MT: Forensic Evidence doesn't match story. Result: Homicide Charges

Gun Watch ^ | 5 April, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Politely tell the police that you have been advised to talk to an attorney before you make a statement, just as police are advised. They should understand.

[bgill]

That’s too bad.

At least the guy won’t be robbing or worse anymore.

[Joe Boucher]

were I on this jury I would not vote for conviction.

[Kenny Bunk]

Do not, EVER, shoot off mouth after being forced to shoot off gun. Don't talk to the cops without a lawyer present.

Now that the cops and prosecutors' offices are thoroughly infiltrated by Affirmative Action Transexual Gay Loony Left Latino Feminists of a color other than yours, any remotely possible negative connotation to one's remarks, one's grammar, one's appearance, or choice of domestic pet can and will be used against one, if one were to be forced to discharge a firearm.

Let us pray then. that the jury empaneled will have one, or possibly even two, citizens on it who do not fit the officer's description noted above.

[BitWielder1]

He was supposed to block or disable a car outside his home before knowing with certainty it belonged to an intruder in his home?
No Castle Doctrine laws suggest or require anything of the sort.
How exactly was he supposed to do that? How would it prevent the perp from simply running?
It sounds like an after-the-fact suggestion with little practical value, on the par with Joe Biden's twin shotgun blasts.

[mlo]

"It is likely that a jury will decide if the castle doctrine fits this case."

That's not the issue. As I've pointed out many times in these sorts of threads, the Castle Doctrine isn't carte blanche to shoot anyone in your house. Now here's someone being prosecuted for murder, proving the point.

[mlo]

If he hadn’t talked to the cops it wouldn’t have changed the forensic results. His problem isn’t just that he lied about it. It’s that he shot the guy when he was exiting the window. That would still be true even if he admitted it or said nothing.

[Col Freeper]

.....Joe Biden's twin shotgun blasts.

Ah yes, good ole Joe .....

[Paladin2]

The guy could always have been a threat to return if had successfully escaped.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I predict the jury will find not guilty.

[smokingfrog]

If it’s dark, you may not be able to tell if someone is armed or not. But this guy should have called the cops first and waited outside, blocking his car if possible.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

I hope Stiffler’s Mom wasn’t harmed!

[dfwgator]

[DoodleDawg]

I predict the jury will find not guilty.

Having been shown to lie once to the police the prosecution will ask why anything else he has to say should be believed? So I think his defense is pretty weak.

[TigersEye]

The guy could always have been a threat to return if had successfully escaped.

Then you could shoot him.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The thug could have been standing near the window, and fallen back through it when he was shot.

A decent lawyer can win this case easily.
.

[marktwain]

From what I read, it is pretty clear that the burglar, Johnson, was shot at more than 5 feet, and that the shot went out the window, into the yard, after exiting Johnson’s body. It was not so certain that he was in the window frame at the time of the shot.

The entrance and exit holes were about the same height from the ground on his body, so it seems that he was pretty upright when shot, an unusual position for someone exiting a “normal” window.

The shooter may have been justified under Montana law. A jury will decide.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “The entrance and exit holes were about the same height from the ground on his body, so it seems that he was pretty upright when shot, an unusual position for someone exiting a “normal” window” <<

.
Correct.

There is no evidence of any intent to do anything but disable by the shooter. This is shown well by the fact that the thug made it to his car. There is literally no case.

Mlo has been a statist contrarian here from the day he showed up.

No new thing under the sun!
.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

We will see. Depends on the makeup of the jury.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

She’s got it going on!