3 Griz Arrested

[GrizPony]

The felony charge was unreasonable.

 

[SeattleBobcat]

If the homeowner went out to confront them and one of the dudes made a move that made the man feel like his life was in jeopardy, he could have used lethal force legally due to the disparity of force. There was no disparity of force in the Kaarma case.

This situation and the Kaarma situation have very little in common other than both originate with criminal trespass.

The State argued, in the Kaarma case, that leaving the garage door open at night was an "invitation" and "entrapment" that by leaving his premises open to the public, he was creating a scenario likely to invite trespass by ignorant young people out on a lark.

Kaarma argued that when he went outside, he could not see into the garage, knew that someone was in there, and was afraid that the intruder, who was clearly "on the premises," was armed, and that he felt threatened in particular because of repeated intrusions and that the intruder knew that Kaarma was standing there.

The motive -- "stealing beer" -- was not a defense to murder, neither was the fact that the intruder was on the premises, inside a structure, in the dark, admittedly committing at least one crime. The State's argument -- that leaving the premises open to the public at night was an "invitation" -- offers a problematic argument, to get a conviction in that case.

Ummmm..... I think that one goes to reasonableness. Does a reasonable person set a trap to shoot someone as Kaarma did? It's as simple as that.

In this case, there was no intent on alluring an intruder. It would be reasonable to confront them.

You could argue that the ladder was alluring them...

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

If the homeowner went out to confront them and one of the dudes made a move that made the man feel like his life was in jeopardy, he could have used lethal force legally due to the disparity of force. There was no disparity of force in the Kaarma case.

This situation and the Kaarma situation have very little in common other than both originate with criminal trespass.

The State argued, in the Kaarma case, that leaving the garage door open at night was an "invitation" and "entrapment" that by leaving his premises open to the public, he was creating a scenario likely to invite trespass by ignorant young people out on a lark.

Kaarma argued that when he went outside, he could not see into the garage, knew that someone was in there, and was afraid that the intruder, who was clearly "on the premises," was armed, and that he felt threatened in particular because of repeated intrusions and that the intruder knew that Kaarma was standing there.

The motive -- "stealing beer" -- was not a defense to murder, neither was the fact that the intruder was on the premises, inside a structure, in the dark, admittedly committing at least one crime. The State's argument -- that leaving the premises open to the public at night was an "invitation" -- offers a problematic argument, to get a conviction in that case.

Ummmm..... I think that one goes to reasonableness. Does a reasonable person set a trap to shoot someone as Kaarma did? It's as simple as that.

In this case, there was no intent on alluring an intruder. It would be reasonable to confront them.

You could argue that the ladder was alluring them...

The intent wasn't there

 

[CFallsGriz]

I know it's been alluded to in the 40 pages previous, but I just have to say...If we had been caught for all of the crap we pulled as kids growing up bored in Helena, Montana, we would have been in some pretty deep shit. Granted, it was the 70's and 80's, and I can't imagine what would happen now. ESPECIALLY in this town. And I was not even among the most mischevious. But if you did get caught doing something that was not really considered "harmful" to others (ie trespassing and sneaking off with someone's beer) there was a good chance you were "escorted" home by a pissed off cop, and maybe had your ass kicked the next day by Dad.

Of course, that would all be deemed irresponsibe and a dereliction of duty by the PD, letting criminals go home and giving them a ride. I'm well aware that the Missoula PD is not in the business of providing a taxi seervice for "perps" on the calls they get. I'm highlighting the mentality of the PC crowd, what they would have done with me given the chance, and my utter disdain for that viewpoint. And then of course there's the "child abuse" that ensued the following day. SMH

I realize this situation has to do with a couple larger guys who probably have deep voices and they were shuffling around and their intent was unclear. But over 16K for counseling?? Counseling! LMAO! What a complete shit show. And people are still indicating that they believe the group "got away" with someting after this ridiculous punishment was meted out. I'm not saying circle the wagons and sing kumbaya, but FFS, be reasonable! Why the hell should a great prospective student-athlete ever want to come here? One mistake off the field and you are crucified.

In a cruel ironic twist, I worked so hard to get back here, and now I can't help but question my own judgment...unfortunately for me, we started a successful business and I'm now stuck in this PC cesspool.

 

[UMGriz75]

Ummmm..... I think that one goes to reasonableness. Does a reasonable person set a trap to shoot someone as Kaarma did? It's as simple as that.

That's the point. In Kaarma, the State argued that the trespass was encouraged, that the trespasser would naturally be lured in to investigate by leaving the premises open. Of course Kaarma was claiming that his family had been "traumatized" several times by the known invasions of their family premises, fully occupied premises, to which the sheriff's office had never responded in a serious manner. There, the State argued that trespass is WHAT YOUNG PEOPLE NATURALLY DO WHEN YOU LEAVE YOUR PREMISES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT NIGHT.

