Armed_Chicagoan
New member
Looks like murder to me, and $30,000 bail for murder???
Montana: Man charged in death of intruder
- Thread starter harrys ghost
- Start date
- Status
Uncle Buck
New member
Prosecution should be able to show intent.
Although he did not run his mouth to the police, or the article does not state he did, the testimony of the hairdresser is pretty damning.
If the facts bear out in court like the article reports them, he should be convicted of murder.
Although he did not run his mouth to the police, or the article does not state he did, the testimony of the hairdresser is pretty damning.
If the facts bear out in court like the article reports them, he should be convicted of murder.
Most places it's not legal to "shoot over bait". 
"set a trap" , "lay in wait", These are clear indicators of premeditation. Castle doctrine and other self defense laws are not applicable. The shooter may have thought they were, and he was legally protected, but if a court finds him justified, it will be going against generations of legal and moral precedent.
If you start a fight, so you can shoot someone, and claim self defense, you day in court will not (and should not) turn out in your favor. Same for setting a trap and laying in wait. Boobtraps (set guns) are not legal, either.
a couple of points, first, forget the fact the victim was a teenager, it doesn't matter. While it may be an accurate description, it implies something that may not be the case. 13-19 is a teenager. And from about 16 on up, most are physically adults. Maybe not mentally, and certainly not legally (until 18), but physically, and being as much of a physical threat as anyone could be.
If you are justified in shooting, you are justified if the attacker is 17, or 35, or 70. "OMG he shot a teenager!" is an emotional ploy and has no bearing on the other facts of the case.
Second, while the statement from the hairdresser is "fact" on the news, it may not be "fact" in court. It may be hearsay, and may not be admissible as evidence. The court will determine that, not you, or I, or the reporter who put in in print/on the air.
IF the facts in this case are what they seem to be on the surface, then the shooter should be hung out to dry in public view. Examples must be made to show that "stand your ground" &"castle docrtrine" laws are NOT HUNTING LICENCES. They are not get out of jail free cards.
They only apply (if they do) after someone is forced to defend themselves, AND such defense is deemed justified. Then, and only then, they give some measure of protection from further legal action against the defender.
Part of the reason we are seeing things like this happen is the fact that the anti gunners/anti self defense advocates repeatedly and loudly said that such laws WOULD be a hunting license. I would say that some people believed them!
As to those who feel the cops are not doing anything or not taking burglary seriously, I'm certain they do take it seriously. Just not as seriously as you want them to. Their priorities in these times of limited resources and shrinking budgets are just not the same as yours or mine if it is our stuff that got stolen. Never really has been. Hence the old joke:
Homeowner gets woken in the middle of the night, sees someone breaking into his shed. Call cops. Cops say "no units available" 20-30 minute wait. Homeowner hangs up. Waits a couple minutes and calls cops again. Tells cops, "its ok, take your time, I shot them."
3 squad cars arrive within the next 5 minutes. Cops catch the guy. Cops say to homeowner "You said you shot them" He replies "You said there were no units available!"
"set a trap" , "lay in wait", These are clear indicators of premeditation. Castle doctrine and other self defense laws are not applicable. The shooter may have thought they were, and he was legally protected, but if a court finds him justified, it will be going against generations of legal and moral precedent.
If you start a fight, so you can shoot someone, and claim self defense, you day in court will not (and should not) turn out in your favor. Same for setting a trap and laying in wait. Boobtraps (set guns) are not legal, either.
a couple of points, first, forget the fact the victim was a teenager, it doesn't matter. While it may be an accurate description, it implies something that may not be the case. 13-19 is a teenager. And from about 16 on up, most are physically adults. Maybe not mentally, and certainly not legally (until 18), but physically, and being as much of a physical threat as anyone could be.
If you are justified in shooting, you are justified if the attacker is 17, or 35, or 70. "OMG he shot a teenager!" is an emotional ploy and has no bearing on the other facts of the case.
Second, while the statement from the hairdresser is "fact" on the news, it may not be "fact" in court. It may be hearsay, and may not be admissible as evidence. The court will determine that, not you, or I, or the reporter who put in in print/on the air.
IF the facts in this case are what they seem to be on the surface, then the shooter should be hung out to dry in public view. Examples must be made to show that "stand your ground" &"castle docrtrine" laws are NOT HUNTING LICENCES. They are not get out of jail free cards.
They only apply (if they do) after someone is forced to defend themselves, AND such defense is deemed justified. Then, and only then, they give some measure of protection from further legal action against the defender.
Part of the reason we are seeing things like this happen is the fact that the anti gunners/anti self defense advocates repeatedly and loudly said that such laws WOULD be a hunting license. I would say that some people believed them!
