Man Charged With Murder In Home Shooting Case

[SnowBlaZeR2]

You can leave your doors open. There may be exceptions to that rule (e.g. I've heard that police in Australia will ticket you if you leave your car doors unlocked, on the theory it encourages crime and is therefore a public nuisance) but in general you can. There are risks involved though.

There is clearly disagreement about whether an open door is an invitation to come in. The way I was raised, you didn't enter someone's home (or garage) unless you were explicitly invited. However, I have had people get upset with me because I walked up to their (open) front door, rang the doorbell, and waited for them to come to the door instead of walking in on my own. Those people were raised within half a mile of me, and "share my culture", but learned a very different meaning of an open door. In the case outlined in this thread, the kid who was shot wasn't even from the US so may have had an even more different upbringing. In a country where such disagreements exist between neigbors, and where we invite people from Europe and other places to live with us, it is only reasonable that we avoid situations that can cause confusion. E.g. close and lock our doors when we don't want people walking in.

I don't live in Australia, and I don't believe their laws should be a basis for anything we do anyways.

If you don't own the property or have an extended invitation, either verbally or implied (family or friends, or in your case, someone telling you there's no need to knock), you are trespassing when you walk into someone's house. It's been that way every state I've ever lived in. I'm not saying that gives cause to open fire, but I also think it's worth making that distinction.

The kid in this case is a bad example for this particular point, because there were several other factors involved. In a different scenario, his nationality is of little consequence. Call it what you like, but someone coming to this country should learn and adapt to our culture and laws, not the other way around. I do and expect the same when I travel to other countries. Not knowing is no excuse for criminal behavior.

*edit*
I think we are getting a little sidetracked from the topic. None of this really matters, because of the homeowner's actions prior to the shooting.

 

[gym]

We were told by Police and our HOA, to keep the Garage doors closed. That night I counted 12 open on the way to the club house.
I asked my buddy to close his as he had a garage full of power tools lawn mowers etc, he disregarded my warning, and hour later they stole his lawn mower, "a big one" out of the garage, someone said a pickup truck pulled up and they just threw it in the back. But that is South Florida, you really can't relax, or someone will steal your stuff. even in a good development. he moved back to Boston.
For me it's not the tools as much as once in the garage it's not a big leap to get into the house.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Snowblazer, are you just arguing just for the fun of it or is there some validity to it? Yes state laws differ from state to state NO state law would allow for this homeowner to do what he did and call it a justified defense. He stepped OUTSIDE his house after baiting the suspect into his WIDE OPEN garage, blocking the burglars escape and blasted away. Lets use some common sense with this one. It's plain and simple.

I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. There is a difference.

There were some things brought up that I didn't agree with, or were simply incorrect. I felt it beneficial to point those things out. I think you're missing a few of my posts, or taking it out of context. Maybe going back and reading it all will clear some things up? I know that I never said that he would be justified in what he did, regardless of state, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Also, just to nitpick your post, my garage is part of my house. Being INSIDE my garage is being INSIDE my house, WIDE OPEN or not. The right to defend ourselves does not begin behind a locked door. That's not the issue here. The only issue is that he planned it out, and executed that plan. That's not defense, it's murder. Plain and simple.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

You are, of course, correct. Thanks. I was rather imprecise.

My point was, if you are in a safe room, and someone enters it, and you can reasonably tell that the entry is unlawful, you may use deadly force.

Of course, you may have set yourself up to be able to shoot down a staircase, or down a hallway. You may also be justified in shooting, depending upon conditions and the jurisdiction and upon whether or not the intruder is on his way out.

That is not the same as an ambush.

We see more and more comments that indicate that many people believe that castle doctrine laws provide persons with carte blanche justification for shooting people in their homes. Not so. In general, they provide residents with important presumptions pertaining to justification, reducing the requirement to produce evidence that the resident had reason to believe...(and so on). The threshold for justification varies--perhaps the prevention of a felony, or even the prevention of the use of any force at all against a resident, would suffice. Perhaps not.

