German Exchange Student shot

[Tyr13]

It is difficult to develop a legal opinion of any value, when You do not have access to all the facts, or the pertinent laws anyhow. As I said above two wrongs do not make one right. While I do not have any problem with a home-owner defending his property, the level of force employed here appears to have been excessive and not commensurate with the actual threat level. The pre-emptive threat of lethal force that a ready firearm poses is IMO sufficient to apprehend a perpetrator and the person behind the firearm is well prepared even in the event that violence is offered to him or her.

I would still maintain that firing into the dark is not only excessive but in this instance unjustified, at least under our code of law here in GER. Shooting where You cannot see is very close to manslaughter through negligence. It might be a case of self-defense-excess, but even then that mitigation would be on very shaky grounds, as Kaamar put himself willingly into the situation.

As I understand the laws of Montana, the legal situation for him as the shooter appears to be rather dire, an acquittal is probably not forthcoming. The "castle doctrine" or "stand Your ground" principle only lift the defender in a violent confrontation to the level of german law code, it simply absolves him of the necessity of trying to avoid or evade violence.

The problem here is, that while Mr. Kaamar's property and home-integrity was indeed threatened, there was no violence offered to his person or his family or at least there is very little evidence that such had been the case. Yes, there was an intruder, yes it seems likely that an offense weightier than trespassing was in progress, but as I understand from the media coverage that would not be enough to justify even violence, much less use of deadly force under Montana's law. It is up to the jury to find a verdict from available facts, let me just state that from what I know the justification of self-defense is not airtight.

The question of where the boundaries of self-defense and home-defense should lie, will lead too far afield for a discussion board thread. A critical analysis of the events is in order though and this case of firearm usage it could have gone much better if Kaamar would have been better prepared or had acted more thoughtfully. "Youthful burglars apprehended by armed home-owner" would have been a much better headline. This way he will have to live with the consequences of taking another human's life, which is a heavy burden even if there should be no legal consequences. The latter seems to me unlikely though.

[Gast]

First of all, I don't have any holly trees (Stechpalme) on my property.

Have seen more typos amongst native speakers in US forums. Of course you are impervious to that.

[Ch. aus S.]

Picture from the surveillance-camera in the garage. Strange kind of a prank, isn't it?

Bright clothing. Doesn't have his hood up. Isn't wearing a baseball hat. Not really looking like a hardened criminal ...

Would be interessting to learn about the rap-sheet this moron eventually had in Hamburg.

People with any kind of "rap sheet" don't get visa to visit the US.

[erstezw]

...

People with any kind of "rap sheet" don't get visa to visit the US.

You are kidding. Who should do all background checks?

[HolgerG]

You are kidding. Who should do all background checks?

Though me myself I don't think he was an angel and I agree that the Castle doctrine should be uphold as a former exchange student I know that you have to submit your Führungszeugnis to the US embassy before your exchange visa is granted. You also have to sign you've never been convicted and state whether there have investigations against you.

Best regards

Holger

[Ch. aus S.]

Who should do all background checks?

It is safe to assume they already know everything about you that's public record or non-public government record, and even some things you might consider private.

If they want to confirm what they already know, they'll have you bring a Führungszeugnis when you apply for your visa.

[heletz]

Officers found a jar of pot in Kaarma's home the day he shot the teen, a police statement accompanying an April 28 request for a search warrant said. Kaarma also might have had marijuana stolen from his garage in a previous burglary, the document said.

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2014/05/06/5140079/alleged-shooter-may-have-been.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.bradenton.com/2014/05/06/5140079/alleged-shooter-may-have-been.html

[Tyr13]

If that information is correct, it makes an unfortunate amount of sense.

Two Exchange students from different countries banding together, finding a source of drugs try a third time to steal from the home owner. Said owner reacts monumentally badly because he has used drugs himself.

Drugs and Guns do not mix, I believe we can all agree on that. That might be the puzzle piece that was missing, the whole time I was asking myself "what could have made somebody with any gun experience shoot into the dark ?" If his judgement was impaired by drugs that is much more believable.

Sad, Sad story.