Should he have felt traumatized? Should he have felt unprotected by Missoula County? Should he have done what several on this thread have argued that the UM students are "lucky" they did not "receive" -- being shot?

Of course, in that case, "trespassing" suddenly took on much less significance than here, even though the circumstances of the "trespass" were far more egregious: 1) the trespassers were, in fact, invading the occupied premises, 2) at night, 3) with the intent to steal or commit other crimes, and 4) the Kaarma's had very small children at risk on a repeated basis.

Kaarma did everything that posters here claim the UM students should have gotten.

"Trespassing" had virtually no meaning there, when it actually was for a criminal purpose. Here, it has been blown up into a major case and controversy in a case in which the "trespass" had none of the characteristics -- none -- of a true criminal trespass.

And Kaarma didn't get counseling. He got a prison sentence instead.

The lesson for UM students is that "the law" will be applied depending on who you are, not what you did, and it will be applied to ensure the maximum financial benefit for the "criminal justice community."

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

A new Law section to egriz would sure clean up the board and keep the riff raff out.

 

[UMGriz75]

The intent wasn't there

You keep stumbling over the same point: there was no criminal intent on the part of the UM students. None. On the other hand, using the State's argument in Kaarma, leaving the garage door open was at least a negligent act on Kaarma's part because it offered the opportunity to random teenagers to enter the premises. The fact that it was, in fact, an intentional act only took advantage, the State argued, of the natural inclination of random teens to "explore." His premises would not have been subject to a trespass invasion if he had simply secured the premises, and so he could not "blame the teens" nor was it any justification whatsoever for shooting one of them.

 

[IdahoGrizFan]

This is long.....

can someone please send me an email when we find out if they are off the team? If not now many games will they miss. That is all I want to know.

Email me at: [email protected]

Thanks.

 

[UMGriz75]

Guess that makes it all good....nothing more to see here....

No, it proves that common sense, in the hands of those that have it, goes a long ways to understanding these circumstances.

 

[Htowngriz]

This is long.....

can someone please send me an email when we find out if they are off the team? If not now many games will they miss. That is all I want to know.

Email me at: [email protected]

Thanks.

Not only are they permabanned from the football team and the university, they shall be forced to wear red "T"s (for trespassers) on their chests for the rest of their days.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Guess that makes it all good....nothing more to see here....

No, it proves that common sense, in the hands of those that have it, goes a long ways to understanding these circumstances.

lack of common sense is what started this whole thing

 

[IdahoGrizFan]

This is long.....

can someone please send me an email when we find out if they are off the team? If not now many games will they miss. That is all I want to know.

Email me at: [email protected]

Thanks.

Not only are they permabanned from the football team and the university, they shall be forced to wear red "T"s (for trespassers) on their chests for the rest of their days.

That is the worst...... I was afraid that was going to happen. And they are to think about what they did.... forever.

 

[br fan]

The intent wasn't there

You keep stumbling over the same point: there was no criminal intent on the part of the UM students. None. On the other hand, using the State's argument in Kaarma, leaving the garage door open was at least a negligent act on Kaarma's part because it offered the opportunity to random teenagers to enter the premises. The fact that it was, in fact, an intentional act only took advantage, the State argued, of the natural inclination of random teens to "explore." His premises would not have been subject to a trespass invasion if he had simply secured the premises, and so he could not "blame the teens" nor was it any justification whatsoever for shooting one of them.

Montana's criminal code is unique in that there is no such thing as "criminal intent" or "mens rea." In Montana the only mental state necessary is to knowingly, purposely or negligently commit the act. No evil or unlawful purpose is needed.

 

[UMGriz75]

Montana's criminal code is unique in that there is no such thing as "criminal intent" or "mens rea." In Montana the only mental state necessary is to knowingly, purposely or negligently commit the act. No evil or unlawful purpose is needed.

45-2-103. General requirements of criminal act and mental state. (1) Except for deliberate homicide as defined in 45-5-102(1)(b) or an offense that involves absolute liability, a person is not guilty of an offense unless, with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense, a person acts while having one of the mental states of knowingly, negligently, or purposely.
(3) The existence of a mental state may be inferred from the acts of the accused and the facts and circumstances connected with the offense.
(4) If the statute defining an offense prescribes a particular mental state with respect to the offense as a whole without distinguishing among the elements of the offense, the prescribed mental state applies to each element.
(5) Knowledge that certain conduct constitutes an offense or knowledge of the existence, meaning, or application of the statute defining an offense is not an element of the offense unless the statute clearly defines it as an element.

Montana's trespass statute has a "knowing" requirement.

Montana Criminal Jury Instruction # 2-104:

[Knowingly] A person acts knowingly: [when the person is aware of his or her conduct] OR [with respect to a specific circumstance defined by an offense, when the person is aware of that circumstance.]

