German Exchange Student shot

[Tyr13]

Article in Missoula Newspaper

This is tragic and in my Opinion that Homeowner was fracking trigger-happy. It seems that the student was engaged in some prank went into an open garage and was shot by an irate man that hosed down the dark room with a shotgun.

I tagged the thread with "armed self defense", which is somewhat misleading, I realize. These events are an example of the fortunately rare misuse of a firearm in private hands. Your Opinion ?

Gotta run

[Fyodor]

Tragic event... but a home intruder in some US areas has to accept the risk to get shot while in someone elses home.

The home owner set up a trap, and he was eager to finally shoot somebody, which wasn't right either.

That is a difficult situation.

[erstezw]

Usually it is known that US common sense is different to Germany. Violating s/o property is containing some risk where in Germany private property is containg the risk. Not sure which is worse.

The garage owner is totally nuts, this is confirmed. Otherwise he wouldn't have explained his strategy but just stated that he was under high stress due to overestimated risk.

[Boule]

So a prank went wrong and an intruder got shot? Darn, bad luck for him but things like those should get a noble mentioning in the darwin awards and not in the press.

[Ch. aus S.]

The garage owner is totally nuts, this is confirmed. Otherwise he wouldn't have explained his strategy but just stated that he was under high stress due to overestimated risk.

If he was smart, he wouldn't have stated anything without his attorney present. Judging from the affidavit of probable cause, he told the cops everything the prosecutor needs to convince a jury to put him in prison. Cops love talkative suspects.

[Tyr13]

If he was smart, he wouldn't have stated anything without his attorney present.

I do not believe that this case is a good opportunity to discuss "how to behave after a shooting" for that I would refer You to Massad Ayoobs Video and the classic "never ever talk to the Police". Moreover it seems that he stuttered something about being in fear of his life from the intruder, the conversation with his hairstylist (of all people) appears to be the source of much of the background information why he did what he did and how he prepared. As to what happened at the time of the shooting his life-partner seems to be the source of info. Motion sensor, Baby-Monitor, Out goes Kaarma to defend his property.

Then he's out in the dark and can't see what's going on, so he psyches himself into a fear-frenzy by thinking about drug-crazed homicidal maniacs.

So a prank went wrong and an intruder got shot?

That's not my lesson learned here. At present any information about what Dirden thought he was doing in that garage can only be gotten via an ouija-board and I apologize if my speculation about a prank led You mentally astray. What appears from the police report and from the statements of his life-partner happened, is that Kaarma discharged a shotgun four times into the dark, sweeping all of the garage, before his wife could turn on the lights. Shooting first and asking questions later of the corpses is somewhat stupid and irresponsible, somewhat like the sun is somewhat hot.

This is tragic, pretty much an accident caused by mutual stupidity. The thing is: the homeowner did not act responsibly with a firearm. The trespass of the two? students was certainly a negligently accepted deadly risk. But what if it had been true children, not young adults ? Darwin Award indeed...That's so fracking cold, I find that indecent. Even by the standards of the DA the manslaughtered student does not qualify for Your ridicule and I'd thank You @Boule to retract that.

Moreover, as a gun owner myself, I passionately believe in the trigger-puller's responsibility for the consequences of his shots. Rule 2, 3 and 4 have been violated here. So this "home defense" was ill-conceived, ill-executed and I think there's a great many opportunities to learn from what happened here, mostly what Not to do. You don't go into stupid places, even if armed, You have a plan other than "Me and my shotgun we'll straighten that out", You have a Light if it's dark, and You don't shoot blindly into the fracking dark room.

What could have been done right ? Seeking a possibly deadly confrontation with felons over stolen CCs and mobile phones is just plain over the top for me. It is insufficient cause to risk human life, especially my own, but also my opponent's. I do recognize on the other hand that Kaarma was within his rights. But he prepared too little imo, a dry run would have shown him how little he could see and how defenseless he was when entering the garage between the parked cars, cornering the intruders with no way out except through himself. The last point I cannot prove, but it appears to me that he wanted to shoot somebody. Not "apprehend a thief" or "run off" a Punk at gunpoint. So he didn't order the intruder to "come out with arms raised", or "stay where he was until the cops are here". He shot first. Blindly. Four times. Hitting twice, one of the shots deadly. I think he did that because he was focused on shooting, scared because he realized his atrociously bad tactics and afraid for his life because he had imagination enough to see what all could go wrong with his non-plan and unpreparedness.

I would have had no problem with a home-owner confronting a trespasser at gunpoint, even shooting an assailant. Killing anybody by blindly shotgunning a dark room is just too stupid and irresponsible for words.

[Gast]

Darwin Award, as mentioned above. It's like going to an east-asian rice field and get bitten by a Cobra.

When going to a foreign country it's my duty to get informed about local habits and conventions.

The same holds for going to Kurdistan and tell a man that his wife has gorgeous tits.

