"Montana dress code has female legislators sporting new look: clenched jaws" by Jack Healy, New York Times December 14, 2014
NEW YORK — Montana has never been known as a black-tie place. Governors wear cowboy boots and bolo ties, and people joke that a tuxedo is a pair of black jeans and a sport coat.
But this winter, when lawmakers arrive at the State Capitol, they will have to abide by a new dress code: No more jeans. No casual Fridays. And female lawmakers “should be sensitive to skirt lengths and necklines.”
Republican leaders who approved the guidelines say they are simply trying to bring a businesslike formality to a Legislature of ranchers, farmers, and business owners that meets for only four months every other year.
Still, the dress code has set off a torrent of online mockery and is being pilloried by Democratic women as a sexist anachronism straight from the days of buggies and spittoons.
“The sergeant at arms could be standing there with a ruler, measuring hemlines and cleavage,” said Jenny Eck, a Democratic House member from Helena.
Eck said she was leaving a health care forum in Helena, the capital, on Monday when one of her Republican colleagues peered at her and told her that he was glad to see she was dressed appropriately.
“It just creates this ability to scrutinize women,” Eck said. “It makes it acceptable for someone who’s supposed to be my peer and my equal to look me up and down and comment on what I’m wearing. That doesn’t feel right.”
About a third of the state legislatures in the country had written rules for how lawmakers, staff members, and visitors were supposed to dress when they were on the state house floor, according to a 2006 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the most recent nationwide look at the issue. Others had unwritten codes for what not to wear.
Most simply called for business attire, but some were quite particular, according to the survey. New Jersey asked state senators to wear suits, not sport coats.
Pennsylvania let House members take off their jackets on the floor, but they had to put them on again to speak. Women in Ohio could not wear sleeveless shirts, but short sleeves were fine. In Georgia, suit coats for men and “dignified dress” for women were expected.
Montana’s one-page list of fashion guidelines (officials say they are not formal rules) were handed down Dec. 5 in what Representative Keith Regier, the House Republican majority leader, said was a response to questions from newly elected lawmakers about what to wear on the floor.
“We do hold decorum at a high standard,” Regier said. “What we’re saying is: Be appropriate in what you wear. Don’t wear something that could be a distraction from the legislative process.”
The seven-point list covers men’s attire, calling for a suit or a jacket and tie, dress slacks and shirt, and “dress shoes or dress boots.” But the guidelines for women are a little longer and more detailed, and had many female lawmakers rolling their eyes.
The list includes what kinds of footwear they should avoid (flip-flops, tennis shoes, and sandals), declares that leggings are not considered dress pants, and encourages modesty on skirt lengths and necklines.
“It’s like something out of ‘Mad Men,’ ” said Representative Ellie Hill, a Democrat from Missoula, referring to a television drama set in the 1960s. “The whole thing is totally sexist and bizarre and unnecessary.”
But Lindsey Grovom, the chief clerk who worked with House leaders to develop the new attire guidelines that Republicans ultimately proposed, said she had been taken aback by the uproar.
She said there was nothing overtly or covertly sexist about asking for professional attire from elected representatives.
--more--"
At least they are not in their birthday suits, although maybe they should be.
"Man convicted in German exchange student’s killing" Associated Press December 18, 2014
MISSOULA, Mont. — A Montana man who shot and killed a German exchange student caught trespassing in his garage was convicted of deliberate homicide Wednesday.
The verdict came despite a defense argument that a ‘‘castle doctrine’’ law allowed him to use deadly force to protect his home and family.
Cheers erupted in the packed courtroom when the verdict in the case of Markus Kaarma, 30, was read. The parents of the victim, 17-year-old Diren Dede, hugged and cried.
‘‘It is very good,’’ Dede’s father, Celal Dede, said with tears in his eyes. ‘‘Long live justice.’’
Kaarma was stoic as he was led from the courtroom. He faces a minimum penalty of 10 years in prison when he is sentenced Feb. 11.
His lawyers plan to appeal.
--more--"
UNREAL!
The message seems to be that criminals have the right to trespass and steal, but you have no right to defend yourself or your possessions. It's call the police, even if it takes them over an hour to respond like in Detroit.
"Slain German teen’s parents testify about ordeal" by Lisa Baumann, Associated Press December 19, 2014
MISSOULA, Mont. — The parents of a German exchange student who was shot to death by a Montana man while trespassing in his garage told a judge Thursday their dreams are broken.
Celal and Gulcin Dede testified about the effects of their 17-year-old son’s death, saying they’ve been unable to work or plan for the future.
“Our whole family in Hamburg, Germany, and in Turkey are all broken and most have psychological problems right now,” Celal Dede said through a Turkish translator.
A judge will consider their comments when sentencing Markus Kaarma, who was convicted of deliberate homicide Wednesday in Diren Dede’s killing....
Look, I am sorry someone is dead. What do you think I've spent more than eight years railing about? It's a pro-life blog in every way.
The Missoula man shot the teenager in the early hours of April 27 after being alerted to an intruder by motion sensors. Witnesses testified Kaarma fired four shotgun blasts at the teen, who was unarmed.
Celal Dede said his son never meant to come to the United States to do anything bad, and he didn’t deserve to die that way.
No offense, but what was he doing trespassing?
Diren’s mother told the court she would never forget the phone call telling her Diren was dead....
Kaarma’s “castle doctrine” defense, which allows people to use deadly force to protect their home and family, failed him after prosecutors argued Kaarma hoped to bait an intruder by leaving his garage door partially open and placing a purse inside.
Kaarma told several hairstylists before the shooting that he had been waiting up to shoot some kids who were burglarizing homes.
He said they would see it on the news.
Okay, look, I'm not excusing the tactics at all; however, the victim also made a choice to go in there knowing it was wrong.
The other thing is WHERE WAS LAW ENFORCEMENT during all this? A series of robberies and burglaries and yet they get nowhere? What are they ignoring or covering up?
More than 30 US states, including Montana, have laws expanding the right of people to use deadly force to protect their homes or themselves, some of them known as ‘‘stand your ground’’ laws.
The self-defense principle known as the castle doctrine is a centuries-old premise that a person has the right to defend their home against attack.
I think it's in the Bill of Rights, like the Second one.
Kaarma’s attorneys argued that he feared for his life, didn’t know if the intruder was armed, and was on edge because his garage was burglarized at least once in the weeks leading up to the shooting.
That only matters if you are police.
--more--"
Must be bad Kaarma, yeah.
He should have been a police; then he could have gotten away with murder.
