Kaarma found guilty

[overthere]

The trial against Markus Kaarma has concluded and he was found guilty of homicide.

Don't know about the rest of you all but as a 2nd amendment proponent I am very relieved that he was found guilty.

https://news.yahoo.com/montana-homeo...203310841.html

Not sure if this will be closed as a drive-by but there was quite a lot of discussion about this back when it happened and I thought I would post it to 'close the loop' as it were.

[SVO]

From what I have read about this case, I have to wonder if Kaarma really understood the "Castle Law". Setting a trap and then claiming self defense should and did lead to his conviction.

[Tom Servo]

Between Zimmerman, Dunn, and this guy, we've got a problem on our hands. Take this comment, from a Montana legislator:

Although this trial from the beginning was about deliberate homicide, and I'm more than pleased the vigilante justice did not prevail, the expansion of concealed carry, castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws pushed by the NRA and the Montana Shooting Sports Association have created the culture of people like Markus Kaarma who believe they can shoot first and ask questions later

That said, there was a great deal wrong with this whole situation. First and most obvious was the fact that he set a trap and laid in wait. Second was the fact that Kaarma made comments to responding officers that he didn't want the burglar to escape and that the police couldn't catch burglars in the act. That's eerily similar to George Zimmerman's "these punks always get away" utterance to 911 operators prior to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

To worsen things, he'd made prior statements to a hairdresser that he was waiting up at night with a shotgun to catch and kill potential burglars. I can guess that pretty much wrecked his defense.

[Technosavant]

Tom raises a good point.

There's a section of our community that is looking for ways to abuse laws that were intended to protect people in legitimate self defense cases. This is going to make it harder, if not impossible, to get these laws enacted in many areas in the future. The Zimmerman case has pretty effectively poisoned the well for stand your ground laws anytime in the near future- even though it was never involved, poor reporting and outright lies by gun control advocates caused many people to believe it was.

We have to own the nutcases on our side... as much as we'd love to play "No true Scotsman" with them, they belong to us and sometimes no amount of training and correction is going to get them thinking correctly. As much as I hate to say it, it's nincompoops like that who are the living and breathing justification used by gun control advocates. Their steadfast refusal to see sense ruins things for responsible people.

[zukiphile]

Tech, I find parts of your assertion problematic, and resist the idea that people who are armed are consequently part of a community. We do not treat free speech rights or the right against unreasonable search and seizure that way.

Originally Posted by Technosavant

We have to own the nutcases on our side... as much as we'd love to play "No true Scotsman" with them, they belong to us and sometimes no amount of training and correction is going to get them thinking correctly.

In what sense does an individual with a weird enthusiasm for homicide belong to you and me?

[44 AMP]

Again, the big problem is the lies the anti's and media reporters (who, if not personally in agreement with the anti gun agenda, certainly speak like they are...) are telling.

Stand you ground, and castle doctrine laws are NOT hunting licenses, and never were. They are there to provide legal protection for the person who is forced to defend themselves, from further legal action, IF THE SHOOTING IS JUSTIFIED. And that's all.

Many, many times in the past (and still today in areas without them) people who lawfully defended themselves still found themselves being prosecuted, and often convicted, because the law allowed the prosecutor(s) to do it, even when it was technically a "good shoot". Even in places where these laws exist, it still happens, but the laws do provide a framework for defense, IF your actions were in compliance with the law.

"Baiting a trap", or "lying in wait", any kind of premeditation essentially puts you outside lawful self defense, and these laws do not apply.

Last year in Florida, a jury acquitted security guard George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman followed the teenager, contended the boy attacked him, and was acquitted of murder even though he was not at his home at the time of the shooting.

This was in the report about Karmaa's conviction. Its a clear example of how the other side still views the incident. Despite the FACTS of the case, proven in court, they still infer, distort, and even outright lie about it. Personally, I think the evidence presented in the case goes far enough to be consider fact, NOT contention.

Which, of course, does not stop various reporters and talking heads from telling the story the way THEY think it ought to go....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...Stand you ground, and castle doctrine laws are NOT hunting licenses, and never were. They are there to provide legal protection for the person who is forced to defend themselves, from further legal action, IF THE SHOOTING IS JUSTIFIED. And that's all....

Yes!

Too many gun owners seem to forget that in our culture intentionally hurting or killing another human is wrong. It has always been, and continues to be, thus. Such an act of intentional violence against another person will be excused or justified only under extraordinary circumstances.