Man, it's so easy. What the hell did the young turk at night at a garage of a stranger?

[Tyr13]

In light of the possible killing of innocents (children) that was knowingly accepted by the blind-shooting home Owner, Your callous insistence in repeatedly blaming and denigrating only the now dead trespasser for the accident shows your vile inner nature.

Armed Defense is a precious right and a responsibility. Not a hunting license as You seem to think...

[Boule]

This is tragic, pretty much an accident caused by mutual stupidity. The thing is: the homeowner did not act responsibly with a firearm. The trespass of the two? students was certainly a negligently accepted deadly risk. But what if it had been true children, not young adults ? Darwin Award indeed...That's so fracking cold, I find that indecent. Even by the standards of the DA the manslaughtered student does not qualify for Your ridicule and I'd thank You @Boule to retract that.

Thanks for the "f...ing cold" - I'll take that as a compliment. Decency never got me anywhere interesting but if you want to know where indecency and the said exposure took me, just use your imagination.

Ok, let's get to the matter at hand. Is is justified to randomly fire into a dark garage if you believe an intruder to be present? Usually not and the few instances where it is come under the heading of "return and suppression fire". Would have switching on lights, installing a blaringly loud alarm and the lawn sprinkler have been better ideas - most likely. Do I pitty the fool and condemn the homeowner? No and no.

All boils down to one fact - had the exchange student not decided, for reasons unknown, to break into a foreign persons property he would still be alive. I still consider it a spectacularly bad decision and uphold my mentioning for an honorable recognition in the Darwin Awards. As cold as it may sound, I consider the occasional "innocent" (and I use this word very loosly) trespasser a necessary tribute to the effective defense home and family. Sorry to say but sometimes you just gotta shoot one "pour encourager les autres".

As far as your conclusions for preparing ones own home defense go, tyr13, I can agree with those, just as well as with the encouragement from Ch. aus S. to really openly talk to the police. "I feared for my life, officer, and am really confused right now. Mind to let my lawyer do the talking for me?"

[Tyr13]

If we go by your wide definition of trespass, it would be OK to shoot a plainclothes officer ringing the doorbell, that did not call ahead. You also assUme, that there was a break-in, B&E, which would have been a felony. No evidence and in fact statements to the contrary.

Trespass is probably the only wrongdoing of the high school students. I still stand by my analysis that a shoulder shrug an a Napolean citation does not absolve a shooter from his responsibility. What Kaamer did was wrong and even a second wrong, the trespass of two irresponsible young men does not make one Right. Neither Life and Limb of Kaamer's family not even his own, was in fact threatened. He responded to an imaginary threat with wild, unaimed fire. That ain't home Defense, that's just so bogus...

[Boule]

If we go by your wide definition of trespass, it would be OK to shoot a plainclothes officer ringing the doorbell, that did not call ahead. You also assUme, that there was a break-in, B&E, which would have been a felony. No evidence and in fact statements to the contrary...

So since you are not able to find a reasonable argument for the presence of a foreign person at night in a garage on someone elses property we are arguing semantics right now? At what point did I define trespassing and why did you bring up a police officer and not just some kids at halloween trick-or-treating? Would have been a little bit more condemmable to shoot them and a better morale argument.

But for the sake of your argument, let's get the bloody plaincloth cop at my door and the exchange student in my garage and look at the differences. One will walk up to my front door in plain sight, ring the bell or knock the door and politely ask a few questions. If asked to leave, he will (grudgingly) comply. Additionally, I can expect the visit at some reasonable time.

The exchange student did not just come unannounced on the property, he snuck under the cover of the night into a structure containing valuable Items. He did not announce his presence willingly or make his intentions known.

So, what can we expect from each of the visitors?

Cop - might just ask annoying questions about something or other and will leave.

"Exchange student" - well, that is the big question, right? If it is "breaking and entering" as defined by law, attempted theft, vandalism, or just someone completely wasted trying to find a place to sleep - it certainly is something that has a good chance to negatively impact my property.

So, just to clarify. Which one would you consider a potential threat and which one would you confront with a gun at the ready?

Now, while I do not endorse the homeowners actions, I can at least understand that he was considering the person in the garage a threat and tried to do something about it, alabit stupidly. Nonewithstanding, the fact remains: If the guy had not snuck into the garage, he would still be alive.

And no, there is no legitimate reason to enter a building on someone elses property at night. Let's say your dog ran off and hid in the garage - most reasonable thing would be to knock and let the owner know it was in there and you waere attempting to retrieve it.

[EJER Fuchs]

1. This is clearly not a self-defense, or even "stand your ground" case.

2. Should the student have been in the garage? Probably not, but we do NOT yet know why he was there. Supposedly, he was on the

phone - to whom, and why?

