Let us not forget, this wasn’t some innocent wayward kid on a guys lawn who was shot. It was a serial burglar who violated the sanctity if Kaarma’s home and was killed while Kaarma was defending it.
To me, I see no case here against Kaarma. Yet, leave it to some radical anti gun prosecutor to push the issue. The trial against Kaarma for the April 27th incident is currently underway. The rationale for the prosecution rests on painting Kaarma as a paranoid gun owner who was on edge and acting erratically. Yet here’s the rub, the Missoula area that Kaarma resides in was under a string of burglaries of homes, including his own previously.
Let that sink in. The prosecution is arguing that Kaarma was paranoid even though he was RIGHT. Little surprise that after April 27th burglaries in the area ceased.
Kaarma’s defense is using Montana’s stand your ground law to justify the shooting.
Montana has had it’s stand your ground law since its inception as a state over 125 years ago.
The only change to the law in that time came in 2009 when the following caveat to the constitutional right to defend one’s home with force was removed; the aggressor must be entering the home in a “violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner.”