Castle doctrine shooting

[KSaiyu]

A mistaken drunk intrusion and a drunk threat are different things

 

[Exorcet]

I agree with that, but getting drunk isn't really an excuse for anything.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's not an excuse. This is just pure speculation on the part of the student's reason for being there. For all we know he could have been trying to alert the owners of the purse lying there

 

[Keef]

What if the German student was drunk, and wandered into the wrong garage. The trap setting is immaterial to my argument - if this wasn't a trap it's possible the shooter could have left with no charges at all.

Possible, yes. However, considering the property owner fired blindly into the garage, threat unseen, not likely.

 

[CarBastard]

Wait so this guy Kaarma actually thought it was right to fix his issue with burglars by going all Looney Tunes on them putting a trap with detectors and everything and then just shooting without even warning? Is he insane? Does he believe shooting a gun is like in a cartoon or what?

Moreso, in the article lies this beatiful gem of trouble for his defense:

"We know with no question the individual entered the garage," Mr Ryan said. "Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed."

"Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" law was amended in 2009 to allow deadly force if a homeowner "reasonably believes" an intruder is trying to harm him or her."

So, without knowing intent or anything how could he reasonably believe anything about the intruder? And what if the guy just walked in to say "Hey dumb:censored:, you left your purse here!"? Was that worth being shot? 🤬, to hell with him. I cannot see any way in which that can be considered rational or moral. Unless you're on a battlefield, ask first shoot later!

 

[BobK]

Yep, and that's why he'll be going to prison.

 

[Jawehawk]

Assuming the guy who got shot did not have a good reason to enter the garage, I say good riddance.
Baiting thieves is idiotic, but it still doesn't excuse anyone from the act of stealing.

I can't say I hold much pitty towards anyone who is killed while attempting to steal something. Sure, there are examples of gun owners who should've tried to resolve the situation without firing a shot, but I still don't think they should be sent to jail for rightfully protecting what is theirs. Though a review of their gun ownership status is probably ideal in some cases.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I still don't think they should be sent to jail for rightfully protecting what is theirs.

But if he was baiting thieves with the intention of shooting them, can it still be called "rightfully protecting"? It is, in itself, an act of premeditation. It was a trap designed to lure thieves into his home so that he could shoot them. It might not excuse the act of theft, but in the same way, theft does not excuse first-degree murder.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But if he was baiting thieves with the intention of shooting them, can it still be called "rightfully protecting"? It is, in itself, an act of premeditation. It was a trap designed to lure thieves into his home so that he could shoot them. It might not excuse the act of theft, but in the same way, theft does not excuse first-degree murder.

This is the crux of the case for me. While the state's law clearly allows the occupant to shoot if they feel "threatened" in this case I'd argue that the occupant couldn't feel threatened because they'd fully planned, anticipated, enabled and procured the intrusion.

I also think (as I might have said before) that there's a cultural consideration too, even if that holds no legal weight. I'd approach the house to tell somebody they'd left their property unsecured and I think a good proportion of other people would too. I'm a soft European, obviously, just as the victim was. I wonder if the same proportion of people in the US would take the same action? I suspect not.

 

[Jawehawk]

But if he was baiting thieves with the intention of shooting them, can it still be called "rightfully protecting"? It is, in itself, an act of premeditation. It was a trap designed to lure thieves into his home so that he could shoot them. It might not excuse the act of theft, but in the same way, theft does not excuse first-degree murder.

While I don't approve of baiting (at least not when done by a civilian), I don't see how it really changes anything. In this case, it's likely that he was hoping to catch the same people who had robbed him twice before (assuming that it was the same people who had done it both times). I've never tried it, but being robbed in your home wounds you psychologically. The thought of someone taking what is yours at any given time, and potentially hurting you where you're supposed to be safe, takes a toll on anyone.

Then again, if baiting can be used to capture a theif, then why not? Again, shooting without warning is definately wrong, but if he had used it to capture the person, I don't see the problem. The police and various special law enforcement units definately use baiting whenever they can. It's not like theft is an addiction. You're not tempted into it like an alcoholic would be tempted to have a drink that you're hovering in front of him. They're bad people, who I personally hold in very little regard.

This is the crux of the case for me. While the state's law clearly allows the occupant to shoot if they feel "threatened" in this case I'd argue that the occupant couldn't feel threatened because they'd fully planned, anticipated, enabled and procured the intrusion.

