Montana has been run by Democrats. So this follows.
Good, The shooter had no reasonable grounds for shooting
I have no problem with him using bait to lure in the fish, but he didn’t have to kill him.
This was not a case of “stand your ground” at all no matter how much the LSM tries to spin it. This was a case of cold blooded murder by a homeowner lying in wait.
70 years... and this is “more humane” than a simple death penalty?
The judge ought to get seventy years instead.
Even if it were self-defense, this had nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”.
Rottenly bad “Kaarma”
The thief was Turkish, was buried there and his REGULAR HOBBY was stealing stuff.
On multiple continents.
As a guest.
He should have just locked his garage door if he was so afraid of being ripped off and or just settled for video evidence.
I guess that was just too GD simple.
Our 2nd Amendment rights have been greatly subdued and limited; as with all our rights comes great responsibility for care; I have no compassion for anyone who would limit our rights nor anyone who would disrespect, neglect and abuse our rights.
If you want to protect your garage, you close and lock the door. You don’t leave it open and lay in wait with a gun. This guy is got a fair verdict and sentence.
I don’t mind at all that this homeowner removed a thief from our world. I do mind that he talked too much, especially in advance, and will now cost the Montana taxpayers a whole lot of money for the rest of his life. You have to know your state’s laws and follow those laws (or at least present the situation in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as following the law) in these situations.
Every single time a citizen defending the integrity and security of their property is prosecuted like this, the lawless left rejoice and are emboldened.
Bad Kaarma, indeed...
Kaarma
You’d think with a name like that, he’d take more time to consider the consequences.
Oddly enough, I have to agree with the court. Here are some reasons.
1) No hunting in a baited field. He had set things up to entice a burglar to enter his garage, with intent to kill them.
2) This was an ambush. Again, the intent was not to stop a felony in progress, but to kill.
3) He testified on his own behalf poorly. He did not say that he was in fear for his life, or that he thought the burglar was armed and menacing, or any other compelling reason to shoot first or shoot to kill. And this was the worst thing he did. You don’t ever testify that your intent was to shoot to kill, or your emotions anything other than fear for your life.
4) He decided to tell people what he was going to do before he did it. Very bad idea, and damning.
5) Weaponry is always a trade off. A pistol justifies more shots than a shotgun, though a shotgun was better in this situation. Juries really ponder the number of shots.
If he reloaded prior to fatally shooting a wounded burglar/thief then he murdered said burglar/thief.
If his first shot had kill the intruder I might be a bit more inclined to buy a “stand your ground” argument.
The guy shot a thief inside his house and helped protect countless other future victims; he deserves a medal, not a prison sentence. And no, I don’t care what the law says, the law is an a$$ and I would never convict someone who was protecting their property. It is idiotic to believe that criminals who are willing to commit felonies aren’t a grave threat to all of us at any time.
I guess “Bait Car” is illegal too then. Go arrest all those Cops.