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.
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.
Well, if you were doing the above late at night the homeowner may have shot you because they could claim that they did not know what was in your hand and feared for their safety. This is the holy grail of justifications that is routinely used by LE and citizens alike. Unfortunately, LE is believed out of hand, citizens, on the other hand are not afforded the same consideration by default.<snip>
When I got into the garage I couldn't immediately find it. <snip>
Montana law is what he will judged under specifically MCA 45-3-103
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.
He will walk maybe even before trial IMHO.
Well he isn't walking because he is charged with murder.
For this defense to be raised and accepted under 2(a) there must be TWO elements, first that entry was made AND the shooter used force to prevent an assault.
The shooter himself said that he fired into a dark garage and couldn't even see the person he was shooting at.
This case is going to be decided by a jury. If I sat on the jury, based on what we know right now, I would vote guilty.
Well, were we, any of us, in the criminals head. I could argue that they were going to burn the house down around the homeowners by igniting combustibles found in the garage.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.
Of course it is. What responsible homeowner would not be prepared to shoot a criminal and defend their family and themselves when their home is forcibly entered into? Unless the homeowner believes that criminals only break into homes to steal stuff.notalawyer: I plan to shoot anyone that comes into my house uninvited. Is that premeditation?
Well, if he could not see anything, why could he not think that the guy was advancing upon him?
In any event, I would find him not guilty. I think that if you go on someone's land, you take the risk of being shot.
I know many folks who shoot at people just for being on their land. I think its a mindset most prevalent in some mountain-folks.
Montana law is what he will judged under specifically MCA 45-3-103
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.
He will walk maybe even before trial IMHO.
new information released today.....
The friend of the deceased told police that both of them had previously entered the garages and homes of multiple residents prior to the shooting. The purpose was usually theft and thrill.
The friend is also an exchange student from Ecuador and has since fled Montana and gone back to his native country.
Prediction : no way will the homeowner be convicted now.
Perhaps. When I first heard of this case, I was not in doubt that the killed University Student was there to rob the garage, and had very likely done so previously. The case is about intent to kill prior to the actual killing. The owner is going to be portrayed as a bait hunter of a human being.