Quote:
Originally Posted by rbowman
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.
|
I didn't watch the video because I'm on dial-up and it takes forever for me to download a video, but I'm presuming that some guy named Kaarma was setting boobie traps on his property in response to people breaking into his home and stealing stuff.
I think there is a very big difference between "The use of force" and setting boobie traps on your property. I think the law here says that you can use deadly force against someone who you believe is wanting to come onto your property or into your house to commit a serious crime against someone (like rape, murder or armed robbery) or against your property (like arson).
Setting a boobie trap will hurt, cripple or even kill ANYONE that comes onto your property, even a stranded motorist in the winter looking for a warm place to spend the night or local children playing hide-and-seek (perhaps) if the door to the property is inadvertantly left unlocked. So, I don't think setting a boobie trap falls squarely under the definition of "using deadly force against someone". Setting a boobie trap is using deadly force against EVERYONE.
This is another example of where the law judges us not on what we claim we thought or say we knew, but on what a reasonable person in the same situation would have thought, presumed or believed. In this case, a reasonable person would have realized that a boobie trap on his property could injure or kill anyone, even himself if he simply forgot about one of the boobie traps he had set. So, a reasonable person wouldn't set boobie traps on his own property, and that's why Kaarma is on trial.
If Kaarma had set up closed circuit video cameras to monitor his property so that he might be able to identify the people or identify the vehicle driven by the people who were breaking into his house, he wouldn't be on trial here.