Montana: Man charged in death of intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Minn. case is clearly murder. Not saying that *I* would vote to convict if I was on the jury; not sure what I'd do.

The Missoula case is perhaps a closer call, but murder is still certainly the right charge, and a fair inference.

By all means, if you *do* do this, don't talk to the police ever. But don't do this - don't commit, ya know, murder. By all means shoot a $%^#$ in your house if you're in a make-my-day state, and you have even the *slightest* inkling of aggressiveness or weapon. But don't set traps, don't talk about it to anyone, before or after, and don't shoot people in the back or if they're clearly down and out of the fight.

Fercripessake folks, I'm an agnostic and the biggest self-defense believer that ever came down the pike - but I have the morality to see that what these guys are doing is very morally wrong (assuming the reported facts are true). And even if not immoral (since that is a relative and varying definition), it's definitely illegal in all states.... except maybe Texas, where shooting a thief in the act at night is legal. This crap makes gun owners look bad.
 
Last edited:
With all the new information coming in on this case (the intruders had burglarized other homes, the pocketbook was out of sight, the garage door was open for ventilation, there was a baby in the house, and the marijuana angle), this is going to be a tough case to try. I think a lot will depend on the juror's perception of the homeowner's fear, as well as the definition of "garage".

Certainly if unknown intruders had illegally entered the house through an unlocked back door or a window in the middle of the night, there is a presumption of threat that would justify deadly force. So is the garage the same as the house? I can see the prosecutors arguing that the garage is not the occupied house in that there is a barrier (door) between the garage and the house and therefore there was no imminent threat to the occupants of the house. But then can't the same be said if someone entered through a laundry room?

Prosecutors will note that the garage door was left open, but is that any different than an unlocked door? Many people don't lock their doors. They will say the garage door was left open to lure in a thief, but that will be difficult to prove as the homeowner says it was for ventilation.

Prosecutors may also argue that other options existed such as retreat, but Castle Doctrine does not require you to take such options. Then there is the issue of whether the homeowner was on drugs at the time of the shooting, and the presence of other innocents in the house, including a baby, and the homeowner's alleged statement that he was waiting to shoot a kid.

The jury will have it's hands full with this case, and the outcome will likely hinge on whether the jurors believe the homeowner reasonably felt threatened when all factors are weighed, and whether he provoked the confrontation. In many states, provoking or escalating a confrontation nullifies the self defense argument

Personally I would not have shot someone in my garage, even at night, because I would not feel threatened as they are on the other side of a locked door, but if they tried to enter my home that's a different story. The jurors may see it differently here, especially in Montana. It will be an interesting case to follow.

Tom NJ/VA
 
Last edited:
Setting traps is not a good idea and some states have laws against it .After all what happens if a curious 6 year old get into the trap ?
I think I saw this in the British paper www.dailymail.co.uk , the student was part of a group who were "garage hopping" -going into an area and breaking into garages and stealing things.
It's always my habit to read the first stories but then come back a week or two and find more of the facts.
 
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.


It is not understandable. Stuff is not worth killing over! Laying a trap for some kid is the act of a madman, not someone trying defend their property. Here is another way to handle this; lock your garage!
 
8mm mauser said:
Stuff is not worth killing over!

So why was one of my first special orders as a 17 year old army PFC "Deadly force is authorized to prevent removal of material from this location" ?

Seems that some stuff IS worth having even children kill over it.
 
So why was one of my first special orders as a 17 year old army PFC "Deadly force is authorized to prevent removal of material from this location" ?
There's a difference between a soldier guarding military property and a civilian laying traps to indiscriminately mete out revenge.
 
The article made it clear that the home owner fired the gun - this wasn't some kind of wired shotgun trap. The shooting was wrong, or at best questionable. Even when hunting animals, setting "food" traps to shoot the animal while he's eating your molasses-coated corn meal is generally illegal. Doing something similar to hunt down a human is going to be even more repugnant.

This doesn't mean I feel sorry for the thief. Thieves usually get what they deserve - a bunch of worthless stuff and a very short or unhappy life.
 
I have to wonder how opinions would be affected/changed if in fact it was not a trap (Which, from what I have been able to read it was) and he just fired in to the garage only later to find out it was a group of 7 ~ 10 year old children playing?

What ever happened to clearly identify your target?
 
The information about marijuana being in the home doesn't change the facts of what happened. It may, however shed some light on the motivation, and frustration level of the homeowner. Which does not change anything, other than our understanding of WHY...

Illegal drugs are something that insurance will not replace or cover. And the police are just not real sympathetic if you call them and report someone stole your dope....in fact, if the thieves did get it all, you can count on the cops getting the rest of it (and everything else that goes with that...)
:rolleyes:

Given that statements were made that, essentially, "I'm going to shoot the next kid who breaks in..." this implies strongly it was a premeditated act, and NOT self defense.

Other things will come out at trial, and it might be a tricky call for the jury, based on them. Based on what's been reported so far, I see a slam dunk guilty, but , I've been wrong before...
 
I have to wonder how opinions would be affected/changed if in fact it was not a trap (Which, from what I have been able to read it was) and he just fired in to the garage only later to find out it was a group of 7 ~ 10 year old children playing?

What ever happened to clearly identify your target?

I'm pretty sure we've all convicted him of incredible stupidity and poor adherence to The Four Rules in the Superior Court of The Firing Line. It's up to the Missoula court to decide the rest. We're all already improperly influenced.
 
The information about marijuana being in the home doesn't change the facts of what happened. It may, however shed some light on the motivation, and frustration level of the homeowner.

It may also add some charges, and make it that much harder to get out from under the charges he's already facing.
 
So why was one of my first special orders as a 17 year old army PFC "Deadly force is authorized to prevent removal of material from this location" ?



Seems that some stuff IS worth having even children kill over it.



Perhaps in the opinion of the federal government, your boss at the time it is worth killing over. However, there is a drastic difference here: first, that is a soldier guarding government owned items. Second, I bet your CO didn't lay a trap for some 17 year kids to wander into so you could shoot him.

The two things are not at all similar.

I can say that I would not shoot someone for
Stealing my TV. Who cares, there are other
TVs. This guy was clearly freaking out because he was afraid a thief would find his weed. That's all. I wonder if it will be worth it for him to only know his young child from behind bars?
 
so,it sounds like you are saying "it's ok for the government to murder", but not a civilian??? I would be against killing a innocent person, but clearly someone entering your home, or garage at night is not innocent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top