Based on the Montana Supreme Court decisions in State v. Rothacher, 272 Mont. 303, 901 P.2d 82 (1995); State v. Lambert, 280 Mont. 231, 929 P.2d 846 (1996); and State v. Patton , 280 Mont. 278, 930 P.2d 635 (1996); the Commission believes that it is no longer acceptable to instruct on the mental states of purposely or knowingly by listing each of the alternative subsections, thus allowing the jury to select that which it believes is most applicable. If the crime is a “result” oriented crime, you should define the mental state with the subsection that relates to a result. For example, if the crime is deliberate homicide, purposely should be defined as: "...a person acts purposely with respect to a result if it is the person's conscious object to cause that result." Likewise, in the same situation, knowingly should be defined as: “A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of conduct described by a statute defining an offense when the person is aware that it is highly probable that the result will be caused by the person's conduct."

That's "mens rea."

Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must be in while committing a crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense.

 

[Grisly Fan]

Here is an unrealistic wish. I hope that the leadership at the University of Montana honestly views the incident and judges that a "pound of flesh" has been taken from the players involved and that there is no need to heap insult upon injury. Give them extra PT and let life go on. No suspension, no lingering stigma. (Does anyone think that the or any other team member is going to do anything remotely like this anytime in the reasonable future?) The legal system has pretty clearly over-punished and I'd like the University to compensate a bit. Ain't gonna happen -- and damage to future recruiting will happen whether it is plainly visible or not.

 

[nzone]

I don't know what is involved in an internal review with the new facts that have come to light but it seems pretty cut and dry to me. They need to put this thing to bed and not over analyze it. Get it over with already.

 

[beaverboy]

Common sense has been stricken from the record of the Missoula justice system. No more grey area, the black and white crowd now is in charge. We had a cop in our peaceful little Montana town that always followed the codes even when it made no sense. Some supported, his by the book nonsense, by saying he was only doing his job. He loved stopping people and coming to conclusions of criminality without taking into account the entire situation. Stupid people like a lot of hard and fast rules to follow, that way they don't have to think. Eventually the public became tired of this type of law enforcement by our rouge cop and he was fired. The crime of century, that occurred Sat. night, in Missoula could have been solved with 15 minutes of conversation. Nobody would have been cuffed and arrested. The Missoulian would not have had their sensational story about terrible mayhem. Five young people could have gone on with their lives. Five sets of parents did not have to go through hell. The black and white crowd wants justice and I am sure they are disappointed that nobody is going to jail.

 

[MTOutsider]

Question, The one that stole the case of beer, What is his 40 time with a case of bear under his arm and does he have any eligibility left?

 

[The.Real.2506]

the best part of e-fizz seeing all these 2 bit lawyers argue a pointless case :thumb:

 

[br fan]

Montana's criminal code is unique in that there is no such thing as "criminal intent" or "mens rea." In Montana the only mental state necessary is to knowingly, purposely or negligently commit the act. No evil or unlawful purpose is needed.

45-2-103. General requirements of criminal act and mental state. (1) Except for deliberate homicide as defined in 45-5-102(1)(b) or an offense that involves absolute liability, a person is not guilty of an offense unless, with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense, a person acts while having one of the mental states of knowingly, negligently, or purposely.
(3) The existence of a mental state may be inferred from the acts of the accused and the facts and circumstances connected with the offense.
(4) If the statute defining an offense prescribes a particular mental state with respect to the offense as a whole without distinguishing among the elements of the offense, the prescribed mental state applies to each element.
(5) Knowledge that certain conduct constitutes an offense or knowledge of the existence, meaning, or application of the statute defining an offense is not an element of the offense unless the statute clearly defines it as an element.

Montana's trespass statute has a "knowing" requirement.

Montana Criminal Jury Instruction # 2-104:

[Knowingly] A person acts knowingly: [when the person is aware of his or her conduct] OR [with respect to a specific circumstance defined by an offense, when the person is aware of that circumstance.]

Based on the Montana Supreme Court decisions in State v. Rothacher, 272 Mont. 303, 901 P.2d 82 (1995); State v. Lambert, 280 Mont. 231, 929 P.2d 846 (1996); and State v. Patton , 280 Mont. 278, 930 P.2d 635 (1996); the Commission believes that it is no longer acceptable to instruct on the mental states of purposely or knowingly by listing each of the alternative subsections, thus allowing the jury to select that which it believes is most applicable. If the crime is a “result” oriented crime, you should define the mental state with the subsection that relates to a result. For example, if the crime is deliberate homicide, purposely should be defined as: "...a person acts purposely with respect to a result if it is the person's conscious object to cause that result." Likewise, in the same situation, knowingly should be defined as: “A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of conduct described by a statute defining an offense when the person is aware that it is highly probable that the result will be caused by the person's conduct."

That's "mens rea."

Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must be in while committing a crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense.

I take it you didn't have the Duke for criminal law.