As to those who feel the cops are not doing anything or not taking burglary seriously, I'm certain they do take it seriously. Just not as seriously as you want them to. Their priorities in these times of limited resources and shrinking budgets are just not the same as yours or mine if it is our stuff that got stolen. Never really has been. Hence the old joke:
Homeowner gets woken in the middle of the night, sees someone breaking into his shed. Call cops. Cops say "no units available" 20-30 minute wait. Homeowner hangs up. Waits a couple minutes and calls cops again. Tells cops, "its ok, take your time, I shot them."
3 squad cars arrive within the next 5 minutes. Cops catch the guy. Cops say to homeowner "You said you shot them" He replies "You said there were no units available!"
buck460XVR
New member
Setting an obvious trap along with...
along with two separate volleys of two shotgun blasts each, makes it pretty clear it was not a simple case of "fearing for you life". Video tape of the two boys was already enough evidence to have them arrested. There was no reason to leave the safety of their living room and confront them over the bait purposely placed there. Pretty clear the guy just wanted an excuse to execute someone.
along with two separate volleys of two shotgun blasts each, makes it pretty clear it was not a simple case of "fearing for you life". Video tape of the two boys was already enough evidence to have them arrested. There was no reason to leave the safety of their living room and confront them over the bait purposely placed there. Pretty clear the guy just wanted an excuse to execute someone.
buck460XVR
New member
This is why it bothers me whenever I see folks on these types of forums trying to justify or validate these kind of actions, even remotely. These are not examples of Castle Doctrine or SYG. They are murder, plain and simple. While the victims are not predetermined, the action and intent is premeditated. The intent is kill someone in revenge and because the shooter is prepared in advance to shoot, there really is no threat to them. Any attempt, regardless of how miniscule to justify the actions of these killers is just confirming what the antis claim.
Yes, I fear ultimately we’ll end up being our own worst enemy. The anti-gun crowd hasn’t gained much traction as the result of recent high profile incidents, but I fear situations like this may actually have a greater impact on pubic opinion.
Most people realize violent acts committed by the mentally unstable may be hard to control. However, when they see supposedly average gun owners involved in these incidents they may come to believe more controls would be beneficial.
Most people realize violent acts committed by the mentally unstable may be hard to control. However, when they see supposedly average gun owners involved in these incidents they may come to believe more controls would be beneficial.
In most, if not all, jurisdictions the shooter's statements to the hairdresser would be admissible as a statement or admission of a party. Whether it is a "fact" is for the fact finder to determine, normally the jury.
Now, as to criticisms about police not taking burglary seriously -- My house was burglarized a few years ago one morning after my wife and I had gone to work. Kids (teenagers) were on summer vacation and still asleep. They heard the break-in, called police, and the police caught the guy in my bedroom. He was sentenced to 20 years. Burglary is taken very seriously here.
chesterfield
New member
This guy is a sociopath. There was no self defense here, no kind of home defense either. He set up a hunt plain and simple. I understand how people get frustrated with crimes like burglary and theft but unless you or your loved ones lives are threatened there is no reason to pull the trigger and end someone's life. I hope he gets the harshest punishment possible.
Rifleman1952
New member
If I'm on the jury, given the facts as presented, I would find the accused guilty of murder. But it is frustration with our criminal justice system that is contributing to these types of events. Property criminals, especially juveniles, are frequently arrested and given no meaningful consequences for their criminal acts.
A stern warning from a judge or magistrate to a juvenile burglar today doesn't seem to carry the same weight as it might have 50 years ago. Being placed on probation, community service hours, and short stints in detention really don't seem to have much of a deterrent these days.
I know personally of a case where a juvenile offender had appeared before a magistrate on 18 separate occasions for B&E and burglary complaints before the juvenile was finally sent away for a grand total of 6 months. It's no wonder this young man thought the entire justice system was a joke.
None the less, I would never attempt to lure such an individual into my home. He just may have a gun as well as you. Good locks, motion sensors and a good dog are a far better methods of securing ones home, with a firearm being the last resort.
A stern warning from a judge or magistrate to a juvenile burglar today doesn't seem to carry the same weight as it might have 50 years ago. Being placed on probation, community service hours, and short stints in detention really don't seem to have much of a deterrent these days.
I know personally of a case where a juvenile offender had appeared before a magistrate on 18 separate occasions for B&E and burglary complaints before the juvenile was finally sent away for a grand total of 6 months. It's no wonder this young man thought the entire justice system was a joke.
None the less, I would never attempt to lure such an individual into my home. He just may have a gun as well as you. Good locks, motion sensors and a good dog are a far better methods of securing ones home, with a firearm being the last resort.
