The jury is about to decide....

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3945817874001/prosecutors-mont-man-was-setting-up-traps-for-burglars/?playlist_id=921261890001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/mc4jr4e

Check out the guest attorney. I'm in love wink She wears a
beautiful necklace. I bet she looks better in just a pearl necklace.
She sure is smart and intelligent.

On 12/16/2014 07:30 PM, Oren wrote:
The jury is about to decide....

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3945817874001/prosecutors-mont-man-was-setting-up-traps-for-burglars/?playlist_id=921261890001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/mc4jr4e

Check out the guest attorney. I'm in love wink She wears a
beautiful necklace. I bet she looks better in just a pearl necklace.
She sure is smart and intelligent.


Good riddance! One less ****ing thief to worry about. The world will never miss the worthless piece of ****.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:30:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

The jury is about to decide....

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3945817874001/prosecutors-mont-man-was-setting-up-traps-for-burglars/?playlist_id=921261890001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/mc4jr4e

Check out the guest attorney. I'm in love wink She wears a
beautiful necklace. I bet she looks better in just a pearl necklace.
She sure is smart and intelligent.

The only thing wrong with this is Kaarma being tried for the same
thing that happens at my house on Wednesday -- garbage removal.

Gordon Shumway wrote:

The only thing wrong with this is Kaarma being tried for the same
thing that happens at my house on Wednesday -- garbage removal.

Kaarma is being tried for felony stupidity. He's a case study in how not to
take out the garbage.

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 12:33:03 AM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:

The only thing wrong with this is Kaarma being tried for the same
thing that happens at my house on Wednesday -- garbage removal.

Kaarma is being tried for felony stupidity. He's a case study in how not to
take out the garbage.

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....

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.

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.

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.

On 12/17/2014 11:52 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On the other hand, if lots of people did this, it would likely reduce
burglaries, home invasions, etc.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

On 12/17/2014 12:53 PM, Samuel wrote:
On 12/17/2014 11:52 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On the other hand, if lots of people did this, it would likely reduce
burglaries, home invasions, etc.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Or, burglars would pack heat, and shoot
first?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"nestork" wrote in message
...


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).


From what I got out of it, it was not a 'booby trap' as such. He just left
the garage door partly open and waited on the person. From the pix it
looked as if his garage is similar to mine,where if youleave the door open
you can then go inside and open a door to the house.

Not that it was a gun or such set to go off when a door was opened or a wire
was tripped.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

if it is a jury trial,

the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury nullification"

look it up

Mark

On 12/16/2014 6:30 PM, Oren wrote:
The jury is about to decide....

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3945817874001/prosecutors-mont-man-was-setting-up-traps-for-burglars/?playlist_id=921261890001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/mc4jr4e


Kaarma's girlfriend - the one who set up the trap - is a cousin of
mine. So I'm aware of details of this case that the rest of you are
not. In short: they both should have been charged, and they both are
guilty.

He's no law-abiding citizen. They are a couple of pieces of trash, but
Markus' mommy has money. She bought him and his girlfriend an
expensive home in an upscale neighborhood, where they terrorized their
neighbors. They had been burglarized twice previously, which is why
they smarted off about killing the intruder and setting a trap. But
they never called the cops about the burglaries. Point to ponder: when
will a crime victim not report the crime to the cops? Think about it.

The kid Markus murdered was doing a commonplace thing in Montana. He
and his buddy were 'garage hopping' - running into other people's
garages for ****s and giggles. They were on their way to a party
outside of town. They (teenagers, mind you) knew Markus kept beer in
his garage, so they decided to hop in and grab a couple cans on their
way to the party.

They were not the burglars who'd targeted the house previously. Those
burglars (also in their teens) came forward after the killing and told
the cops why they'd hit the house. Hint, hint. Now wonder how a couple
of teens knew what a couple of adults - she's in her thirties, Markus
is in his late twenties - had stashed in their house. Either they were
selling, or they were partying/sharing their drugs with kids. Nice
people, huh? That's the couple you're trying to portray as heroic for
deciding to kill people who swiped their stash.

On 12/17/2014 12:31 PM, wrote:
if it is a jury trial,

the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury nullification"

look it up

Mark

Yeah, look it up. There is no such thing. This is a Sovereign
Citizen/right wing nutjob myth, nothing more.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:18:36 +0100, nestork
wrote:

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.

Story with PDF link to court document:

http://www.krtv.com/news/prosecutors-say-missoula-homeowners-baited-burglar-before-fatal-gunfire/

Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 12/17/2014 12:31 PM, wrote:
if it is a jury trial,

the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury
nullification"

look it up

Mark

Yeah, look it up. There is no such thing. This is a
Sovereign
Citizen/right wing nutjob myth, nothing more.