I also think (as I might have said before) that there's a cultural consideration too, even if that holds no legal weight. I'd approach the house to tell somebody they'd left their property unsecured and I think a good proportion of other people would too. I'm a soft European, obviously, just as the victim was. I wonder if the same proportion of people in the US would take the same action? I suspect not.

He didn't enable anything. It's entirely the thief's decision to steal something. No one is making that decision for them.
And there's a different between knocking on someone's door to tell them that they've left something of value outside in a clearly visible, easy to reach position, and to actually go into someone's garage to get said object and then go to the front door. It's none of your business if someone leaves something in their garage. It's not your prerogative to take it, nor is it your job to inform the owner. But if you feel inclined to do so, you do so by knocking on the door and telling him/her. There is ZERO reason for you to actually pick up the object from inside a garage to return it to the owner, as anyone who see's you will obviously get the wrong idea.

That is logic and has nothing what so ever to do with being a "soft European".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

While I don't approve of baiting (at least not when done by a civilian), I don't see how it really changes anything. In this case, it's likely that he was hoping to catch the same people who had robbed him twice before (assuming that it was the same people who had done it both times).

There is a difference between setting a trap with the intention of catching a thief, and setting a trap with the intention of killing a thief. Especially since robbery is a crime against property - there is no use of force or threat of force to commit the crime.

 

[niky]

The punishment should always, always fit the crime.

Baiting with the intent to kill is quite different from baiting with the intent to arrest.

 

[Jawehawk]

There is a difference between setting a trap with the intention of catching a thief, and setting a trap with the intention of killing a thief. Especially since robbery is a crime against property - there is no use of force or threat of force to commit the crime.

As I said. Shooting without warning was wrong. By an extension, baiting with the intention to kill was obviously wrong.
In my opinion, his gun ownership status should be reviewed and possibly removed entirely. But that's as far as I'd go. Regardless of baiting, he's still the victim. He didn't ask anyone to go into his garage. And what he puts there is his own business. Anyone who is willing to steal other peoples property should be willing to accept the consequences, and that includes death.

Don't want to get shot or imprisioned? don't steal or intrude on to other peoples property.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Regardless of baiting, he's still the victim.

No, he's not. The kid who got shot would not have been shot if the owner had not baited him. Your entire argument hinges on two assumptions: a) that the shooter would have been robbed regardless of whether or not he set the trap, and b) that the robbery itself would have presented an immediate threat to his safety and the safety of his family.

This is not a case of a home owner shooting an intruder in self-defense. This is a home owner who set a trap for the express purpose of shooting a thief. There was no self-defense involved - it was premeditated. And that makes it murder. Yes, the kid was doing the wrong thing. But that does not excuse the home owner. Letting him off with a review of his gun ownership status is a complete joke. After all, what if he had attacked the kid with a knife, or chased after and run him down with a car?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Jawehawk the kid may have only approached the property because of the honeytrap (that's what we're presuming, whatever his motivation), or it may possibly have been for another reason.

We don't know because the occupant was waiting to shoot someone (apparently anyone) who entered the property. The owner had planned quite meticulously for that and followed it through. To me that makes it murder.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

His entire plan seems to have hinged on the belief that the same person had been robbing him and would return again, and that the crimes had been escalating to the point where deadly force was needed to defend his home.

If the situation was that serious, then common sense dictates approaching the police and/or investing in better security.

 

[Jawehawk]

You don't know that, prisonermonkeys. From the article, we can assume that the home owner did nothing to bait the thieves the first two times. They did it without being baited. So you have no way of knowing if this kid did it because he was being baited or whatever. For all we know, he could've simply been searching the garage for anything of value, regardless of what the home owner used as bait. If the kid went in there to steal something, he did it on his own accord. The home owner did not manipulate his mind. He did not put up a sign that said "here, take this".

Again, I don't agree with what the owner did. Shooting without any kind of warning was plain idiotic.
But at least he had a reason to do so. The reason being that he was fed up with people stealing what was rightfully his.

If you can't face the consequences of your actions, don't do the crime. No one forced the kids hand.
We all get faced with temptations every single day, but most of us don't fall into it.

We also don't know if he had contacted the police about all this. But if he did, there's next to nothing they can do about it. As for investing in better security, why should he? Why should he go out and spend money on cameras and the like? He shouldn't need to do that because some rats are taking what isn't their's to take.

 

[TenEightyOne]

On the occasion of the victim's death he approached a property whose owner had planned and staked-out a baited killzone.

