3 Griz Arrested

[LongTimeCatFan]

Great post

Must be some other thread railing on the homeowners for being at fault. I haven't seen a single post here blaming them.

What is truly amazing about this, is the high level of restraint and judgement of the homeowner. This guy could have shot any or all them and didn't. That people are here defending their actions or not, seems to overlook just how lucky they were and are.

If the homeowner had shot them, he'd probably be the one with the felony and high bail. You can't shoot someone who is on your property but not threatening you with physical harm (paraphrasing). Karma certainly found that out.

It wouldn't take much to say the man feared for his life and the lives of his family had he confronted them due to the disparity of force of 4 huge dudes to one guy. They would have to make one wrong move to satisfy the AOJ of imminence. Or say if any of them made any attempt at entering the actual dwelling, then there is a presumption of reasonableness that those invading mean to do harm.

Look, fortunately everything turned out the way it did with no one getting shot and no one feeling like they needed to shoot someone. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that there were hair splitting decisions made by both sides that prevented that and the homeowner made most of them correctly.

This guy didn't bait anyone and wasn't looking for a fight so the comparisons to Kaarma can stop.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

"Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level. Then beat you with experience"
— Woody Allen

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

Lots of Cat trolls chirping in on this....some respectfully....most not. Don't throw rocks in glass houses. Translation: you have athletes that do dumb things too:

http://skylinesportsmt.com/montana-state-forward-cited-for-misdemeanor-theft-last-month/

Suspended for one game, yet if these football players get charged with misdemeanor and only are suspended one game you will all freak out. Even though a 1 game suspension is like 10 percent of your season in football. It's a hand slap in hoops.

Actually, I think most of the Cats on this thread are taking the respectful approach because of that reason.

 

[EverettGriz]

let's remember that the "just getting out of the rain" theory was just that...a theory. someone mentioned this might be a reason for entering someones home and other posters just rolled with it.

This is precisely my point, ILTC. I don't CARRRRRRRRRREEEE what the "justification" is. The decision was wrong and illegal. It's the same argument I made during the MSU players breaking into the Mayor's house. I don't care if they knew a guy who knew a guy who once was there. It was wrong. They KNEW it was wrong (and illegal), and they did it anyway.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. Unless Schmaing was about to have a baby, I cannot envision ANY reason why they needed to be in that house. None. And they went there knowing it was illegal. I guess I just don't see why there needs to be any discussion beyond that.

There is no question that the players broke the law. None. The question is what law did they break and that is a function of what actually happened and what the circumstances were. That matters for a lot of reasons, mostly about what the consequences will be. If the building was 'occupied' (as defined in the code) or if they stole anything they are looking at burglary; if they were simply hanging out in a building not 'occupied' (again as defined), then it's misdemeanor trespass (doesn't really matter why they chose to hangout, not a good choice, but the 'why' doesn't matter). Way different outcomes for everyone involved.

For the record, the legal system has to work for a while before we know the answer to this question, but in my opinion it seems like trespass is a much more likely outcome. If you think about it the county attorney is saying she doesn't know what happened, so it would seem unlikely a bunch of message board warriors like us would have any idea of really happened.

mcg, we're in full agreement. I see trespass as well.

I just can't fathom why anyone would try to justify their actions (e.g. "Well, it was raining!!"). Fuck that. They broke the law. They KNEW they were breaking the law. For anyone, cough, cough, to suggest anything other than that is just sad, really.

 

[George Ferguson]

I don't disagree with you one bit Everett. I just wish every poster who attends Griz games and leaves the parking lot behind the wheel after consuming alcohol was held to the exact same standard. I would love to see every single one of those broken laws prosecuted. I mean, isn't that right? Breaking the law is breaking the law!

 

[PlayerRep]

Must be some other thread railing on the homeowners for being at fault. I haven't seen a single post here blaming them.

What is truly amazing about this, is the high level of restraint and judgement of the homeowner. This guy could have shot any or all them and didn't. That people are here defending their actions or not, seems to overlook just how lucky they were and are.

If the homeowner had shot them, he'd probably be the one with the felony and high bail. You can't shoot someone who is on your property but not threatening you with physical harm (paraphrasing). Karma certainly found that out.