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:35:38 -0600, Moe DeLoughan
wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:30 PM, Oren wrote:
The jury is about to decide....

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3945817874001/prosecutors-mont-man-was-setting-up-traps-for-burglars/?playlist_id=921261890001#sp=show-clips

https://tinyurl.com/mc4jr4e


Kaarma's girlfriend - the one who set up the trap - is a cousin of
mine. So I'm aware of details of this case that the rest of you are
not. In short: they both should have been charged, and they both are
guilty.

He's no law-abiding citizen. They are a couple of pieces of trash, but
Markus' mommy has money. She bought him and his girlfriend an
expensive home in an upscale neighborhood, where they terrorized their
neighbors. They had been burglarized twice previously, which is why
they smarted off about killing the intruder and setting a trap. But
they never called the cops about the burglaries. Point to ponder: when
will a crime victim not report the crime to the cops? Think about it.

The kid Markus murdered was doing a commonplace thing in Montana. He
and his buddy were 'garage hopping' - running into other people's
garages for ****s and giggles. They were on their way to a party
outside of town. They (teenagers, mind you) knew Markus kept beer in
his garage, so they decided to hop in and grab a couple cans on their
way to the party.

They were not the burglars who'd targeted the house previously. Those
burglars (also in their teens) came forward after the killing and told
the cops why they'd hit the house. Hint, hint. Now wonder how a couple
of teens knew what a couple of adults - she's in her thirties, Markus
is in his late twenties - had stashed in their house. Either they were
selling, or they were partying/sharing their drugs with kids. Nice
people, huh? That's the couple you're trying to portray as heroic for
deciding to kill people who swiped their stash.

Nobody here has tried to "portray" the shooter as a hero. One report
indicates your "cousin" recanted her statement to police, in court...
It sure appears Kaarma was out to shoot somebody.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:58:59 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 12/17/2014 12:31 PM, wrote:
if it is a jury trial,

the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury
nullification"

look it up

Mark

Yeah, look it up. There is no such thing. This is a
Sovereign
Citizen/right wing nutjob myth, nothing more.

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification

Legal "...counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury
nullification to the jury."

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/116/606/611938/

On 12/17/2014 1:20 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/17/2014 12:53 PM, Samuel wrote:
On 12/17/2014 11:52 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On the other hand, if lots of people did this, it would likely reduce
burglaries, home invasions, etc.


Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Or, burglars would pack heat, and shoot
first?


Or, once burglars start taking a few bullets, they'll find a new occupation?

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:22:42 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"nestork" wrote in message
...


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).


From what I got out of it, it was not a 'booby trap' as such. He just left
the garage door partly open and waited on the person. From the pix it
looked as if his garage is similar to mine,where if youleave the door open
you can then go inside and open a door to the house.

Not that it was a gun or such set to go off when a door was opened or a wire
was tripped.


Which shows why it's better to do some googling, before making assumptions.

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:12:27 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:58:59 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 12/17/2014 12:31 PM, wrote:
if it is a jury trial,

the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury
nullification"

look it up

Mark

Yeah, look it up. There is no such thing. This is a
Sovereign
Citizen/right wing nutjob myth, nothing more.

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification

Legal "...counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury
nullification to the jury."

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/116/606/611938/

Which would be a rather strange thing, if it were in fact a "right".
Juries can do it on their own, but it's not a right in the constitution or codifed in the law. As further proof it's not a right, judges give
juries instructions on the law, what they need to find to convict or
acquit, what they can and cannot consider. I'd
like to see one example where the judge told the jury they have the
right to chuck the law and use "nullification". For those that think
this is a right, I'm curious. Is it only a right to nullify and acquit?
Or can they nullify and convict too? I guess that would be defined in
the law that covers nullification, but somehow I think there is no such law.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:30:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

The jury is about to decide....

The jury decided. He was convicted of deliberate homicide.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/befb9...tudent-killing

"Cheers erupted in the packed courtroom when the verdict was read..."

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:43:28 -0500, Don Wiss
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:30:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

The jury is about to decide....

The jury decided. He was convicted of deliberate homicide.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/befb9...tudent-killing

"Cheers erupted in the packed courtroom when the verdict was read..."


Thanks.

Justice WAS "swift and certain"... in this case.

"MISSOULA - After over 9 hours of deliberation, a jury of 12 decided
Markus Kaarma is guilty of murdering 17-year-old Diren Dede.

