Montana: Man charged in death of intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

harrys ghost

New member
Another case that, while different in the exact details, is eerily similar to the case just decided in Minnesota. Guy whose house has been broken into set a trap by leaving the garage door open with his wife's purse on display. He puts a baby monitor in the garage and motion detectors outside. 17 year old boy entered the garage and takes two shotgun blasts. Anything in this case that would lead one to believe that it will have a different outcome than the Minnesota case?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/montana-man-arrested-allegedly-trapping-killing-teen-suspect-broke-garage-article-1.1772463
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure how much the law or local culture might differ from Minnesota, but it doesn’t sound too good for the guy. Even though Montana is probably pretty gun friendly I would suspect Missoula may be a little less so than the rests of the state, but just guessing. It’s most likely going to come down to a jury and how they see this situation.
 
It shouldn't have a different outcome. In most "castle doctrine" states, the right to defend yourself from an intruder is predicated on the idea that if someone breaks in while you're there, that in itself is a valid reason for you to believe you're at risk of bodily harm. But if you set up a remote camera and then go to an intruder in another location, you were not at risk of being injured or killed by the intruder in the first place, and theft of (or damage to) property is, in most places, not a justification for the use of deadly force.

(And just for the record: we are not going rehash the nuances of Minnesota's "castle doctrine" law in this thread. Attempts to do so will have consequences.)

Edited to add:
Here's the relevant Montana law:
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.

(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or

(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person's possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person's immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(my emphasis.)​
​
Montana defines a forcible felony as follows:
45-3-101. Definitions.
<snip>
(2) “Forcible felony” means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.​
So to use deadly force in Montana, a person must reasonably believe it's necessary to prevent assault or another crime against a person, as opposed to a crime against property.
 
Last edited:
That's not a good scenario.

Now, if my wife had accidentally left her purse in the garage and I had a baby monitor and/or video surveillance in the garage so I could monitor my dog that I occasionally put in there and I happened to hear something "not right" then I'd grab pepper spray and a firearm as a backup just in case I needed it. If I was confronted with intruders and could deter them with pepper spray then that's what I'd do. If they're unarmed then most likely they'll retreat. If they come at me or my family then it would be time to take more drastic action... but only then.

BUT... I would never devise a plan to lure some thieving kids into my garage so I could confront them and maybe have to shoot them.

EDIT: The above stated, I think people are getting darned sick and tired of being taken advantage of by thieves, rapists and murderers. The problem is some seem to be adapting vigilante mindsets. This isn't the right way to deal with our societal woes.
 
Last edited:
That's why its important to prosecute people in these type of incidents. Some seem to think because you have the right to defend their property that they can decide to become judge jury and executioner. If that think was allowed to go unchallenged it could encourage other people to do similar. I think the people that write the laws have a responsibility to make it very clear what is justified and what isn't. People that support that type of behaviour should think very carefully what they are supporting bypassing the courts and committing murder. There is a history in this part of the world of people setting themselves up as judge jury and executioners its not a place you want to go. For people that want to go down that road be careful what you wish for.
 
Probably have the same result as the Minnesota case. I grew up in Missoula (mostly Missoula, Kalispell area as well). A jury might not be as sympathetic to his crime in Missoula. But it is also a very gun friendly place as well, everyone we knew had at least a hunting rifle; and, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sniper Central based in Missoula? Not to mention all the high end gun/barrel producers within a couple hours of there.

Also, just because it's a more liberal college town, it's still in MT. My mother shot her first deer while we were living there and she was a grad student at UM.

Why couldn't this guy have just held the kid at gunpoint until the police arrived? I suppose his conviction will just be karma (couldn't help it).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's why its important to prosecute people in these type of incidents. Some seem to think because you have the right to defend their property that they can decide to become judge jury and executioner. If that think was allowed to go unchallenged it could encourage other people to do similar.
Click to expand...

OTOH, it might encourage the police to actually take burglaries seriously when they are reported.
 
OTOH, it might encourage the police to actually take burglaries seriously when they are reported.
Click to expand...
So if the police don't take burglaries seriously, just execute the offender to get their attention. On the scale of crimes I would put murder above theft.
 
So if the police don't take burglaries seriously, just execute the offender to get their attention. On the scale of crimes I would put murder above theft.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I appreciate the homeowners' frustration and how they might be driven to taking drastic actions. It might not be right, but it's understandable.
 
This is in Montana, not Wyoming, btw.

I would figure it's going to be just as bad, because he again has a whole bevy of people who can tell police in detail exactly how he set up his burglar ambush.

It's perfectly fine to set up an ambush for burglars. With a trail camera. Or if you want you can confront them in person. An ambush involving rapidly and blindly spraying buckshot into your garage, not so much.
 
That's not what I said. I appreciate the homeowners' frustration and how they might be driven to taking drastic actions. It might not be right, but it's understandable
Click to expand...
That's where we would disagree, I don't understand someone setting up an ambush and shooting a teenager dead. There are other options he could have held him to the police arrived shooting someone should always be a last option.
 
But the police *don't* arrive. (at least here they don't) They are too busy doing whatever it is they do.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on where you live. Here the police would be at my door pretty quickly if I rang them especially if they are aware that i have firearms in the house. And if they did not arrive in a reasonable time there would be an investigation into why they didn't. I can see with the size of some American states that things could be different. But I would let someone go before shooting them because the police were to busy.
 
Last edited:
Montana is a firearm friendly state. Its not out of the realm of possibility that the person breaking into a place they have no business being, is armed. Its logical to assume that the person caught where they shouldn't be is willing to hurt someone to get away.
I could side with Mr. Karma up until he made statements that he intended to shoot someone. I think that puts into the realm of premeditated murder.
 
Not sure how germane it is but a Billings station has one of the pictures of the kid that was shot, in the garage, just prior to the shooting.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it is. Kaarma wasn't defending himself against a forcible felony. He laid bait for the kid with the intention of killing someone.

...and opponents of Castle Doctrine laws have one more incident to "prove" us all vigilantes.
 
Quite frankly I think they should fry him. I don't care if its his house or not. You can't create circumstances to lure someone onto your property for the intended purpose of killing them any more than you can execute them once you have an intruder detained. I think we call that murder. :eek:
 
So he baited a trap, presumably left the door open, and lay in wait??

The shooters this case (and the one in MN) seem to think like they are shooting raccoons who are raiding there rubbish pile.

IMO, nothing here says "Self-defense" This is not what the castle doctrine is about.

From what I have seen so far, I say guilty of murder.

Hang him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top