It wouldn't take much to say the man feared for his life and the lives of his family had he confronted them due to the disparity of force of 4 huge dudes to one guy. They would have to make one wrong move to satisfy the AOJ of imminence. Or say if any of them made any attempt at entering the actual dwelling, then there is a presumption of reasonableness that those invading mean to do harm.

Look, fortunately everything turned out the way it did with no one getting shot and no one feeling like they needed to shoot someone. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that there were hair splitting decisions made by both sides that prevented that and the homeowner made most of them correctly.

This guy didn't bait anyone and wasn't looking for a fight so the comparisons to Kaarma can stop.

Your statements are not correct. If someone isn't threatening you in your dwelling, you can't shoot them. Karma would have been convicted without the baiting. The Karma kid wasn't in the house, carrying a weapon, or trying to get into the house. Karma went outside after the kid. Had this homeowner gone out of his to the garage, and killed the players, he would have been arrested for murder. He could see that the players weren't carrying a weapon, and they weren't trying to get into his living quarters.

 

[EverettGriz]

I don't disagree with you one bit Everett. I just wish every poster who attends Griz games and leaves the parking lot after consuming alcohol was held to the exact same standard.

I understand your point. And we're in agreement.

But do you know anyone -- ANYONE at all -- who would leave a Griz game, and enter someone else's residence? I don't (a fact for which I guess I'm grateful :? :? ).

 

[UMGriz75]

mcg, we're in full agreement. I see trespass as well.

I just can't fathom why anyone would try to justify their actions (e.g. "Well, it was raining!!"). f*** that. They broke the law. They KNEW they were breaking the law. For anyone, cough, cough, to suggest anything other than that is just sad, really.

But to suggest that anyone suggested anything like that is simply dishonest. If you makes you feel better, fine, but it is an artificial self-regard, borne of a lie. And that is just sad, really. And I can't fathom that.

 

[EverettGriz]

mcg, we're in full agreement. I see trespass as well.

I just can't fathom why anyone would try to justify their actions (e.g. "Well, it was raining!!"). f*** that. They broke the law. They KNEW they were breaking the law. For anyone, cough, cough, to suggest anything other than that is just sad, really.

But to suggest that anyone suggested anything like that is simply dishonest. If you makes you feel better, fine, but it is an artificial self-regard, borne of a lie. And that is just sad, really. And I can't fathom that.

WTF are you talking about?? You/PR made that VERY argument (or at least strongly floated it as a "rational" for their ridiculous behavior: that they climbed up a ladder, to a second floor window, entered the window and hung out in someone else's home to avoid getting wet from the rain.

 

[George Ferguson]

Nope but i see THOUSANDS of drunk fans leave the games every Saturday behind the wheel, and any one of those are not immune to having an accident that could kill or seriously injure someone. Some of those people are posting in this thread. You know what they say about glass houses.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

What is truly amazing about this, is the high level of restraint and judgement of the homeowner. This guy could have shot any or all them and didn't. That people are here defending their actions or not, seems to overlook just how lucky they were and are.

If the homeowner had shot them, he'd probably be the one with the felony and high bail. You can't shoot someone who is on your property but not threatening you with physical harm (paraphrasing). Karma certainly found that out.

It wouldn't take much to say the man feared for his life and the lives of his family had he confronted them due to the disparity of force of 4 huge dudes to one guy. They would have to make one wrong move to satisfy the AOJ of imminence. Or say if any of them made any attempt at entering the actual dwelling, then there is a presumption of reasonableness that those invading mean to do harm.

Look, fortunately everything turned out the way it did with no one getting shot and no one feeling like they needed to shoot someone. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that there were hair splitting decisions made by both sides that prevented that and the homeowner made most of them correctly.

This guy didn't bait anyone and wasn't looking for a fight so the comparisons to Kaarma can stop.

Your statements are not correct. If someone isn't threatening you in your dwelling, you can't shoot them. Karma would have been convicted without the baiting. The Karma kid wasn't in the house, carrying a weapon, or trying to get into the house. Karma went outside after the kid. Had this homeowner gone out of his to the garage, and killed the players, he would have been arrested for murder. He could see that the players weren't carrying a weapon, and they weren't trying to get into his living quarters.