In their decision, jurors agreed with prosecutors that Kaarma lured
Dede into the garage on April 27 and shot him out of residual anger
from a prior burglary."

http://www.kulr8.com/story/27643241/breaking-markus-kaarma-guilty-not-guilty-of-murder

IMO, Kaarma was looking for trouble. He's got some now.
--
'...we don't wanna bring our guns, but ready if it goes there -- Madison Rising

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:10:52 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:43:28 -0500, Don Wiss
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:30:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

The jury is about to decide....

The jury decided. He was convicted of deliberate homicide.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/befb9...tudent-killing

"Cheers erupted in the packed courtroom when the verdict was read..."


Thanks.

Justice WAS "swift and certain"... in this case.

"MISSOULA - After over 9 hours of deliberation, a jury of 12 decided
Markus Kaarma is guilty of murdering 17-year-old Diren Dede.

In their decision, jurors agreed with prosecutors that Kaarma lured
Dede into the garage on April 27 and shot him out of residual anger
from a prior burglary."

http://www.kulr8.com/story/27643241/breaking-markus-kaarma-guilty-not-guilty-of-murder

IMO, Kaarma was looking for trouble. He's got some now.
--
'...we don't wanna bring our guns, but ready if it goes there -- Madison Rising

Too bad the victime wasn't black. Maybe then it would appease the
race baiters that want a conviction.

On 12/17/2014 4:10 PM, Oren wrote:
In their decision, jurors agreed with prosecutors that Kaarma lured
Dede into the garage on April 27 and shot him out of residual anger
from a prior burglary."

WTF?
I have driven by a bazillion open garage doors in my lifetime.
Not once was I ever tempted to enter and steal something.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
Check out the guest attorney. I'm in love wink She wears a
beautiful necklace. I bet she looks better in just a pearl necklace.
She sure is smart and intelligent.

Did you **** her mother?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 19:09:39 -0500, Joe Lowbrow wrote:

On 12/17/2014 4:10 PM, Oren wrote:
In their decision, jurors agreed with prosecutors that Kaarma lured
Dede into the garage on April 27 and shot him out of residual anger
from a prior burglary."

WTF?
I have driven by a bazillion open garage doors in my lifetime.
Not once was I ever tempted to enter and steal something.

I'm proud of you. Open doors are for honest people

trader_4 wrote:

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

They did, deliberate homicide. That's the top shelf charge, a minimum of 10
years, maximum of 100 in the state penitentiary. Mitigated deliberate
homicide (2 years minimum) or negligent homicide (max of $50,000 fine or 20
years max) might have been a safer charge, but the prosecutor went all out.

As a footnote, this is a state where even most of the liberal Democrats have
a firearm and most castle doctrine cases don't even go to trial. He just did
too many stupid things, but as I said there's no statute for felonious
stupidity.

wrote:

if it is a jury trial,

the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury nullification"

look it up

It was a jury trial and he was found guilty of deliberate homicide. We know
all about jury nullification in Montana and aren't afraid to use it. We also
are familiar with firearms and don't think much of blasting away at
something you can't even see let alone know if it's an immediate threat.

Moe DeLoughan wrote:

Kaarma's girlfriend - the one who set up the trap - is a cousin of
mine. So I'm aware of details of this case that the rest of you are
not. In short: they both should have been charged, and they both are
guilty.

I guess she has a mouth on her. She recanted some of her original story but
I got the impression she was standing next to him beforeshe went in to turn
on the garage lights so he could see what he was shooting at.

they never called the cops about the burglaries. Point to ponder: when
will a crime victim not report the crime to the cops? Think about it.

Supposedly they did call the cops and the cop told them keeping their doors
and garage locked was a good idea if they didn't want to be robbed. Instead
they baited the trap...

Oren wrote:

IMO, Kaarma was looking for trouble. He's got some now.

Deer Lodge is sort of bleak this time of year. On the plus side, a lot of
people donate horse hair when they clip the manes and tails so the inmates
can make nice watch fobs and stuff to sell in the gift shop. I'll have to
take a ride out next summer and see if Kaarma has learned to braid. There's
a nice auto museum too.

trader_4 wrote:

Too bad the victime wasn't black. Maybe then it would appease the
race baiters that want a conviction.

Better yet, while the kid was described as a German exchange student, he was
of Turkish parentage and a Moslem. It surprised me to read that a local imam
did whatever you do to fead Moslems. I didn't even know there was a imam in
town.

Joe Lowbrow wrote:

I have driven by a bazillion open garage doors in my lifetime.
Not once was I ever tempted to enter and steal something.

