It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eerily familiar...German officials say exchange student's killing in Mont. 'out of proportion'

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tidnabnilims
a reply to: Meee32

Answer the question, or do you not have the conviction in the many words you have typed ?

I can give you a yes or no one to answer if you prefer, it puts you in a similar situation you are in now.

So, have you stopped beating your wife ?


Ha... yeah that's right... I have respect for people and THEIR rights but I guess I must be a wife beater... Bloody moron... It's already been answered twice btw, I said the first time their dad deserved a whoopin, what part of that didn't you get?

Now fancy answering me with your addy? Me and the kids need a good game of wall ball, we'll use your car as the wall... Most likely you don't have a car or anything. So you are bitter at people that do... I bet you key nice looking cars don't you... I bet you just hate seeing people with things you don't have...
edit on 4-5-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You know what the police here will tell you when you're breaking the law and get caught?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.

The burglar was ignorant of the law, which states the property owner may defend his property with deadly force. That he was unaware that he may be shot and killed on sight for breaking and entering, is no excuse for his actions and no defense for being killed. Why is this logic only ever working in favor of the police, when they take advantage of unwary citizens, but when a citizen defends his rights and those rights are backed up by very clear laws, there is an uproar over a thieving "youth" getting shot and killed as a result of his blatant and ignorant-of-the-law actions?

Police get a week's vacation for killing perps. Citizens get hounded, vilified and imprisoned. Why the disparity in treatment? I think it's been made exceptionally clear that Officers are not pristine models of society. The evidence is clear in this case. I'm almost amused that the German consulate thinks their citizens are immune from prosecution for breaking laws in other nations. If our court system won't support Citizens when they uphold their rights and act within the confines of their laws, why do these laws exist in the first place? Germany can get stuffed. Don't come to the U.S. if you think we're going to be soft on home invasions. They may love their immigrant rapists and burglars, subsidize their housing and welfare in the name of "progression", but that doesn't fly here. Expect to return with a few solid slugs embedded in you in that casket on your return back.

With the exception of the delusional leftists on ATS, I don't think there's a single person who would not be willing to protect their family and themselves from a home invader, regardless of who they are and where they are from. If someone is breaking into your home, it's safe to say they are up to no good, and it can be assumed they are armed and dangerous. Should we, as law abiding citizens not also be armed and prepared to defend ourselves? Or does anyone here think that burglars just want to share milk and cookies?



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

So, yes, you would assault someone for their small child (8-12) scuffing the paint on your car.

That is a disproportionate response that escalates to violence fairly quickly, I suggest you should seek some form of anger management or therapy before you do someone harm.

Also, you should read the edits of my post and understand the basics of what I am saying to you, I did not believe you a wife/partner/horse/peter abuser, the question was to make you understand the situation you had placed yourself in with your argument.

'Yes', garners the above response that you are disproportionately violent in response to a given scenario, which is true.

'No', would have garnered the response that you had typed a load of bluster that you did not stand by, and thus should be shushied from now on.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Tidnabnilims because: Point being, you backed yourself into a corner, unlucky, but good game, good game, nice to see you to see you nice

edit on 4-5-2014 by Tidnabnilims because: I dont own a car by the way, you can scratch my trainers if you want though, if it will help you feel better



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss

Nope apparently your property means nothing! I mean if I kick your door in it's just a door! You can't commit violence over a mere door. Once I am in I mean your TV is just a TV... If I take it it's no big deal... Oh and you see the cops will come shortly after I'm gone to tell you that nothing can do done okay? That should make you feel better! Lol...



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tidnabnilims
a reply to: Meee32

So, yes, you would assault someone for their small child (8-12) scuffing the paint on your car.

That is a disproportionate response that escalates to violence fairly quickly, I suggest you should seek some form of anger management or therapy before you do someone harm.

Also, you should read the edits of my post and understand the basics of what I am saying to you, I did not believe you a wife/partner/horse/peter abuser, the question was to make you understand the situation you had placed yourself in with your argument.

'Yes', garners the above response that you are disproportionately violent in response to a given scenario, which is true.

'No', would have garnered the response that you had typed a load of bluster that you did not stand by, and thus should be shushied from now on.


No you see you are only trying to twist things... This isn't about scuffing... Have you seen the damage? I also said if the lads had just stopped then problem solved. If they had caused damage at that point I would expect the parents to be coughing up for the repairs... If all that goes well it's all good no?