[Jim Watson]

This individual certainly sounds like trash and likely belongs in prison.

HOWEVER, it has not been all that long - to my generation, at least - when it was thought ordinary and acceptable for a businessman to stake out his own premises to apprehend thieves and burglars after repeated incidents. If they got shot in the process, tough. "Our culture" used to be harder, and not that long ago.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

HOWEVER, it has not been all that long - to my generation, at least - when it was thought ordinary and acceptable for a businessman to stake out his own premises to apprehend thieves and burglars after repeated incidents. If they got shot in the process, tough. "Our culture" used to be harder, and not that long ago.

I think the comments further up the thread are about shifts in the law more than the general culture.

I've heard POs give advice about how and when to shoot people until they are dead when someone looks like a threat. Sometimes, it was in the form of ridicule for not having shot an intruder. I've had clients questioned by city POs about whether they are carrying a firearm (a crime in the city at the time), get a "no" answer, and then walk back to their car to bring the person a loaner firearm.

In all of those instances, the PO may or may not be reflecting what he personally would like to see, not what a prosecutor would do if presented the choice. Without denigrating POs, I wouldn't trust that sort of thing.

[Technosavant]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

In what sense does an individual with a weird enthusiasm for homicide belong to you and me?

Because, for good or ill, they're generally on our side when it comes to arguing the issue. Just as we get to point to the loonies on their side, they get to do the same to us. The legal protections we want for ourselves will extend to them too and the misunderstandings (accidental or deliberate) of those opposing these protections will be used against us.

A side effect of Castle Doctrine laws is idiots like Kaarma... they think that whatever happens at home is OK. It's not, but his lack of understanding (which could be a side effect of ignorance of what constitutes justification or a more criminal mindset where he's actively looking for a reason to shoot somebody) of that issue led directly to this incident. Does this invalidate the purpose of Castle Doctrine laws? No, but we need to recognize this side effect and show that it will not protect people from the criminal penalties of their actions when they act outside the law. In this case we "own" Kaarma by showing how the laws did not protect him when he did something otherwise criminal.

Whether you wish for "firearm owners" as a group to be a community or not, we ARE seen as a group by others. Poor behavior on the part of one reflects upon us all. Good behavior on the part of one does likewise. Gun owners tend to be pretty individualistic so it doesn't surprise me that people bristle when said to be part of a group when they haven't done anything other than own a firearm. But like it or not, every time some idiot like Kaarma does something stupid like this it's going to be used as an example of "those bloodthirsty NRA members" even though he may not have been an NRA member or even considered a responsible person by those who knew him. In a world of identity politics everything you do and are puts you into a group. That's just how it is.

[Skans]

This individual certainly sounds like trash and likely belongs in prison.

HOWEVER, it has not been all that long - to my generation, at least - when it was thought ordinary and acceptable for a businessman to stake out his own premises to apprehend thieves and burglars after repeated incidents. If they got shot in the process, tough. "Our culture" used to be harder, and not that long ago.

I couldn't agree more with these statements. Baiting a trap to hunt humans is repugnant. And, committing an execution of a non-threatening, defenseless person is repugnant. But, we should be permitted to guard our property and our possessions from theft. The police do absolutely nothing to protect our homes, or our property. If they get called following a theft/burglary, they usually find it a nuisance to come out and take a statement and then simply laugh when you ask what your chances are of ever seeing your stuff again.

When someone steals $3,000 worth of stuff from an average individual, what he is actually stealing is about a month of someone's life that that person will never get back. That's how long the individual must work to buy the stuff and pay all of the taxes necessary to have enough to pay for the goods. This doesn't even account for the psychological, emotional trauma someone endures due to the invasion of their home and privacy.

[kilimanjaro]

A $3,000 loss would represent about six months of disposable income for me, being retired on a pension. Less if I wanted to completely eliminate activities like eating out, bookstores, and the like.

A friend of mine lost a $10,000 coin collection in a burglary, among other valuables. Each coin was selected, one by one, for condition and appeal, over several years. He's still working at replacing the coins, years later. Some things you just don't walk into a store and get off a shelf.

Thieves deserve to be detained for arrest, but not shot down in ambush, absent their attacking the homeowners.