You suck as a lawyer.

Read "Disparity of Force"

Kaarma couldn't use that to satisfy imminence because it was one kid.

This would have been 4:1

 

[PlayerRep]

let's remember that the "just getting out of the rain" theory was just that...a theory. someone mentioned this might be a reason for entering someones home and other posters just rolled with it.

This is precisely my point, ILTC. I don't CARRRRRRRRRREEEE what the "justification" is. The decision was wrong and illegal. It's the same argument I made during the MSU players breaking into the Mayor's house. I don't care if they knew a guy who knew a guy who once was there. It was wrong. They KNEW it was wrong (and illegal), and they did it anyway.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. Unless Schmaing was about to have a baby, I cannot envision ANY reason why they needed to be in that house. None. And they went there knowing it was illegal. I guess I just don't see why there needs to be any discussion beyond that.

There is no question that the players broke the law. None. The question is what law did they break and that is a function of what actually happened and what the circumstances were. That matters for a lot of reasons, mostly about what the consequences will be. If the building was 'occupied' (as defined in the code) or if they stole anything they are looking at burglary; if they were simply hanging out in a building not 'occupied' (again as defined), then it's misdemeanor trespass (doesn't really matter why they chose to hangout, not a good choice, but the 'why' doesn't matter). Way different outcomes for everyone involved.

For the record, the legal system has to work for a while before we know the answer to this question, but in my opinion it seems like trespass is a much more likely outcome. If you think about it the county attorney is saying she doesn't know what happened, so it would seem unlikely a bunch of message board warriors like us would have any idea of really happened.

mcg, we're in full agreement. I see trespass as well.

I just can't fathom why anyone would try to justify their actions (e.g. "Well, it was raining!!"). f*** that. They broke the law. They KNEW they were breaking the law. For anyone, cough, cough, to suggest anything other than that is just sad, really.

Please point out the specific posts in which someone said or suggested they weren't breaking a law. I would be curious to see who was saying that and why. If you can't cite these posts, then please stop spewing that lie.

 

[EverettGriz]

Nope but i see THOUSANDS of drunk fans leave the games every Saturday behind the wheel, and any one of those are not immune to having an accident that could kill or seriously injure someone. Some of those people are posting in this thread. You know what they say about glass houses.

Couldn't agree more. I've got my own reservations about Montana's philosophies on alcohol use.

But I learned when I was 3 years old that 2 wrongs do not make a right.

 

[PlayerRep]

If the homeowner had shot them, he'd probably be the one with the felony and high bail. You can't shoot someone who is on your property but not threatening you with physical harm (paraphrasing). Karma certainly found that out.

It wouldn't take much to say the man feared for his life and the lives of his family had he confronted them due to the disparity of force of 4 huge dudes to one guy. They would have to make one wrong move to satisfy the AOJ of imminence. Or say if any of them made any attempt at entering the actual dwelling, then there is a presumption of reasonableness that those invading mean to do harm.

Look, fortunately everything turned out the way it did with no one getting shot and no one feeling like they needed to shoot someone. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that there were hair splitting decisions made by both sides that prevented that and the homeowner made most of them correctly.

This guy didn't bait anyone and wasn't looking for a fight so the comparisons to Kaarma can stop.

Your statements are not correct. If someone isn't threatening you in your dwelling, you can't shoot them. Karma would have been convicted without the baiting. The Karma kid wasn't in the house, carrying a weapon, or trying to get into the house. Karma went outside after the kid. Had this homeowner gone out of his to the garage, and killed the players, he would have been arrested for murder. He could see that the players weren't carrying a weapon, and they weren't trying to get into his living quarters.

You suck as a lawyer.

Read "Disparity of Force"

Kaarma couldn't use that to satisfy imminence because it was one kid.

This would have been 4:1

Doesn't matter if they are in a separate building and not coming into his building. Just no threat. Read the case law.