But no... that is NOT what happend... In the scenario I told you about he deserved a whooping!



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Meee32

Your first mistake was making an anecdote your argument, and your second, third, fourth and I assume you are gonna keep going ?
edit on 4-5-2014 by Tidnabnilims because: I do like cars by the way, just cant afford to run one at the moment with the price of fuel.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tidnabnilims
a reply to: Meee32

Your first mistake was making an anecdote your argument, and your second, third, fourth and I assume you are gonna keep going ?


You found my story amusing? Or you found it to not be true? What part of my story makes it an "anecdote"? Please enlighten me? Also during my "anecdote" you seem to ignore the fact their dad came to my house to basically threaten violence because I dared ask his kids play somewhere else... But that is okay to you right?

That is amusing to you?

The mistake you made is defending criminals... And finding it funny when people come up against anti-social behaviour...



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Meee32


any short tale utilized to emphasize or illustrate whatever point the author wished to make


Yes, an anecdote. You understand it requires neither falsification nor the readers amusement to be one, right ?



He desereved a whoopin! 1 for letting his kids do it in the first place and then 2 for coming to my house to give me grief!


So the primary reason (you used numbers, telling) for your violent response, would be the children's behaviour, and your secondary, the man shouting. Would you have thrown the first punch then ? Would that be justified ?

Also I'm not defending criminals, but pointing out what a disproportionate response is.

I believe you made the correct response earlier in your posts, that the damage should be paid for had they been caught.

They were not because of a lack of evidence (your words) and unfortunately thats how it goes sometimes.

Had any violence occured then there would be more evidence and as a more serious crime had taken place more time and resources would be given to that.

Nothing in your tale would justify a vigilante beating though, or a return to mob justice, and the wild west.



edit on 4-5-2014 by Tidnabnilims because: Or putting 4 shells in someone robbing your garage, after baiting them in and waiting for the opportunity to yeehaw.

edit on 4-5-2014 by Tidnabnilims because: sp.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Tidnabnilims


edit on 4-5-2014 by Tidnabnilims because: dbl



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Sorry but carrying a gun is not the same thing as being in your own home, waking up in the middle of the night and finding a criminal in your garage with unknown intent. This guy wasn't at the mall shopping for chocolates. He was at home in a presumably locked house.


Actually.. Yes.. It IS like being at home. In the key elements you *MUST MEET* if you want to do anything but start down the path of a murder case of your own, you'll have to meet each one. That varies by state and it varies by circumstance.

For instance...if I see someone committing a rape in a back alley as I'm walking by....under our law, I need not even speak a warning. I can, if I so desire, walk up behind the guy and end his life on the spot. So says the law where it concerns a sexual assault in progress for the defense of others. That applies, not just due to it being listed as a special area, but because it meets the burden of 'Reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury'.

If I'm a little old lady and an 18 year old walks up and shoves me while demanding money and menacing in a physically threatening way? Well...He won't reach 19 and there are some old ladies who have done just that in Missouri. God Bless 'em. If..however...*I*, as a 40 year old man, am approached in that same way and nothing else has happened? If I do what Grandma did, I'm going to prison for the better part of my life for murder.

Threat of great bodily harm is subjective ..as it's meant to be. Just so that scenario can legally adapt between the frail lady and me as the victim.

AT HOME? What has changed? Only ONE thing, really.. I have Castle Doctrine on my side. I CAN.. TECHNICALLY..shoot someone on sight and explain later that I was in legitimate fear of my life at the moment I fired. I will likely never get to a trial phase from it. I'll live with the fact I murdered someone though..and that can be far worse.

Home or Not... You still *MUST* show *SOME* element of belief that you felt an immediate threat existed. You can't simply play gotcha by the rule book and, with an arbitrary line drawn, "Gotcha" someone with 12 gauge rounds as their first indication that anyone was even there, let alone having been reacting or threatening to.

So.. No.. There IS NO legal 'freebie' to kill another person on ONLY the basis of trespass. Close...and yes, you can word the report later to make it work under current laws. You need only know HOW to word it and never contradict that in the future..ever..even a little. Once.