[fehl-x]

First of all, I don't have any holly trees (Stechpalme) on my property....

Sorry, sorry, sorry. I made a typo, I am sorry!

...

If you want to understand the legal and moral concepts behind it, look up something called "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground". ..

As far as I understood those theories / laws, these are more focusing that you have not to try to escape in the case of a threat to your life. Before these laws have been passed, it was not legal to kill the aggressor if you had a chance to escape - am I right?

As far as I read, the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws are only addressing self- defense situations. Both "laws" are not about defending your booze or pot. Btw., it seems as if Kaarma is now trying to excuse his shots as self- defence:

" Ryan denied Kaarma lured anyone into his garage and said he left the door open to air it out after he and Pflager had been smoking cigarettes.

"Markus believed that the intruder posed an imminent threat to himself and his family," he said. "

http://www.bradenton.com/2014/05/06/5140079/alleged-shooter-may-have-been.html

He will still have to explain why he, if he really thought that there was an "imminent threat" to his life in his garage, he walked to the garage - instead of simply calling for assistance staying where he is.

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2014/05/06/5140079/alleged-shooter-may-have-been.html#storylink=cpy

...So, fehl-x, if that is true, do you endorse stealing or do you think it has to be ratified by a majority?

Where did I write anything like this? Boule, do you think that it should be legal to shoot somebody, just because he stole your can of beer? Or sipped from your beer?

[HolgerG]

"Kaarmas attorneys write that a transcript interview of Dedes companion, who was present that night, says he and Dede had entered into garages of Missoula homeowners on at least three or four separate occasions prior to the night of the shooting"

http://m.nbcmontana.com/news/attorneys-law-enforcement-warned-shooting-would-happen-if-burglaries-didnt-stop/25841810

Another article mentioned the companion was already back home in Ecuador which would proof the point that police knows of some wrong doing.

I guess he had it coming.

And pointing out to drugs or alcohol of course it's a bad idea to deliberately handle weapons while being intoxicated. That still doesn't change the fact that in a self defense situation that shouldn't be held against you.

Best regards

Holger

[Tyr13]

I guess he had it coming.

That still doesn't change the fact that in a self defense situation that shouldn't be held against you.

Again speaking from the (D) law, intoxication or inebriation are of course drawn into the process of justice. First it's a question whether an offender is fully culpable or excused by chemistry. Secondly an offense like murder, where intent is a crucial factor might be modified to the corresponding negligent offense like manslaughter and Lastly the severity of the levied penalties might be lowered, due to mitigationg circumstances of intoxication/inebriation.

That does not change the standards for judging the offense. Most of us remember the example of shotgunning the (fleeing) apple thief from our courses to certification of "Sachkunde". While our laws on self-defense are much more protective (of the defender) than the american equivalent, even here the equivalency of the offended and defended legal value is mandated. Petty theft, the offense against property cannot be defended against with a defensive action that jeopardizes life and limb of the offender.

If, and that is just hypothesizing, a true confrontation had taken place between Kaarma on one side and Dirden and his Buddy on the other, it might be argued that a case of self defense would obtain. But again: Kaarma discharged his shotgun four times into a dark room. He had reason to believe that at least one person was in there and he accepted the risk to that intruder's life when he pulled the trigger. He might have been afraid for his life but that is where the entrapment situation comes into play.

Again I would also object to the "Had it coming" phrase, that's like the old texan justification "He really needed Killing". Please recall the offenses of Dirden: Trespass and theft (of illegal substances?) Is that enough offense to purchase a human life ? Dirden put himself into danger through his decision of going into that garage. Kaarma shot where he couldn't see and accepted the devils bargain of a life taken against the loss of some dope.

Two wrongs happened, no question. You wanna hear my take ?

But that were'nt no self defense. That there were a young dope-head punk and his buddy out to tryin' ta steal dope murdered by a trigger happy dope-head hisself, that was to dumb and too yello' to look where he was pointin' that there shotgun, almost like effin' dope-head stupidity squared.

[karlyman]

I guess this sums it up well.