When I was a kid, our garage door was open and someone stole my balloon
tired 24" bicycle. It didn't exactly call for the Hardy Boys to find the
bike and the thief. I retrieved the bike and knocked the thief on his ass.
Then I caught hell because poor little Dougie had TB and it wasn't nice to
beat on lungers. Justice, American style.

nestork wrote:

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.

He had some sort of monitor and detected motion in the garage. So he grabbed
his 12 gauge pump, went out in the dark, and shot the **** out of his garage
and house. After the third shot, he sent the girlfriend in to turn on the
lights, and managed to hit the kid on the fourth shot.

The problem is that statute says there has to be a threat to yourself or
some other person present, or a forceful felony in progress before you start
shooting. When you can't see what you're shooting at, whether or not it's a
threat is hard to establish.

Shooting your mouth off beforehand doesn't help either.

Most castle doctrine or no retreat shootings don't even go to court here but
this guy did so many things wrong it offended the public sensibility of the
right way to shoot burglars.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:40:21 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

Oren wrote:

IMO, Kaarma was looking for trouble. He's got some now.

Deer Lodge is sort of bleak this time of year. On the plus side, a lot of
people donate horse hair when they clip the manes and tails so the inmates
can make nice watch fobs and stuff to sell in the gift shop. I'll have to
take a ride out next summer and see if Kaarma has learned to braid. There's
a nice auto museum too.

The guy can't walk into prison an declare or decide where he works
during the week or even his work hours. He has no say in where he
sleeps, either. I had a convicted Congressman [ABSCAM] clean pubic
hairs around toilets in federal prison. One time I performed a
sidewalk miracle and a crook threw down his crutches. Just to get a
phone call.

If you do travel, tell Kaarma there is "no good chain gang". Explain
to him that he can "learn a lot" of good things in prison.
--
"You can not rehabilitate a person that has never been habilitated!"
-- Convict Guard 101

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:28:42 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

As a footnote, this is a state where even most of the liberal Democrats have
a firearm and most castle doctrine cases don't even go to trial. He just did
too many stupid things, but as I said there's no statute for felonious
stupidity.

AMEN!

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:55:59 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

When you can't see what you're shooting at, whether or not it's a
threat is hard to establish.

.... " when you see the "white in their eyes". Fire your weapon at
center mass, three taps, Kaarma must not understand.

My kill policy is to look a heathen creature in the eyes directly
before popping a cap in his ass. He gets to know me. Never had to
shoot when words worked. I could always puncture his jugular vein
twice at the neck in hand to hand

Meet force with force! Fight fire with fire. Go fishing, drink an
adult beverage. Have the bride make you a samich.
--
"Never accuse a Soldier of being a Marine"

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:55:18 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
nestork wrote:

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.

He had some sort of monitor and detected motion in the garage. So he grabbed
his 12 gauge pump, went out in the dark, and shot the **** out of his garage
and house. After the third shot, he sent the girlfriend in to turn on the
lights, and managed to hit the kid on the fourth shot.

The problem is that statute says there has to be a threat to yourself or
some other person present, or a forceful felony in progress before you start
shooting. When you can't see what you're shooting at, whether or not it's a
threat is hard to establish.

I think we both agree that the jury got it right. But the law does
say that it has to be either a threat *or* a foreceable felony. Burglary
itself is a forceable felony. I wasn't sure about that, but checked after
you posted the law. I didn't look at MT law specifically, but state law
in general said burglary was included.

But regarding that aspect, the law, as you posted, says:

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


Which gives the jury the job of determining if deadly force was necessary
to prevent what was occuring. I think we agree it was not. There is
also the question as to whether the garage qualifies as part of the
occupied structure. It certainly wasn't occupied until he went in there
after the motion detector went off.



Shooting your mouth off beforehand doesn't help either.

I also saw where the lawn service guy testified that a week earlier,
while he was mowing the lawn, Kaarma came out naked, holding a shot
gun, asked him what he was doing there, then walked off mumbing about
him be "lucky".....



Most castle doctrine or no retreat shootings don't even go to court here but
this guy did so many things wrong it offended the public sensibility of the
right way to shoot burglars.

+1

wrote in message
...
if it is a jury trial,
the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury nullification"

This is one of the most fascinating subjects in American jurisprudence.
It's something that everyone ever likely to serve on a jury should know
about because it's something you're not likely to be told about it by either
the judge or attorneys in a case. It's usually grounds for a mistrial if a
lawyer tries to inform a jury about their rights to nullify.