 

[EverettGriz]

This is precisely my point, ILTC. I don't CARRRRRRRRRREEEE what the "justification" is. The decision was wrong and illegal. It's the same argument I made during the MSU players breaking into the Mayor's house. I don't care if they knew a guy who knew a guy who once was there. It was wrong. They KNEW it was wrong (and illegal), and they did it anyway.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. Unless Schmaing was about to have a baby, I cannot envision ANY reason why they needed to be in that house. None. And they went there knowing it was illegal. I guess I just don't see why there needs to be any discussion beyond that.

There is no question that the players broke the law. None. The question is what law did they break and that is a function of what actually happened and what the circumstances were. That matters for a lot of reasons, mostly about what the consequences will be. If the building was 'occupied' (as defined in the code) or if they stole anything they are looking at burglary; if they were simply hanging out in a building not 'occupied' (again as defined), then it's misdemeanor trespass (doesn't really matter why they chose to hangout, not a good choice, but the 'why' doesn't matter). Way different outcomes for everyone involved.

For the record, the legal system has to work for a while before we know the answer to this question, but in my opinion it seems like trespass is a much more likely outcome. If you think about it the county attorney is saying she doesn't know what happened, so it would seem unlikely a bunch of message board warriors like us would have any idea of really happened.

mcg, we're in full agreement. I see trespass as well.

I just can't fathom why anyone would try to justify their actions (e.g. "Well, it was raining!!"). f*** that. They broke the law. They KNEW they were breaking the law. For anyone, cough, cough, to suggest anything other than that is just sad, really.

Please point out the specific posts in which someone said or suggested they weren't breaking a law. I would be curious to see who was saying that and why. If you can't cite these posts, then please stop spewing that lie.

Excellent. So we agree these idiots knowingly and purposely broke a law? That they knowingly and purposely entered someone else's private residence. At 2:30 am.


Super. Can we all agree, then, that they are stupid morons who deserve significant punishment (outside the program and within), and that the University of Montana deserves better from those to whom they provide full ride athletic scholarships? Thanks.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

It wouldn't take much to say the man feared for his life and the lives of his family had he confronted them due to the disparity of force of 4 huge dudes to one guy. They would have to make one wrong move to satisfy the AOJ of imminence. Or say if any of them made any attempt at entering the actual dwelling, then there is a presumption of reasonableness that those invading mean to do harm.

Look, fortunately everything turned out the way it did with no one getting shot and no one feeling like they needed to shoot someone. However, let's not lose sight of the fact that there were hair splitting decisions made by both sides that prevented that and the homeowner made most of them correctly.

This guy didn't bait anyone and wasn't looking for a fight so the comparisons to Kaarma can stop.

Your statements are not correct. If someone isn't threatening you in your dwelling, you can't shoot them. Karma would have been convicted without the baiting. The Karma kid wasn't in the house, carrying a weapon, or trying to get into the house. Karma went outside after the kid. Had this homeowner gone out of his to the garage, and killed the players, he would have been arrested for murder. He could see that the players weren't carrying a weapon, and they weren't trying to get into his living quarters.

You suck as a lawyer.

Read "Disparity of Force"

Kaarma couldn't use that to satisfy imminence because it was one kid.

This would have been 4:1

Doesn't matter if they are in a separate building and not coming into his building. Just no threat. Read the case law.

If he goes out to confront them, which he has every right to do, and they make a move that he interprets as a threat, then he can shoot them in self defense. To be more specific, they would have to be within 21' of him (Tueller) to satisfy Jeopardy of the AOJ of imminence(only because you said he was able to determine they were unarmed, if unable then no distance required). But still the disparity of force would allow him to use deadly force.

Read the book

 

[PlayerRep]

There is no question that the players broke the law. None. The question is what law did they break and that is a function of what actually happened and what the circumstances were. That matters for a lot of reasons, mostly about what the consequences will be. If the building was 'occupied' (as defined in the code) or if they stole anything they are looking at burglary; if they were simply hanging out in a building not 'occupied' (again as defined), then it's misdemeanor trespass (doesn't really matter why they chose to hangout, not a good choice, but the 'why' doesn't matter). Way different outcomes for everyone involved.