Two wrongs happened

[Boule]

As far as I understood those theories / laws, these are more focusing that you have not to try to escape in the case of a threat to your life. Before these laws have been passed, it was not legal to kill the aggressor if you had a chance to escape - am I right?

As far as I read, the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws are only addressing self- defense situations. Both "laws" are not about defending your booze or pot.

Fehl-x, you are both right and wrong at the same time. These laws encompass an important aspect of defense against "unlawful" behaviour or - as I would put it - violation of your rights. They basically cover the German term "Recht muss nicht Unrecht weichen", The basic message is: If someone violates your rights, you are permitted by your superiors (within the law) to oppose them right then and there and don't have to wait for protectors with limited liability (police) or self-elected arbiters (judge) to enforce what stands on paper.

We are basically trying to answer two different questions:

1) Is it right to oppose someone violating your rights, if necessary with force?

2) Was the level of force used adequate and necessary to counter the violation?

My answer to these questions are: 1) yes, behoynd any reasonable doubt and without limitations and 2) well bad luck, see 1)

Your answer is 1) principally yes, but limited to 2) and if 2) is exceeded in your eyes, treat him like a criminal.

I don't think we'll ever get around to each others way of thinking but that's OK.

Boule, do you think that it should be legal to shoot somebody, just because he stole your can of beer? Or sipped from your beer?

Well, where would you draw the line? I personally draw it at live, health or livelyhood but that is just a completely arbitrary distinction based on my personal ethics. I would not even dare to apply this measure to any other persons actions while you seem to be quite judgemental in that regard. Subscribe to any religion lately except for statism?

[Ch. aus S.]

Fehl-x, you are both right and wrong at the same time. These laws encompass an important aspect of defense against "unlawful" behaviour or - as I would put it - violation of your rights. They basically cover the German term "Recht muss nicht Unrecht weichen", The basic message is: If someone violates your rights, you are permitted by your superiors (within the law) to oppose them right then and there and don't have to wait for protectors with limited liability (police) or self-elected arbiters (judge) to enforce what stands on paper.

The self-defense laws in Montana allow the use of deadly force only when defending against a forcible felony, which doesn't include theft and trespassing.

[Boule]

The self-defense laws in Montana allow the use of deadly force only when defending against a forcible felony, which doesn't include theft and trespassing.

So what is your statement on this? Repeating your first post on this page helps the discussion how? All it proves is that some Montana legislators have the same weird feeling of a "limited liability" approach when it comes to defense of your rights.

[Tyr13]

have the same weird feeling of a "limited liability" approach when it comes to defense of your rights.

The state will always accept only limited liability of individual rights, no guarantees given. Several wars have been fought when the rights of the state were infringed upon, can You say War of Northern Aggression ?

I still think that self defense is not a hunting license with no bag limit and personal property does not have extraterritorial rights with the inhabitants as the only justified source of force. Standards do apply, as long as society organizes in states with laws, those will be the codified standards. Even by humanitarian standards the use of deadly force can only be justified by a creditable threat to oneself or people for whose life and well-being You have taken guarantor-position for. (i.e. family)

I remain unsatisfied that the actions of the shooter are justified by objective or subjective standards for self defense. Even extreme subjective fear cannot be drawn upon even as only an excuse for his actions, he had no reason to pull the trigger that was not drawn from his own imagination and he had no clear target to shoot at. I therefore will maintain that the shooter did not meet the responsibilities he should have taken up along with his gun.

The trespassing offender in this case was an immature young man. I would have applauded a citizen's arrest or forced labor as restitution, but I cannot be satisfied with the ending of a human life so easily, not even for a great concept like armed self defense. Like the death of Yoshihiro Hattori this case will weaken the case for home defense, not strengthen it, though this is a political consideration, not a legal one, it should be taken into account.

[Gast]

Here we have the death notice from Hamburger Abendblatt. Please compare both of them. Is it cynical or just tasteless?

[J.D.]

You think they placed his next to a Colonel's notice on purpose?

[Gast]

No, not deliberately, just dumbfoldet.

[Tyr13]

Never assume malice when everything might as well be explained by stupidity....

Once is a Fluke, twice a mistake, three times is Enemy action...