But in all jurisdictions, and under all but a few circumstances, the resident will find himself or herself much better off if the use of force can be avoided altogether.

Thanks again for raising the point.

Agree 100%. I think a major issue that many overlook, is knowing their own laws. Too many think that what might apply to them, will apply to someone else.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

We were told by Police and our HOA, to keep the Garage doors closed. That night I counted 12 open on the way to the club house.
I asked my buddy to close his as he had a garage full of power tools lawn mowers etc, he disregarded my warning, and hour later they stole his lawn mower, "a big one" out of the garage, someone said a pickup truck pulled up and they just threw it in the back. But that is South Florida, you really can't relax, or someone will steal your stuff. even in a good development. he moved back to Boston.
For me it's not the tools as much as once in the garage it's not a big leap to get into the house.

We live in what I would consider an upscale neighborhood, and on trash day, we frequently have people that will come by to pick through for things I assume they will try to sell. A few of our neighbors have had things stolen from their open garages, and we've had things stolen from our landscaping. If I'm not in my garage or the front yard, the door is closed. I even go as far as closing it if I'm going in the house to refill my water. Drives my wife crazy, but I like my stuff more than I like other people having my stuff.

 

[Ed Ames]

I don't live in Australia, and I don't believe their laws should be a basis for anything we do anyways.

Nor do I. I was stretching for something to support your idea that you couldn't leave your garage open.

If you don't own the property or have an extended invitation, either verbally or implied (family or friends, or in your case, someone telling you there's no need to knock), you are trespassing when you walk into someone's house. It's been that way every state I've ever lived in. I'm not saying that gives cause to open fire, but I also think it's worth making that distinction.

It comes down to what 12 random jurors think is reasonable.

Walking across your front lawn to get to your front door is not trespass because there is an implied license for anyone to intrude on the curtilage in order to knock on your front door (according to the SC, Florida v. someone 2013). Having a fence and a gate removes that implied license. Does having an open front door extend that license inside?

The basis of the license is "the habits of the country." If the habits, as understood by a jury, are that an open door is an invitation - something many in the US apparently believe - then it seems plausible they would find that by leaving the door open you granted implied license to enter.

 

[gym]

You summed it up in #54, it's the lack of intelligence and understanding the laws in the first place that creates the misconception that they can indeed do whatever they want because it's their house, and the law says they can.
But the law doesn't say that, they just aren't smart enough to interpret the law. It's kind of like "fools gold". They thought they stumbled on a sure fir goldmine of a legal way to murder someone.
But how does one correct this, we understand the problem, but what is the solution?

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Nor do I. I was stretching for something to support your idea that you couldn't leave your garage open.

It was a pretty far stretch.

I'd bet there are probably some HOA's or whatever that mandate a closed garage door after certain hours. That's why I don't live in places that have a HOA. I get your point though.

It comes down to what 12 random jurors think is reasonable.

Walking across your front lawn to get to your front door is not trespass because there is an implied license for anyone to intrude on the curtilage in order to knock on your front door (according to the SC, Florida v. someone 2013). Having a fence and a gate removes that implied license. Does having an open front door extend that license inside?

The basis of the license is "the habits of the country." If the habits, as understood by a jury, are that an open door is an invitation - something many in the US apparently believe - then it seems plausible they would find that by leaving the door open you granted implied license to enter.

Sometimes. Sometimes it comes down to how good of a lawyer you have. Sometimes, if you're lucky, it might even come down to the laws in your state.

Of course walking through my yard, or preferably up my sidewalk is acceptable, but if I'm in the back yard that courtesy isn't extended through my house to my back door. It also isn't extended to my garage. In the situation you mentioned, it's worth noting, that as soon as I ask them to leave, it becomes trespassing if they don't.

