Having said that, sometimes two wrongs make a right. The kid was obviously a thief and an all-around scumbag, and even though there was no legal right to shoot him, the world is obviously a better place without him.
No legal right? Where was the thief when he was shot?
The media is still lying about so-called “bait”, too. Never mind the so-called witnesses to Kaarma’s alleged bragging.
Don't make such blanket statements uninformed. These laws vary widely from state to state. In most cases, your life does NOT have to be a risk to defend yourself with deadly force.
Yep, this has nothing to do with stand your ground, more like Castle Doctrine.
Here is what Montana law says:
Montana has a castle law with a “stand-your-ground” clause. Under the law, the use of deadly force is permissible to prevent felonies from being committed in one’s home or to protect against assault within one’s home.
The statute reads:
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon 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.
The homeowner was clearly in the wrong in Montana.
"Self-defense" applies to cases where your life is at risk. "Stand Your Ground" is not a synonym for "self-defense". It only refers to whether there is a duty to retreat from a threat.
The shooter wounded the kid first, incapacitating him and the coldly shot him in the head. The shooters girlfriend said as much. That’s where this went sideways. I know bluster is fun but a 17 year-old kid is needlessly dead,
The sentence is more than appropriate. This is not a case where the homeowner was defending his life. The death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for trespassing and it is not acceptable to set up a situation just to prove a point and exact some vigilante justice. I can’t believe anyone would think that’s okay or go further, to celebrate the fact that this guy basically murdered a 17 year old.
On that, we both agree.