Unfortunately there's an incredible amount of misinformation on the web
regarding the subject.

One site that attempts to cut through the BS

http://fija.org/2014/02/18/jury-null...-wont-be-told/

points out that JN is still alive and well in the US:

In just the past couple of years, we have seen juries refuse to convict
a.. farmers on licensing violations related to raw milk,
b.. political activists for offenses related to their right to free
speech,
c.. numerous defendants for marijuana and other victimless drug
violations,
d.. a man who mistakenly had a firearm in his glove box when he traveled
to Manhattan and was pulled over for turning right on red,
e.. a man who admitted to punching a priest who he accused of sexually
abusing him and his brother 40 years before
There are a lot of misconceptions floating about concerning jury
nullification, but it's a legitimate tool that has been used often in US
history and is in large part one of the reasons for the repeal of the the
Thirteenth Amendment (Prohibition) because juries refused to convict their
neighbors for having a drink. JN is a minefield however, where First
Amendment rights don't necessarily apply. Educate your fellow jurors about
JN during a trial and the judge can remove you from the jury.

Once on a jury, we do recommend that unless you are very confident in the
sympathies of your fellow jurors (or you are in New Hampshire), do not
discuss jury nullification with your fellow jurors. While jurors cannot be
punished for their verdicts, jurors can be removed from the jury-even as
late as deliberations-if they indicate that they are intending to nullify.
Jurors cannot, however, be removed for expressing doubt about the defendant
being guilty.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ification.html
says:
Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late
1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7
to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the
defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification
power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in
fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges
instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to
them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states
are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law
of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their
closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right,
when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a
verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her
intention to vote to nullify the law.

JN is making a comeback in the area of medicinal marijuana. Several states
have very clear rules regarding JN but by and large, neither judges or
attorneys for either side are permitted to discuss JN with jurors. It's
something jurors should know BEFORE they're seated and even then, it's easy
to end up in trouble if you don't say the right things at voir di

http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_surviving_voir_dire.pdf

As you can imagine, since it challenges the authority of judges, they're not
happy with anyone knowing about how much power jurors actually can wield.
In most cases a jury decides only issues of fact with the judge deciding
legal issues. In JN states, the jury gets to decide both issues of fact AND
of law.

--

Bobby G.

On Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:43:55 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message
...
if it is a jury trial,
the jury should be informed of their rights of "jury nullification"

This is one of the most fascinating subjects in American jurisprudence.
It's something that everyone ever likely to serve on a jury should know
about because it's something you're not likely to be told about it by either
the judge or attorneys in a case. It's usually grounds for a mistrial if a
lawyer tries to inform a jury about their rights to nullify.

Unfortunately there's an incredible amount of misinformation on the web
regarding the subject.

One site that attempts to cut through the BS

http://fija.org/2014/02/18/jury-null...-wont-be-told/

points out that JN is still alive and well in the US:

In just the past couple of years, we have seen juries refuse to convict
a.. farmers on licensing violations related to raw milk,
b.. political activists for offenses related to their right to free
speech,
c.. numerous defendants for marijuana and other victimless drug
violations,
d.. a man who mistakenly had a firearm in his glove box when he traveled
to Manhattan and was pulled over for turning right on red,
e.. a man who admitted to punching a priest who he accused of sexually
abusing him and his brother 40 years before
There are a lot of misconceptions floating about concerning jury
nullification, but it's a legitimate tool that has been used often in US
history and is in large part one of the reasons for the repeal of the the
Thirteenth Amendment (Prohibition) because juries refused to convict their
neighbors for having a drink. JN is a minefield however, where First
Amendment rights don't necessarily apply. Educate your fellow jurors about
JN during a trial and the judge can remove you from the jury.

Once on a jury, we do recommend that unless you are very confident in the
sympathies of your fellow jurors (or you are in New Hampshire), do not
discuss jury nullification with your fellow jurors. While jurors cannot be
punished for their verdicts, jurors can be removed from the jury-even as
late as deliberations-if they indicate that they are intending to nullify.
Jurors cannot, however, be removed for expressing doubt about the defendant
being guilty.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ification.html
says:
Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late
1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7
to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the
defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification
power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in
fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges
instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to
them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states
are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law
of the case.


I'd like to see examples of where that is done, ie where the judge instructs
the jury that they can also judge the law itself.


Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their
closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right,
when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a
verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her
intention to vote to nullify the law.


Which is why I'd like to see the examples of where juries are actually
told that they cn do it and what law it's based on. Until then, I say
nullification is something juries can do and have done, but it's not a
"right".