1. Check out the Hot Deals section of the Marketplace forum to order an official Mossbergowners.com hat.

MT Man charged in home defence case

Discussion in 'Tactical And Home Defense' started by RAT, Apr 30, 2014.

  1. RAT

    RAT .22LR

    Messages:
    26
    Here's something that's been in the local paper lately.

    http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/state/article_9279c29a-cfe6-11e3-88cc-001a4bcf887a.html

    He's being charged because they feel he set a trap. I haven't seen any reports that burglaries are down in the area or if the "victim" had any stolen property in his home. Having his home burglarized several times in just a few months isn't that usual for a lower crime state like us. Around Bozeman (this case happened in Missoula) such cases are usually teens on a short crime spree. They usually get caught.
  2. mingaa

    mingaa Raconteur

    Messages:
    2,187
    1 - not sure that is the way that I would have handled the situation, laying in wait AND talking about it will hurt him
    2 - the robber will not take the stand
    3 - will the driveway accomplice surface or hide like a rat?!?!
  3. MikeT

    MikeT .270 WIN

    Messages:
    395
    Murder is murder, especially when you read the applicable laws. He will not be able to prove he feared for his life. He set a trap and someone dumbass fell for it and died because this nimrod wanted to exact revenge.
  4. Takbo

    Takbo .410

    Messages:
    46
    Dumb ass earned his days in prison. It is one thing to defend your home, but this nutcase went full retard.
  5. OhioArcher

    OhioArcher Where's da fishes? Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    3,792
    A bad case all the way around. He'd been hit several times before. He waited for them AND he recorded everything. They were vermin but he went about it wrong. How many times does a human being need to be violated before they are allowed to retaliate?
  6. NYmossyMike

    NYmossyMike .270 WIN

    Messages:
    131
    Bad decision to pull the trigger. He knew they were there, if he was going to approach the burglar a threat of force was warranted not blindly firing. Shooting four shells into the garage was a stupid decision.

    I'm all for castle doctrine and protecting one's home and family but these guys are what ruin the gun owning persona. In NY the state would rather protect the criminal then the victim so I'm well aware of what it would mean to defend my family. If I had someone in my garage I think I'd seriously think before opening fire. Maybe Montana will side more with the homeowner. Putting the law aside I'd have a hard moral decision to do what he did.
  7. Tom396

    Tom396 .30-06

    Messages:
    1,534
    It would appear the DA is going to try and make a point of the shotgun having a pump action. He had to pump the action in order to take a second shot. I can't help but notice the tactical appearance of his shotgun. WE know that shouldn't matter, but I wonder about how some jury members are looking at that "evil" black firearm.

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_61230eef-a1ba-52b7-b370-5d00ed68a75b.html

    Take care. Tom Worthington
    John A. likes this.
  8. Tom396

    Tom396 .30-06

    Messages:
    1,534
  9. old mossy

    old mossy Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    12,693

    OMG,,,,,it has an evil black heat amajig.
  10. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    14,624
    I suppose it would matter where you're being tried.

    And who was sitting on the jury.

    It would not be well advised for a prosecuting attorney to try to BS their way through a trial here based on appearance because a lot of people know what the laws are, and own guns that are a lot more tactical than a shotgun with a cheap $30 heat shield.
  11. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

    :cool:Looks like the judge is on Facebook...

    (Unbelieveable...)
  12. RAT

    RAT .22LR

    Messages:
    26
  13. RAT

    RAT .22LR

    Messages:
    26
    He was found guilty. Sentencing is scheduled for February. He could face 10 years.

    At least the epidemic of burglaries in that neighborhood is probably over. Dede's friend... the other teen who was with him the night they burglarized Kaarma's home... admitted they had burglarized 5 other homes in the weeks leading up to that night. I haven't heard if he'll be charged. I'm guessing not.

    As usual the national television news coverage of this has been totally biased.
  14. not enuff

    not enuff .22LR

    Messages:
    27
    Yup, so much for "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine". One argument was that you have a duty to secure your home - shut your doors and lock them. Why do we have to do that We shouldn't "have" to.....so what is the purpose of locking - to imply that "hey I don't want you in my home"? It's our home. If we don't hang out or you're not family, you don't have permission to enter my home locked, unlocked, door, no door, wall, or no wall. If I want to take my windows out and leave them out all Spring long, I shouldn't have to give up my right and my families right of security. How does leaving a door open prioritize the rights an invader over the resident? If I want to leave my garage door open, I no longer have the right to use my guns. If an uninvited person enters, in any way, the interior of my home, how am I to know the unidentified person's history. Maybe they won't kill me but maybe they're a rapist, a pedaphile, kidnapper, etc.

    If these kids arent aware that there is a possability that people don't want them to enter their home and that people should have a right to defend themselves - maybe it's the school or the parents that should be on trial and leave this Kaarma family alone.
  15. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,829
    Tough case that could go either way.
  16. RAT

    RAT .22LR

    Messages:
    26
    According to Montana Code Annotated...

    49-1-103. Right to use force. Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of one's self, of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.

    45-6-204. Burglary. (1) A person commits the offense of burglary if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure and:
    (a) the person has the purpose to commit an offense in the occupied structure; or
    (b) the person knowingly or purposely commits any other offense within that structure.
    (2) A person commits the offense of aggravated burglary if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure and:
    (a) (i) the person has the purpose to commit an offense in the occupied structure; or
    (ii) the person knowingly or purposely commits any other offense within that structure; and
    (b) in effecting entry or in the course of committing the offense or in immediate flight after effecting entry or committing the offense:
    (i) the person or another participant in the offense is armed with explosives or a weapon; or
    (ii) the person purposely, knowingly, or negligently inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury upon anyone.
    (3) A person convicted of the offense of burglary shall be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to exceed 20 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both. A person convicted of the offense of aggravated burglary shall be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to exceed 40 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both.

    The only question is... what was deemed "necessary force" to protect his property.

    I really hope they win on appeal.
  17. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,829
    You're not highlighting/underlining the entire concept of the right to use force.

    "Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of one's self..." His case would have to prove he was preventing wrongful injury. I haven't followed this case but from the limited that I've read it seems he fired blindly into the garage? If that's true how could he confirm he was preventing wrongful injury when he hadn't even identified his target.

    Know your target and what's beyond it. Kind of important to avoid these types of things.
  18. RAT

    RAT .22LR

    Messages:
    26
    True... but my point is that it can be wrongful injury to property... which was proven when the friend gave testimony that Dede entered the garage with intent to burglarize.

    Unless you're suggesting "property" only refers to one's "servant".

    Seeing that Montana didn't become a state, and our state constitution wasn't written, until after slavery ended... I don't think that was the intent of those who wrote the law.

    He made mistakes... no doubt... and I'm not arguing that fact... but Dede made the choices directly leading to his own death. My opinion is that the single sentence written in the law leans in Kaarma's favor.
  19. MikeD

    MikeD I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    11,853
    How we read the law and how a lawyer is able to spin it in court are two completely different things.

    I'm in the "it could go either way" boat.

Share This Page