TexasCHLforum.com

http://abc13.com/news/montana-man-gets- ... th/514916/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just don't understand how this can happen in America. It goes to show that justice is not always the goal of our justice system.

From the article : "The case has prompted one Missoula lawmaker to draft legislation that would require violent entry into an occupied structure in order for the use of force to be justified. " - so what is non-violent entry ? If someone picks a lock and walks in then he is ok, but if he breaks the window then he is not ?

The shooting wasn't as much of a problem as this.

Prosecutors argued Kaarma was intent on luring an intruder into his garage after it had had been burglarized at least once in the weeks before the shooting. Three witnesses testified they had heard Kaarma say he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.

On the night of the shooting, authorities said, 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.

He baited the guy. There was premeditated intent. Probably not a legal term, but you get the idea.

mojo84 wrote:I just don't understand how this can happen in America. It goes to show that justice is not always the goal of our justice system.

It has long been the case in America that you cannot setup a trap that would shoot or electrocute someone breaking into your house or place of business. That's essentially what this guy did. He left his garage door partially open with a purse sitting on the floor in plain view from outside the garage. Then, when someone took advantage of the trap he sprung it. To make matters worse, he shot not once, but four times, with a shotgun. I have no problem understanding how he was found guilty.

I didn't see the part about the purse. I just thought he had left the door open.

C-dub wrote:The shooting wasn't as much of a problem as this.

Prosecutors argued Kaarma was intent on luring an intruder into his garage after it had had been burglarized at least once in the weeks before the shooting. Three witnesses testified they had heard Kaarma say he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.

On the night of the shooting, authorities said, 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.

He baited the guy. There was premeditated intent. Probably not a legal term, but you get the idea.

Exactly.

So what was the kid doing in his garage, a foreigner sightseeing?

Due to the fact that I was forced by my yankee carpetbagger parents to grow up in NY State, I was well acquainted with their laws. NY had a no traps law when I was a kid, but a similar case, in the 60s, where a homeowner whose barn had been raided by neighborhood kids several times, was ruled justified when he shot one after waiting up all night, in the barn, for several nights. Now the barn was not locked, and the doors were not left open, but he did sit up in there, and when the kids walked in, he warned them and all but the one he shot ran. The one he shot advanced toward him and appeared to have a weapon (it was a flashlight) but nobody argued that he set a trap.

And how many times have we read "Armed Citizen" tales of people sitting up all night to guard their homes and businesses? Are those also now to be defined as traps?

If he did indeed set a trap, then maybe he deserves some punishment, but the thing that seems to be overlooked in everything I read is the reason he set the trap, and the fact that the trap was tripped.

I would also like to know how they determined what order the shots were fired. I don't know that it makes a difference. Was the criminal home invader injured by any of the other shots? Was he trying to leave the garage? And consider the spacing of the shots per other witnesses, it would have to be an awfully large garage to allow three shots, with a pause, and then a fourth if the criminal was departing. Were the first shots merely warning shots and only when the criminal had not retreated did he shoot to stop the threat.

I think this draws a line just a little to the left of "castle doctrine" (for the lack of a better term) and if it gets used as a precedent nationally the line may increment to the right just a little too easily. I can imagine a Moms Against Defense type prosecutor deciding that the fact that I keep a variety of firearms about my home and person, in ready condition, must also be a trap and that I am just as determined to kill someone. Makes me glad that in every conversation I have ever had about self-defense, I have advocated stopping the threat, not killing it.

And just as I dislike the misuse of the term "Assault Rifle" I dislike "Shotgun Blast" which seems to ascribe magical powers to shotguns.

After he was locked up, conversations in his cell were monitored. He told people he wanted to be known as a killer, and said similar things. That also worked against him.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

C-dub wrote:The shooting wasn't as much of a problem as this.

Prosecutors argued Kaarma was intent on luring an intruder into his garage after it had had been burglarized at least once in the weeks before the shooting. Three witnesses testified they had heard Kaarma say he'd been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder.

On the night of the shooting, authorities said, 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.

He baited the guy. There was premeditated intent. Probably not a legal term, but you get the idea.

Exactly.

