Well, they have to lie about it
A shooting that has nothing to do with “castle doctrine” but the press insists it does. Kinda like how the Martin case had nothing to do with “stand your ground”. It’s in print, it must be true.
8 Responses to “Well, they have to lie about it”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 1st, 2014 at 9:36 pm
Yet the AP’s MATT VOLZ and MATTHEW BROWN say it was SYG.
‘Stand your ground’ law tested in recent shootings
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRAPPING_INTRUDERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
If it were to be defensible, I’d think it was castle doctrine not SYG. But since it looks to be an ambush murder, neither applies. Just murder.
May 2nd, 2014 at 10:35 am
In defense of the BBC (who probably has not idea but still)
This likely WILL be a castle doctrine case! The lawyer for the defense has already stated they plan on using it as a defense. Hard fucking well if you ask me, but there is a detail the media are not making much if, that there was a second kid that ran, may have been armed, we don’t know.
So wether it’s dumb or not, or if you agree or not. If the defense lawyer uses CD as a defense, it IS a castle doctrine case. He loose most likely, and from the details we have, he should, but that doesn’t change anything.
May 2nd, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Other Steve is doing an interesting thought exercise.
Is a case about CD or SYG because the law applies to the case, or is a case about CD or SYG because a stupid defense lawyer tries to claim the protections of CD or SYG for the defendant, when the facts don’t support such a claim?
I’m gonna stick with the former, and laugh whenever the latter occurs. Opponents of CD and SYG do the latter, publishing articles where CD & SYG claims are made by the defense, then the defendants go to jail.
And the claim is that the laws are horrid and need to be revoked, because such false claims exist, despite being swatted down by judges.
May 2nd, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Mikee isn’t wrong, but wait and see, this lawyer IS going to use CD, and it IS going to be brought up as a CD case.
The difference in that being a legit CD case or only attempted only a subtly to opponents of self defense. So much so that it’s kind of hard to get mad at BBC for claiming this may be an issue with CD laws.
How about this… If this guy gets a good lawyer, a judge and jury in his favor, and they use CD and he gets off, despite it being at best an extremely questionable shoot – while not being truly CD at all, will correctly be brought up as a CD case.
But BBC is not incorrect in bringing up CD if the defense lawyer does so (which he has stated already). Be mad at the defense lawyer I guess.
May 2nd, 2014 at 6:18 pm
It is the lawyer’s job to use stuff like CD, especially if the client insists, and try to make it work even if it means offering a ridiculous interpretation of the law.
It is, or should be, the job of the BBC and other MSM outlets to say the defendant and lawyer may try this AND THEN TO SHOW WHY IT DOES OR DOES NOT APPLY. Instead, they hype the claim as if it were completely valid and call the law stupid*. Bias precludes fact-checking: no need to think if you already “know” what to think.
So I put most of the blame on the less-than-bright perpetrator for the action, but a lot on the MSM which may well have given him the idea by their similar outcries against SYG and CD in the past, saying they are easy ways to get away with murder.
——–
* Mind you, there are a lot of stupid laws…
May 3rd, 2014 at 4:03 am
Sorry Unc (and all above), Montana statute says it is a “no duty to retreat” case. See Montana Code Annotated Sec 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of person, 45-3-102 Use of force in defense of occupied structure, 45-3-110 No duty to summon help or flee.*
The first statute says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
The second section says in pertinent part, “A person is justified in the use of force … only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault on 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.”
And thirdly, 45-3-110 reads in pertinent part: “… a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistence prior to using force.”
Kaarma and Pflegger were in the structure lawfully. Dede (the dead criminal) was apparently in the commission of a home invasion when Kaarma shot him. Kaarma went outside the still-occupied (by Ms.Pflegger) structure and engaged Dede with a firearm, resulting in Dede’s death.
Montana law would seem to support a legitimate claim of self-defense with the added justification of no duty to retreat from a lawfully occupied “location or place”. I don’t find any requirement in Montana statute that property must be secured in order for the above to have force of law (those arguing that Kaarma and Pflegger “set a trap” must equally believe that cattle ranchers are equally guilty because they don’t secure their livestock from tresspassers).
If that isn’t a reasonable description of SYG and the so-called “castle doctrine” (verbiage which never appears in any state’s pertinent legal code that I have discovered so far) both, then I think we will just have to agree that we disagree on the definition of “reasonable”.
As to anyone’s guilt or innocence in this matter, that’s what trials are for, aren’t they? I have to say that the defense declaring this to be a SYG/CD case seems quite reasonable to me given the statutes that apparently address this type of action in Montana. We’ll see.
* Source: Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States.
May 3rd, 2014 at 2:37 pm
And that is why a comment based on fact will beat a comment, like mine, based on conjecture, every damn time.
May 4th, 2014 at 1:44 am
blush š