Last edited:
Departed402
New member
Well to pile it on, it certainly appears the guy in the report is an idiot. You would hope people would be smarter than this.
He would have been fine confronting them with the shotgun as a precaution, and just holding the foreign kid at gunpoint until the cops showed up. Based on the report, it looks like the couple was out for blood.
On a final note, while the thief definitely received more punishment than he deserved, I really have a tough time feeling bad for him. Thieves are among the lowest of the low in my book.
Then why did he shoot? If the defense attorney says that in court the prosecutor will destroy them.
He would have been fine confronting them with the shotgun as a precaution, and just holding the foreign kid at gunpoint until the cops showed up. Based on the report, it looks like the couple was out for blood.
On a final note, while the thief definitely received more punishment than he deserved, I really have a tough time feeling bad for him. Thieves are among the lowest of the low in my book.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Had the guy not baited and then waited on the kid, he would still be in trouble. For example, say his garage was just open (as people do) and he heard sounds from inside and so went for his shotgun and open-fired as he did. That still would not qualify in Montana as being legal use of lethal force. There was no known threat and there was no forcible entry.
Uncle Buck
New member
It has been a few years since I worked in the juvenile detention facility, but their is too little to no respect for authority in most of society today. We hear how the detainees spend so much of their time learning how to "not get caught" from other detainees (who got caught).
I do not know if it is the license to hunt mentality or the frustration with thieves that leads to this. I have been in a situation where I saved up my money to buy some much needed equipment for my shop. The employees left the equipment outside and it was stolen. $2,300.00 gone down the drain. Supplies needed for running the business, stolen. I eventually ended up closing the repair shop, because I could only throw so much money at it and could not continue to afford to buy new supplies and equipment. I could have kept filing insurance claims, but then the insurance gets prohibitively expensive and I would not have been able to afford that either.
I bet this guy wishes he had cut his losses and installed a security system, which would have been cheaper in the long run.
Andy Blozinski
New member
He did install a security system of sorts. He used it to set up the kill.
As our nation developed and evolved (I could say matured, but that part is open for debate ) attitudes, and the laws reflecting them changed.
At one time, it was not just legal, but considered just, and right to use deadly force against someone who stole your property. At one time, people would even band together, and ride down the thieves, shooting them down, unless they were willing to surrender, and face a fair trial and a proper hanging....
Stealing a man's horse was a hanging offense. Rustling cattle was a hanging offense. Shooting dead the guy stealing your wagon full of pelts that you spent all winter getting, and that you were going to live on for the next year or three, was considered ok. And they didn't have to directly threaten your body with a gun (although if they were armed, it was a slam dunk). The theft of significant property, or money was a deadly threat in those days. There was no govt "safety net" to keep people from starving. There was only church charity, and some were so proud as to prefer starving.
Before insurance companies created the social change that led us to where we are today, the life of the criminal (even young ones) was seldom a major concern to the law.
Today, you aren't allowed to shoot someone over mere property (generally). The expectation is that you should have insurance, so let them steal your stuff, insurance will cover replacing it, its not worth someone's life...etc.
WE are still allowed to defend those things that insurance cannot replace (lives), generally, but even that is condoned only within a specific legal framework.
What does this have to do with a guy setting out "bait" so he could shoot a thief? Damn little. That would have been just as wrong back in those old days, too.
) attitudes, and the laws reflecting them changed.At one time, it was not just legal, but considered just, and right to use deadly force against someone who stole your property. At one time, people would even band together, and ride down the thieves, shooting them down, unless they were willing to surrender, and face a fair trial and a proper hanging....
Stealing a man's horse was a hanging offense. Rustling cattle was a hanging offense. Shooting dead the guy stealing your wagon full of pelts that you spent all winter getting, and that you were going to live on for the next year or three, was considered ok. And they didn't have to directly threaten your body with a gun (although if they were armed, it was a slam dunk). The theft of significant property, or money was a deadly threat in those days. There was no govt "safety net" to keep people from starving. There was only church charity, and some were so proud as to prefer starving.
Before insurance companies created the social change that led us to where we are today, the life of the criminal (even young ones) was seldom a major concern to the law.
Today, you aren't allowed to shoot someone over mere property (generally). The expectation is that you should have insurance, so let them steal your stuff, insurance will cover replacing it, its not worth someone's life...etc.
WE are still allowed to defend those things that insurance cannot replace (lives), generally, but even that is condoned only within a specific legal framework.
What does this have to do with a guy setting out "bait" so he could shoot a thief? Damn little. That would have been just as wrong back in those old days, too.
- Status