 

[R.S]

I left MY wad of cash on my driveway 6 feet from the road and someone decided to pick it up and walk, I was going to use that cash to buy some medicines for my severe osteoporosis, since my bones will break without that medicine, can I shoot him before he leaves my property?

 

[Jawehawk]

I left MY wad of cash on my driveway 6 feet from the road and someone decided to pick it up and walk, I was going to use that cash to buy some medicines for my severe osteoporosis, since my bones will break without that medicine, can I shoot him before he leaves my property?

First off you're using a ridicules example as an arguement. Second, if it isn't yours, then don't take it.
And 3rd, I've repeatedly said that I don't agree with the decision to shoot the intruder in this case.

On the occasion of the victim's death he approached a property whose owner had planned and staked-out a baited killzone.

On the occasion of the victim's death, he intruded on to someone's property with a possible intend of taking what wasn't his. He wasn't told to do this, he did at at his own will. His decision.

 

[TenEightyOne]

On the occasion of the victim's death, he intruded on to someone's property with a possible intend of taking what wasn't his. He wasn't told to do this, he did at at his own will. His decision.

Yes, absolutely.

The property owner had also taken a decision that he would prepare the area to potentially attract an intruder who he would then shoot. His decision.

 

[Jawehawk]

Yes, absolutely.

The property owner had also taken a decision that he would prepare the area to potentially attract an intruder who he would then shoot. His decision.

A bad decision indeed. yet one that wouldn't amount to anything if no one had decided to try and take something that wasn't their's.

 

[TenEightyOne]

wouldn't amount to anything if no one had decided to try and take something that wasn't their's.

Do we know if that happened that night? It had happened on that property before, we know that much.

On the night that the guy waited to shoot somebody do we know if anyone tried to take anything from him?

 

[Jawehawk]

True, we don't know the kid's true intentions. But in any case, he shouldn't have entered the man's garage.
Just like the home owner shouldn't have shot into his garage without any kind of warning.

 

[niky]

On the occasion of the victim's death, he intruded on to someone's property with a possible intend of taking what wasn't his. He wasn't told to do this, he did at at his own will. His decision.

The trap assumes that this person would not be drawn to an open garage in the middle of the night out of curiosity or concern for a neighbor's welfare (the trespasser might be looking to stop a home invasion, for example, or might be checking to see if his neighbor is in trouble).

This is not a matter of your right to defend your property. You clearly have that. It's more a matter of whether you have the right to plan the murder of a stranger in cold blood. Under US law, no, you do not.

 

[XS]

I also think (as I might have said before) that there's a cultural consideration too, even if that holds no legal weight. I'd approach the house to tell somebody they'd left their property unsecured and I think a good proportion of other people would too. I'm a soft European, obviously, just as the victim was. I wonder if the same proportion of people in the US would take the same action? I suspect not.

That's a very poor assumption. I can't think of anybody I know who wouldn't let their neighbor know that their property was left unsecured. But instead of walking into their garage, we'd probably just call their cell.

 

[Jawehawk]

Since when is an open garage door something that sparks speculation and worry? It's just a garage.
The garage door could be broken or the owner might've simply forgotten. And again, if someone feels like he/she has to investigate this, He/she knocks on the front door.

 

[Grayfox]

Since when is an open garage door something that sparks speculation and worry? It's just a garage.
The garage door could be broken or the owner might've simply forgotten. And again, if someone feels like he/she has to investigate this, He/she knocks on the front door.

Or call the police.

 

[Imari]

Assuming the guy who got shot did not have a good reason to enter the garage, I say good riddance.

So in your world, the appropriate punishment for stealing is death.

What's the most severe crime that you would consider it not appropriate to shoot someone for?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He shouldn't need to do that because some rats are taking what isn't their's to take.

And the obvious solution is to set a trap for them so that he can kill them and then hide behind a self-defense law?

You say he "had a reason" for it, but the problem is that, in this case, he created that reason. He set that trap up so that a thief would walk onto his property and he could shoot them. It doesn't matter how many times you point out that the kid was stealing from him - the guy planned in advance with the intention of harming. That makes it premeditated, or first-degree murder. If the kid was stealing from him, the prosecution might downgrade the charge to second-degree murder. But nothing changes the fact that the kid was killed because he went onto that property at that time.

The Castle Doctrine laws were created to give home owners the legal precedent to use deadly force when defending their homes, particularly if there is a threat to the home owner's wellbeing. But there was nothing defensive about this - the home owner in question deliberately set a trap with the intention of at least harming (if not killing) an intruder. That's a very aggressive, offensive interpretation of the law. It's murder.