Leaving my front door open is an invitation? Not where I live it isn't, legally or implied. I've never lived anywhere that it was, either. I see what you're getting at, but worrying about a jury's interpretation of the law and my actions is pretty low on my list of concerns. My wife and our safety is at the top, and always will be.

 

[SilentStalker]

Lots of good points here. I think we can all agree that the young people in this case should not have been killed over this. The guy accused of murder is without a doubt guilty of that.

I think we can all also agree that the young people should not have entered his house and that we all should be able to leave our doors on if we want on our own property but that it may come with a price. One has to be able to distinguish when and when not to use lethal force. I just brought some points up earlier because I wanted to see where this would go.

In order for me to use lethal force, my life or the life of a loved one or an innocent person's life that I seen around would have to be in imminent danger. Again, you have to know when to use it and when not to use it. The point I am trying to make is that the line between whether someone was justified or not seems to be getting blurred. And, I have seen plenty of cases that I thought were completely legit and the defendant wound up spending their life savings trying to stay out of jail for a completely justified use of lethal force. I don't think this is right. In fact, there is a case in my home state where someone was released from prison and that very same night, the man broke into someone's house and started to rape his wife. Needless to say, the guy shot the other man and is now spending his life in prison. I think there needs to be more protections towards the homeowners in cases like this when it can be proved that it was justifiable. Obviously, in regards to the case that we are discussing in this thread, the man had many other options that should have been taken.

 

[texasgun]

so they were burglarized before and left the garage door open with a purse in plain sight and sensors in there..... but when they noticed someone in their garage from the inside (!!) and safety (!) of their home.... they don't call 911 and tell the cops to come... no.... the hubby goes outside and pumps several rounds with his shotgun into the DARK garage without seeing who is in there... :banghead:

could also have been a neighbors kid or a homeless person or or or.... but good thing that guys tool-box is safe.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

You summed it up in #54, it's the lack of intelligence and understanding the laws in the first place that creates the misconception that they can indeed do whatever they want because it's their house, and the law says they can.
But the law doesn't say that, they just aren't smart enough to interpret the law. It's kind of like "fools gold". They thought they stumbled on a sure fir goldmine of a legal way to murder someone.
But how does one correct this, we understand the problem, but what is the solution?

Gym,

Your post is a good one and I especially liked this observation you made because I believe it's true:

They thought they stumbled on a sure fir goldmine of a legal way to murder someone.

And then you ask the following question - also a good one....

But how does one correct this, we understand the problem, but what is the solution?

Here's what I think:

1. We could get rid of the Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground Laws

Yeah...this hurts many innocent people, but it also prevents a lot of murder as it will get rid of the perception of a "Legal Murder Loophole".

2. We could educate people

Wow...maybe so. That doesn't seem to be working too well, does it? I mean, THR is about the best place you can find for informed Gun Discussion yet look at how many people that post here insist on getting it wrong - and their still looking for that "Legal Murder Loophole".

3. Let's make the Bad Guys afraid of Prison.

That's my solution. And when I say "Bad Guys", I mean any guy that is hellbent on vengeance with a gun. Law...or no Law....with the exception of moral lepers, most men know when they are committing murder. So...let's keep throwing as many of these guys in prison as we can until they get the message and shut up - and stop contemplating vengeance.

 

[qwert65]

I agree with posts 34 and 26 while clearly murder, I dont agree with the premeditated part if someone is stealing your stuff

 

[rondog]

That said, I feel no reservation about leaving my garage door up when my wife and daughter and I go for a walk for a few hours during the day. I'm friendly with my neighbors and they with me. We don't all know each others names, but we know enough to keep an eye out on each others stuff should we spy something fishy. There are simply too many familiar eyes on every home to make it an easy target during the day and most of the night.

Baaaad plan, IMO. You really think all your neighbors are watching your house and open garage door with a phone handy? Do YOU watch THEIR homes like a hawk? Sure, we all watch out for each other, but the reality is that the time spent doing so is miniscule.