I find it easier just to live with the effort of doing no harm..unless I'm left with no viable options. This man ambushed the kid and he likely ended his own productive life at the moment he ended the kids. A double tragedy, in the end.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FuZe7

well hes turkish but peoples ethnicity should not be a factor in determining guilt or innocence ,NOW if karma was of Armenian decent or some other culture that may have a problem with turks THEN race may have been a factor.but i dont think the dead kid being Turkish had any thing to do with nor should it factor into this case least in my opinion



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
i support gun rights and all but the problem i see in this case is the fact that they left the garage open on purpose and baited the criminal with their own things then shot blindly, that is premeditation to murder if you ask me not self defense.

for all you know this kid might have merely been walking by and saw the purse so he went in to get it to return it and warn them that the garage was open. i bet the real culprit is probably still out there robbing other people.
edit on 5-5-2014 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

rules won't save your life or protect anyone though, when a stranger breaks in most people become afraid and only think about survival not the rules or laws. that kind of thinking is naive and costs many their lives or others lives, see the thing is that i and many others would rather face prison time than death.

but as for this case i don't see it as self defense at all since they invited someone into their property just to catch and kill them, that is illegal for cops to do such a thing and the general public is no exception to that law either.

without a reason to fear for your life killing someone is just murder.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
www.bbc.com... bbc article on the issue

Mr Kaarma, a 29-year-old firefighter, has told investigators his home had twice been hit by burglars, and he told a hair stylist he had waited up at night to shoot intruders, prosecutors said. On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police. They set up motion sensors and a video monitor, prosecutors said. When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times. It is unclear what the teenager was doing inside in the garage. Mr Kaarma's lawyer said his client planned to plead not guilty. The state allows residents to protect their homes with deadly force when they believe they are going to be harmed, said his lawyer, Paul Ryan. "We know with no question the individual entered the garage," Mr Ryan said. "Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed." He said that there had been a spate of break-ins in the neighbourhood and Mr Kaarma did not think the police were doing anything about them.

ingunowners.com... 14 pages from a gun owners forum and from ar15 forums www.ar15.com...&page=1
of note the last post on ar 15 has a photo of the teen in the garage with a flashlight on the other side of the car that i had not seen in any other links

www.googlepixel.com...

www.independent.co.uk... from the independent

i think something alot of people are overlooking is the german boy was not alone,some american kid was with him and mt has the felony murder law(not sure how its actually phrased) so if it comes out the other kid either told him to go into the garage,that it was normal or had a part in it that other un-named person could in theory be charged with murder
edit on 5-5-2014 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2014 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
helenair.com... another link from helena press talking about the second boy with the german teen ,i wanna know why we havent heard anything from this kid on the matter....i mean he may know why the kid was there or what they were up to......yet we have seen no evidence of what staments hes made perhaps they are waiting for trial



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Well this case is strangely familiar to the other one where the guy waited for the teen intruders and killed them and was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Wonder how this one will turn out.

Source



MISSOULA, Mont. – The German consulate called for justice Wednesday after a homeowner fired four blasts from a shotgun into his garage, killing a 17-year-old exchange student who was inside.

The investigation into the killing of Diren Dede of Hamburg should make clear that it is illegal to kill an unarmed juvenile just because he was trespassing, said Julia Reinhardt, spokeswoman for the consulate in San Francisco.


Here is the part that makes it so familiar:



It is not clear what Diren Dede was doing in Markus Kaarma's garage just before the shooting early Sunday morning. Prosecutors allege the 29-year-old wildland firefighter shot into his garage without warning after an intruder tripped sensors he had installed.

Just days before, Kaarma told a woman that his house had been burglarized twice and he had been waiting up nights to shoot an intruder, court records said.

Kaarma's attorney, Paul Ryan, said his client plans to plead not guilty to a charge of deliberate homicide because Montana law allows homeowners to protect their residences with deadly force when they believe they are going to be harmed.


So he installed sensors and waited for the intruder to break in again and shot him.

I really don't have a problem with this. You know, if people would quit doing bad things then bad things would not happen to them. The kid was somewhere he should not have been doing something he should not have been doing. If you are going to take a risk, then understand this could be the outcome....pretty simple logic to me, but it seems plenty fail to see this logic at all.


Exactly. So he installed sensors that alerted him, that makes the shooting a homicide? I'd say it give the homeowner a slight advantage to defend himself form someone who was INSIDE HIS HOME. I guess the liberal gun-grabbers have enlisted the German consulate to do their dirty work and blame the victim of the home invasion because he didn't do the polite thing and die at the hands of the criminal.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
helenair.com... another link from helena press talking about the second boy with the german teen ,i wanna know why we havent heard anything from this kid on the matter....i mean he may know why the kid was there or what they were up to......yet we have seen no evidence of what staments hes made perhaps they are waiting for trial


As is typical in cases like this, the media only reports the parts of the story that would help them exploit their anti-gun agenda.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere


(sigh)


rules won't save your life or protect anyone though, when a stranger breaks in most people become afraid and only think about survival not the rules or laws. that kind of thinking is naive and costs many their lives or others lives, see the thing is that i and many others would rather face prison time than death.