For the record, the legal system has to work for a while before we know the answer to this question, but in my opinion it seems like trespass is a much more likely outcome. If you think about it the county attorney is saying she doesn't know what happened, so it would seem unlikely a bunch of message board warriors like us would have any idea of really happened.

mcg, we're in full agreement. I see trespass as well.

I just can't fathom why anyone would try to justify their actions (e.g. "Well, it was raining!!"). f*** that. They broke the law. They KNEW they were breaking the law. For anyone, cough, cough, to suggest anything other than that is just sad, really.

Please point out the specific posts in which someone said or suggested they weren't breaking a law. I would be curious to see who was saying that and why. If you can't cite these posts, then please stop spewing that lie.

Excellent. So we agree these idiots knowingly and purposely broke a law? That they knowingly and purposely entered someone else's private residence. At 2:30 am.


Super. Can we all agree, then, that they are stupid morons who deserve significant punishment (outside the program and within), and that the University of Montana deserves better from those to whom they provide full ride athletic scholarships? Thanks.

If they end up with a misdemeanor, then UM should apply it's athletic code, which I believes says there would be a one-game suspension if they haven't had other problems in the past 2 or so years. This is what happened iwth Gamboa. Stitt can, of course, do what he wants. I assume you are not suggesting that UM should not comply with its athletic code.

 

[UMGriz75]

Super. Can we all agree, then, that they are stupid morons who deserve significant punishment (outside the program and within), and that the University of Montana deserves better from those to whom they provide full ride athletic scholarships? Thanks.

I'm never willing to say that hard-working athletes who do something stupid in their lives are any worse than the stupid morons who pretend to moral superiority by sitting on their butts with too many beers on the table who claim that "zero tolerance" in the context of a felony charge is the way to deal with young people who make mistakes, and then try to whiff it by saying it -- when the facts become a bit clearer and more reasonable -- that doesn't matter if its a felony or a misdemeanor.

Yes, it does.

If I was a UM athlete, the fact that there are predatory fans just waiting to paint a target on your back in the name of their own self-righteous hypocrisy, I'd offer the appropriate finger.

 

[PlayerRep]

Your statements are not correct. If someone isn't threatening you in your dwelling, you can't shoot them. Karma would have been convicted without the baiting. The Karma kid wasn't in the house, carrying a weapon, or trying to get into the house. Karma went outside after the kid. Had this homeowner gone out of his to the garage, and killed the players, he would have been arrested for murder. He could see that the players weren't carrying a weapon, and they weren't trying to get into his living quarters.

You suck as a lawyer.

Read "Disparity of Force"

Kaarma couldn't use that to satisfy imminence because it was one kid.

This would have been 4:1

Doesn't matter if they are in a separate building and not coming into his building. Just no threat. Read the case law.

If he goes out to confront them, which he has every right to do, and they make a move that he interprets as a threat, then he can shoot them in self defense. To be more specific, they would have to be within 21' of him (Tueller) to satisfy Jeopardy of the AOJ of imminence(only because you said he was able to determine they were unarmed, if unable then no distance required). But still the disparity of force would allow him to use deadly force.

Read the book

Read the case law. The book is not a primary source. Note that some MT prosecutors have said that the doctrine applies only in the building, not outside of it. So going out to confront someone can also get the homeowner into trouble.

 

[PlayerRep]

Super. Can we all agree, then, that they are stupid morons who deserve significant punishment (outside the program and within), and that the University of Montana deserves better from those to whom they provide full ride athletic scholarships? Thanks.

I'm never willing to say that hard-working athletes who do something stupid in their lives are any worse than the stupid morons who pretend to moral superiority by sitting on their butts with too many beers on the table who claim that "zero tolerance" in the context of a felony charge is the way to deal with young people who make mistakes, and then try to whiff it by saying it -- when the facts become a bit clearer and more reasonable -- that doesn't matter if its a felony or a misdemeanor.

Yes, it does.

If I was a UM athlete, the fact that there are predatory fans just waiting to paint a target on your back in the name of their own self-righteous hypocrisy, I'd offer the appropriate finger.

And how would you or an athlete feel if the "fan" is the former head of the alumni association or something similar?