And what if they, or you, DID see a stranger walk in a neighbor's open garage? Did you/they get a good enough look to ID that person as a stranger? Or not? Or, maybe? Enough to call the cops and create a fuss? Maybe catching a bad guy, or maybe just an unknown visitor?

Yeah, neighborhood watch is great, but I'd NEVER count on it enough to trust leaving doors open and unlocked. Our house has a big kitchen window that faces the street, and we can see a dozen neighbor's houses easily. But ours is THE ONLY house on the street with this floorplan!

All other homes around us have a typically unused "parlor" room window facing the street, no kitchens or living rooms. And we certainly don't know who's coming or going at all the neighbors, even though we're the only ones who can see!

Keep your garage doors closed! Intruders can enter one in seconds.

 

[alsaqr]

I dont agree with the premeditated part if someone is stealing your stuff

The perp admits to ambushing and killing the young man. He told another person he stayed up for three nights waiting to kill the guy.

If a land owner sits in a treestand for three days and kills a trespasser that makes it premeditated murder.

Court records said Kaarma and his wife, Janelle Pflager, had set up sensors outside the garage, a video monitoring system in the garage and left the garage door open. Pflager said she put personal items that she had cataloged in a purse in the garage "so that they would take it."

Early Sunday, the sensors went off, and Kaarma and Pflager looked at the video feed and saw that someone was in the garage.

Kaarma went outside with his shotgun. He told investigators he heard a noise that sounded like metal on metal, and he was afraid the intruder would come out and hurt him. He said he did not see anyone in the darkened garage and did not communicate with anyone before sweeping the garage with four shotgun blasts. Dede was struck in the head and arm and died at a Missoula hospital, court records said.


.....................................................................................................................

On Sunday, a woman told investigators that Kaarma had told her that he had been waiting up for three nights with his shotgun to shoot a kid, court records said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...ged-homicide-teen-shooting.html#ixzz30VbpM1rs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Bill_Shelton]

Baaaad plan, IMO. You really think all your neighbors are watching your house and open garage door with a phone handy? Do YOU watch THEIR homes like a hawk? Sure, we all watch out for each other, but the reality is that the time spent doing so is miniscule....

Keep your garage doors closed! Intruders can enter one in seconds.

Actually, it may be a good plan depending on what type of neighborhood he lives in. You really can't know that.

When I go to the convenience store in my neighborhood, I leave the keys in the car and the car running while I am inside (keep that air conditioning going) - and i don't consider that to be risky in THAT neighborhood.

Of course, conditions change with both time and place. There is no "One rule fits all circumstances".

 

[1911 guy]

The facts presented in the article make a good case for premeditated murder.

While I'm not going to stick up for the homeowner here, I do see a problem. In most states, there are laws regarding securing ones' property. For example, Ohio says you cannot leave your car running, even in your own driveway. It supposedly encourages theft. While it may not be smart to leave my car running as I step into the 7/11 store, it is also wrong to penalize me for not catering to the behavior of the criminal class.

He should have closed his garage door, it would have been the smart thing to do. Instead, he laid a trap and for all practical purposes executed someone.

But the blame is equally shared. If the kid had stayed out of a garage that wasn't his, he wouldn't have been there to get shot.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Lethal force to stop an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm.

Baiting a trap to lure someone into a killing zone? Because you want payback for a past offense? Uh, that sounds like premediation to commit an unjustifiable homicide, aka 1st Degree Murder.

If you want to get biblical, Leviticus is pretty clear (not that some of the translations aren't clear): if an intruder is killed in the living area at night, the defender is guiltless. But a thief outside the home is not a threat to life or limb. He may be chased down, subdued non-lethally and brought before a judge, but not killed.

Reads to me that this guy went midieval on a thief in a garage that he left open and baited with valuables to attract thievery.

 

[MedWheeler]

Sergei Mosin writes:

Shoot to protect my family, only if I absolutely must. Shoot to protect my property, no, never.