3. Did he pose a threat to the homeowner? Clearly not.

4. Was he engaged in a theft or destruction of property? Apparently not.

I know of only ONE state that allows the use of deadly force to protect mere property; Texas.

This strikes me as a sicko looking to shoot someone, and someone stupid enough to get sucked into that game.

[Ch. aus S.]

I know of only ONE state that allows the use of deadly force to protect mere property; Texas.

Well, some states include burglary in their definition of "forcible felony" that would justify the use of deadly force to defend against if necessary.

Montana however, does not. It defines "forcible felony" as any felony that involves use or threat of physical force or violence against a person.

Any other felony does not justify the use of deadly force in Montana. Even if a thief is running off with your million-dollar jewelry collection.

However, the jury can of course decide to believe the shooter that he really, really believed his life was being threatened (despite all the evidence of the contrary) and acquit. The father of the slain student may have just tipped the scales of justice in this direction by making a blanket statement that Americans are a bunch of backwards cowboys. The collective guilt trip might work in Germany, but it's quite sure to give you lots of antipathy in the US.

[Gast]

I am from Hamburg, where this Turkish prank came from. Lots of discussions in our local press. Of course he was briefed prior to his exchange program about the local habits and risks. Maybe this misguided dude mixed up some facts on US and German laws on home defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the pc press covers his and his families criminal record. May he rest in peace in his hometown Bodrum / Turkey.

[Ch. aus S.]

Maybe this misguided dude mixed up some facts on US and German laws on home defense.

Probably not. The laws in Montana are definitely more restrictive than the self-defense laws in Germany, e.g. using deadly force can only be justified in Montana when defending against a forcible felony, while German law knows no such limits.

[Olt d.R.]

I have just arrived from a two and a half weeks journey to the US of A

and surprisingly I have never heared of that case over there ...

Let us wait and see,

but I won' t be surprised if the shooter house owner will not be sentenced.

[EJER Fuchs]

It may well be that a jury will acquit. A Louisana jury acquitted the coward who ran to the door and killed a Japanese exchange student dressed as John Travolta's character in "Saturday Night Fever" because the student knocked on his door and the moron's wife screamed. I'd call it Murder 2; the jury rationalized it as some self-defense BS.

However, we don't know a lot of facts beyond the homeowner setting a trap and the dead student being in the garage, apparently on the phone (and I'd LOVE to hear the details on that).

As we say in the states, "Film at 11:00."

[Gast]

Thou shalt not steal!

[EJER Fuchs]

Thou shalt not murder.

[fehl-x]

...

"Exchange student" - well, that is the big question, right? If it is "breaking and entering" as defined by law, attempted theft, vandalism, or just someone completely wasted trying to find a place to sleep - it certainly is something that has a good chance to negatively impact my property.

...

And of course such a minor negative impact to your holly property justifies the killing of a human being.

[Ch. aus S.]

Thou shalt not steal!

Montanas laws do not permit using deadly force to stop theft.

[Ch. aus S.]

And of course such a minor negative impact to your holly property justifies the killing of a human being.

Not to mention the negative impact of firing four shotgun shells into your own garage and the resulting mess if you actually hit something. And having a corpse on your property also produces quite a bit of negative impact (such as attracting police, coroners, press and other kinds of disturbance; and having to find, hire and pay a lawyer afterwards).

[Gast]

Funny to hear Direns sister in an interview last night: It would have been Ok if they fired only 1 shot at him, but four, that's cruel. Obviously she knew her brother quite good.

[optrade]

Article in Missoula Newspaper

..... It seems that the student was engaged in some prank went into an open garage and was shot by an irate man that hosed down the dark room with a shotgun.

I tagged the thread with "armed self defense", which is somewhat misleading, I realize. These events are an example of the fortunately rare misuse of a firearm in private hands. Your Opinion ?

Gotta run

Picture from the surveillance-camera in the garage. Strange kind of a prank, isn't it? Would be interessting to learn about the rap-sheet this moron eventually had in Hamburg.

[Boule]

And of course such a minor negative impact to your holly property justifies the killing of a human being.

First of all, I don't have any holly trees (Stechpalme) on my property. If you are attempting to troll, please do so in a language that you can actually speak and understand. Not that I would take you seriously anywhere or in any language, but feel free to try.

If you want to understand the legal and moral concepts behind it, look up something called "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground". While I don't endorse shooting someone without proper identifying my target or not turning on the lights and confronting the guy with the shotgun after having on video that it is just another stupid kid, I don't fault the homeowner and certainly hope the jury acquits. The reasoning is clearly undestandable in earlier posts and so please feel free to look it up or stfu.

As far as the reason for the presence of the perpetrator in the garage is concerned, I only got it second hand but apparently "stern TV" reported that it has become a "sport" of certain youth of that area to break into garages and search for alcohol and occasionally take some valuable items. So, fehl-x, if that is true, do you endorse stealing or do you think it has to be ratified by a majority?