We were 80 miles north of Missoula when this happened. It did cause quite a stir - on all sides of the 2A issue. What it boiled down to was the shooter's mouth. If you're planning on staying up to apprehend burglars, etc., keep it to yourself.

I suspect if he had just not talked a lot about the whole thing, he would not have been charged or convicted.

In protecting life and property you are also not legally given the opportunity for the finish them off shot.

philip964 wrote:In protecting life and property you are also not legally given the opportunity for the finish them off shot.

That jeweler in Oklahoma can attest to that.

A wise man I know has a saying; 'Don't let your mouth ruin a good shoot'.

In this case, I am not sure the shoot was 100% above board, but as stated, his bragging and running at the mouth was what drove the final nail in the coffin for him.

jimlongley wrote:So what was the kid doing in his garage, a foreigner sightseeing?

Due to the fact that I was forced by my yankee carpetbagger parents to grow up in NY State, I was well acquainted with their laws. NY had a no traps law when I was a kid, but a similar case, in the 60s, where a homeowner whose barn had been raided by neighborhood kids several times, was ruled justified when he shot one after waiting up all night, in the barn, for several nights. Now the barn was not locked, and the doors were not left open, but he did sit up in there, and when the kids walked in, he warned them and all but the one he shot ran. The one he shot advanced toward him and appeared to have a weapon (it was a flashlight) but nobody argued that he set a trap.

And how many times have we read "Armed Citizen" tales of people sitting up all night to guard their homes and businesses? Are those also now to be defined as traps?

Jim, I don't think that's the same thing. In the case you describe the guy was being harassed by repeated breakins, so he chose to "stand guard" over his possessions. When someone broke in, he warned them, and they all ran away except one. That one he shot. That's clearly self defense.

In this case the guy deliberately made his garage an attractive nuisance and then laid in wait. But he still would have been OK if he had simply warned the guy to leave. Instead, he shot FOUR times with a shotgun. To my mind he wanted to kill someone. He wasn't trying to stop the theft. He was trying to take revenge for the previous thefts. That's not self defense.

jimlongley wrote:If he did indeed set a trap, then maybe he deserves some punishment, but the thing that seems to be overlooked in everything I read is the reason he set the trap, and the fact that the trap was tripped.

I would also like to know how they determined what order the shots were fired. I don't know that it makes a difference. Was the criminal home invader injured by any of the other shots? Was he trying to leave the garage? And consider the spacing of the shots per other witnesses, it would have to be an awfully large garage to allow three shots, with a pause, and then a fourth if the criminal was departing. Were the first shots merely warning shots and only when the criminal had not retreated did he shoot to stop the threat.

Well, I think the order of the shots is probably determined by two factors; what the guy told them about what happened, and the fact that the last one would have been instantly fatal. (He shot him in the head with a shotgun. If you've ever seen a shotgun head shot , it's not survivable and you wouldn't be functioning almost instantly after being hit.)

jimlongley wrote:I think this draws a line just a little to the left of "castle doctrine" (for the lack of a better term) and if it gets used as a precedent nationally the line may increment to the right just a little too easily. I can imagine a Moms Against Defense type prosecutor deciding that the fact that I keep a variety of firearms about my home and person, in ready condition, must also be a trap and that I am just as determined to kill someone. Makes me glad that in every conversation I have ever had about self-defense, I have advocated stopping the threat, not killing it.

And just as I dislike the misuse of the term "Assault Rifle" I dislike "Shotgun Blast" which seems to ascribe magical powers to shotguns.

I think there's no question this could be used for precedent. It obviously already is being used in the Montana legislature. (What the heck does forcible entry mean???) We just have to fight against that. But, by defending this guy we would send a message that we think we should have carte blanche to shoot anyone who enters our domicile regardless of their behavior. If, for example, you catch someone inside your house, yell "Stop or I'll shot" and they immediately put up their hands, should you have the right to shoot them? I don't think that's what the castle doctrine means. I think it means that if that person represents a threat, you have the right to shoot. That's clearly been the case here in Texas, where a man was shot through the door, and the homeowner wasn't charged, and a man halfway into the house through a window is shot and the homeowner wasn't charged. Then there's the guy who pursued two burglars breaking in to his neighbor's house and shot them, and was no-billed.

Doesn't our castle doctrine already require "forcible entry" or something like that?