On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:08:12 AM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

It will be interesting to see what the jury verdict is in this
case. I think a lot will depend on the specific wording of the
MT statute and the judge's instructions on the law to the jury.
I have to agree, the defendant isn't the sharpest tool in the shed....

"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."


The two conditional clauses are the sticking point. Jury seelction must have
been interesting. Missoula County is arguably the most liberal county in the
state so the lawyers had to thread there way between the anti-gun crowd that
would hang him on general principles and the shooters who would want to hang
him because he violated about every point of firearms safety and raised
questions about the castle doctrine and no retreat laws.

The jurors recessed last night but I doubt it will drag on too long. They
need to do their Christmas shopping. I don't know how much latitude they
have but I don't see Kaarma walking away completely clean.

From reading those clauses and what I know of the circumstances from
the media, I would think they'd probably find him guilty.

IMO, it wouldn't be a bad idea to add another section to such laws
that say something to the effect that the defense exceptions don't apply
if you've deliberately created a scenario with the intent of then using
force against someone. From what I've read, it sure sounds like that's what
the defendant did.

On the other hand, if lots of people did this, it would likely reduce
burglaries, home invasions, etc.