Yes, but one can certainly shoot to protect oneself if oneself becomes in danger while otherwise trying to protect one's property.

There are few jurisdictions in which you'd be required to step back and allow a burglar or car thief to simply take what they came for. If you so desire (and if it is tactically wise; this will depend on the situation), you may usually go ahead and use "reasonable force" to stop the loss of your property. If, in doing so, it becomes evident to you that your adversary is willing to use potentially-lethal force against you to carry out his mission, react accordingly.

 

[Sam1911]

and if it is tactically wise

It is probably rarely tactically wise to close with someone to a proximity that you can apply reasonable physical force, and then hope to extract yourself, retain control of your weapon, and be able to draw and employ that weapon should "reasonable force" not convince the bad guy to leave and/or leave you alone.

There's a really VERY tricky situation created when one enters a physical altercation while carrying a lethal weapon. "Wise" is probably the very last adjective one might use to describe that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MedWheeler: ...you may usually go ahead and use "reasonable force" to stop the loss of your property. If, in doing so, it becomes evident to you that your adversary is willing to use potentially-lethal force against you to carry out his mission, react accordingly.

We have read of incidents in which an actor who had undertaken the lawful use of non-deadly physical force and ended up in serious trouble when the situation escalated.

The self defense claim was negated by the fact of the effort to protect property.

"Immediately necessary" and "could have been avoided" do not mix well.

 

[JSH1]

Not everyone feels the same way you do. Ref Texas laws on deadly force in defense of property.

True, but just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. I remember a case in Texas about 7 years ago where a guy killed two unarmed men that were burglarizing his neighbor's house. He called the police, the dispatcher told him to stay in his house, he said "I'm going to kill them" and then proceeded to shoot both of them in the back as they fled. It was all on tape but he still walked.


EDIT: does -> doesn't

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I remember a case in Texas about 7 years ago...

And there was a good deal more to the story than that.

These kinds of anecdotes are pretty much meaningless. Certainly one should never make important decisions on the bases of any such.

The details really do matter; and without all the right details, you really can't understand the situation.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

And there was a good deal more to the story than that.

These kinds of anecdotes are pretty much meaningless. Certainly one should never make important decisions on the bases of any such.

The details really do matter; and without all the right details, you really can't understand the situation.

Yeah...there's more to it than what was stated, but I think he summarized it fairly well. This was the Joe Horn case in Pasadena, Texas - and this was the case that got me thinking about "Legalized Murder". At first, I was all for Joe Horn, although he sounded a bit hysterical on the first 9/11 audios that I heard. Then...i got to listen to the entire audio and I was shocked. Seems to me like Joe Horn was just looking for an excuse to blast someone. And he found it.

I remember hearing the audio of those shots and all the seconds (7 seconds) that passed between the time Joe Horn shot the first guy and then shot the second guy - in the back as he was running away - far away. In fact, both guys were shot in the back. It was sickening.

Here's the complete audio.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

 

[JSH1]

And there was a good deal more to the story than that.

Yes there was more to the Horn case then my summary. One of the key details was the demographics of the people involved.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Yes there was more to the Horn case then my summary. One of the key details was the demographics of the people involved.

No. A key detail was:

• It really wasn't about defense of property. It was self defense.
  
  
• See this post:

  The Joe Horn case was not about the defense of property.
  
  See this post:

  ...

  There is a video of Mr. Horn running the officer's through the events leading up to the shooting and the shooting itself. The officer was very careful to ask him,"were you in fear of you life" and Mr. Horn responded in the affirmative. Horn talks about how there were two of them and one him, implying he was afraid. He states his reason for shooting was "I thought they were going to get me." In that case much was made of the fact that one of the guys had a crow bar and came towards Mr. Horn. I would not cite that case as an example of protecting property. Horn didn't claim to shoot to protect property. It was a self defense case.
  
  The video
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3WI6GBCgRw

  ...

In any case, when presented by the prosecution with the evidence, the grand jury did not indict.