[barnbwt]

"That's eerily similar to George Zimmerman's "these punks always get away" utterance to 911 operators prior to the shooting of Trayvon Martin."
Not quite a fair comparison, at least based on what I've read. Zimmerman was out on Watch specifically to get the 5-0 to nail the punks who had until then escaped their clutches; it makes sense for him to express frustration at their non-instant response resulting --yet again, presumably-- in suspicious activity he'd reported going uncontested. Not quite the same plainly stated interest in lethal interdiction strongly suggested in this latest case

TCB

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's not go down the Zimmerman path. That's over and done with.

Take the hint.

[BumbleBug]

I talked to a PO one time about officers shooting & killing someone in the line of duty. He said some went home slept like a baby & never gave it another thought. Others he said never got over it & after being cleared for duty again resigned.

It is hard to say how a person may feel after killing someone, even in a dire self-defense situation. For most people, I believe it would profoundly change the rest of their life & probably not for the better (except for the fact that it saved their life). I hope I never have to find out, but looking at it from this perspective, would it be worth killing someone who is taking your car, your money, or other possession? In a true life or death SD scenario I'm sure most could shoot, knowing you just have to live with the consequences. The laws are in place to help & protect the victim who sometimes needs to defend himself. But when someone baits a thief with the intention to shoot them, the thief becomes the victim. America will be a better place with Kaarma behind bars.

[JohnKSa]

Too many people believe that the laws regarding legal use of deadly force are a "how to" for legally shooting people, that they are about punishing criminals, retaliating against criminals, making sure criminals get justice, about giving citizens the general right to prevent crime or enforce the law, or about killing criminals.

In reality, none of that is true. Deadly force is legal in very limited circumstances with a focus on preserving innocent life. Therefore, a person who intentionally puts himself in harm's way with the premeditated intent of shooting someone, is not abiding by the spirit of the law. That is true even if his intended target is a criminal who is involved in activities which would otherwise make it legal for a citizen to use deadly force in self-defense against the criminal.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

HOWEVER, it has not been all that long - to my generation, at least - when it was thought ordinary and acceptable for a businessman to stake out his own premises to apprehend thieves and burglars after repeated incidents.

There's a big difference between staking a place out with the intention of "apprehending" thieves, as compared to staking it out with the previously announced intention of shooting someone.

At least, I think there's a difference.

[Tom Servo]

There's a big difference between staking a place out with the intention of "apprehending" thieves, as compared to staking it out with the previously announced intention of shooting someone.

Yes, and prior to the shooting, Kaarma voiced his intention to do the latter. According to the court filing, he did so in a loud and vehement manner that drew the concern of onlookers.

[Skans]

Kaarma - interesting name, isn't it?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Techno

Whether you wish for "firearm owners" as a group to be a community or not, we ARE seen as a group by others. Poor behavior on the part of one reflects upon us all.

My sense is that you understand that the conclusion some draw in that regard is irrational. I would only urge that one resist that sort of irrational conclusion rather than accept it and take "ownership" of criminal acts.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Too many people believe that the laws regarding legal use of deadly force are a "how to" for legally shooting people, ...

I would hope that the very few who regard the law as a "how to" are exceedingly rare.

When I bought a house in the city and had a family, one of my great fears was that I would mistake a kid doing something stupid for someone dangerous who could hurt my family.

I would be reluctant to see in a layman who wants to know the circumstances under which he is entitled to protect himself with deadly force for an unbalanced individual who would like to spring a deadly trap on someone unsuspecting.

[44 AMP]

Too many people believe that the laws regarding legal use of deadly force are a "how to" for legally shooting people, ...

One of the reasons for this is because the anti-gun, anti-self defense people have REPEATEDLY TOLD them that's what these laws are!!!!

the other side DOES refer to these laws as "hunting licenses", and "shoot a burglar" laws. I have heard it myself, many times. They oppose these laws, because, they will tell you, these laws let you shoot anyone!!! And so on and so forth, in that vein.
'
Small wonder (to me, anyway) that some people actually believe this, since the other side never discusses the real facts of the matter, and at the same time, paints us as blood thirsty killers AND liars, when we do mention the facts.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

the other side DOES refer to these laws as "hunting licenses", and "shoot a burglar" laws. I have heard it myself, many times. They oppose these laws, because, they will tell you, these laws let you shoot anyone!!! And so on and so forth, in that vein.
'
Small wonder (to me, anyway) that some people actually believe this, since the other side never discusses the real facts of the matter, and at the same time, paints us as blood thirsty killers AND liars, when we do mention the facts.

Excellent point!

I'd chalk it up to unintended consequences, except that those who believe that line of BS from the antis reward the antis by playing into their hands!