That 'naive' thinking is how we DO NOT have the "wild west" shootouts down main street that plenty predicted would happen, to various degrees, when states opened CCW in a realistic way years ago.

The application and following of rules is how you CAN shoot someone in defense and NOT end your own life by prison at the same time you end the criminal or aggressors life in defense.

If one isn't aware of the rules or just ignores them, that leads to the charges that end 2 lives, not just 1. This man in Montana is learning that, it seems, in a very unfortunate way.

The thing is...If he'd done any of a half dozen little things differently? It would have BEEN justified on the face of it and as a self evident thing. He didn't tho...he just thought this up, set it up and did it with the first one to cross his line in the sand.
edit on 5-5-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

they didnt invite any one in,they left property in plain sight in their own garage ,and of note cops can and will use bait to arrest you,see video recording of drug buying(where they sell you fake drugs or get you to admit on tape to wanting to buy said drugs,they also leave what are refered to as bait cars out in hopes that some one would steal them so they can later be arrested as car thieves......or prostitution stings where in some cases the officer can actualy sleep with the hooker and then arrest her after they pay him or her


people keep saying traps are illegal in the home and they are half right,if he rigged the shotgun to go off on its own yes thats an illegal man trap,but setting up an alarm and surveillance and leaving a door open with valuables in pain sight is not illegal least not yet.non injuring traps are legal in some states such as tear gas or blank shotgunshells rigged to go off on trip wire to alert of tress passers the part where the law is drawn on the matter is if the trap has the ability to injure maim or seriously hurt.

now if he dug a hole in his front yard covered it with 50 dollar bills on a tarp and some kid fell into it that would be an example of an illegal man trap ,the same goes for if he riggs a gun or other device to go off and injure some one who breaks in a window or kicks in a door that would be an example of a very illegal man trap and part of the reason the law was written as to protect people from being hurt by autonomous devices (ie you set up a dumb shotgun trap cop comes over to ask you questions or thinks your hurt and enters the house and thus is shot by the trap)


now if he had set up tear gas or marking(designed to put ink or other marking agent that is non toxic on the person who breaks in for later identification,see UV dye in most pepper sprays or bank dye packs ) traps he would have also been legally in the right (as long as he did not use marking agents that inflict harm or grievous bodily injury)


content.time.com... for refrence here is one of the ONLY cases where a man using a trap rigged to a shotgun was NOT charged(honestly nto sure why my self) but later lost out in a civil suit en.wikipedia.org... due to time being subscription based i provided the wiki as well

www.defensedevices.com... here is a legal "booby trap" (check state laws on tear gas possession/pepper spray first)

www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us... texas law on the matter



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Update it seems that the details of the previous robberies were revealed. both times he was robbed previously he had his pot and pipes stolen and according to a recent article from the missolan he(Karma) may have been high at the time of the shooting of the german exchange student.

missoulian.com...


Markus Kaarma may have been under the influence of marijuana when he shot and killed German exchange student Diren Dede, according to a search warrant requested by Missoula police. The search warrant also indicates that during previous burglaries of the Missoula home, unknown suspects had taken all the marijuana and marijuana pipes out of the garage. Kaarma, 29, is charged with deliberate homicide for the shooting of the foreign exchange student, who was finishing his junior year abroad at Big Sky High School.


further on in article it talks about how they drew blood and that the results will be ready in a month,im not sure they will beable to tell if he was high at the time of the shooting by a blood test (what with how long that stuff stays in fatty tissues etc) but its another curve ball to the case and a possible explanation for what the teen may have been "looking" for in the garage.


If he was high (and medical card wont help matters) he would have then placed him self in the category of prohibited persons (being an admitted drug user under the influence possessing a fire arm) and will not help the matter and could set case law for how future matters of this kind are handled. of note the prohibiting person class would apply to some one using a fire arm while under the influence of alcohol as well as some prescription drugs would also be in the same category(you can drink and own guns just not drink WHILE using guns)


edit on 7-5-2014 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join