Home owner kills intruder and found guilty despite Castle Doctrine !

More than 30 states have laws that allow people to use deadly force if they have a reasonable fear for their life or property. But this week, a Montana jury said that type of law has its limits, finding a homeowner who shot a teenager in his garage guilty of deliberate homicide.

In the early hours of April 27, a motion detector alerted homeowner Markus Kaarma someone was in the garage of his home in Missoula, Mont. He went outside and almost immediately fired four shotgun blasts, killing 17-year-old Diren Dede, a German exchange student

Prosecutors contended 30-year-old Kaarma was the aggressor and had purposefully lured an intruder into his garage in order to hurt him.

During the two-week trial, witness Tanya Colby testified to what Kaarma had told her just days before the shooting.

"He said 'I'm tired. I've been up for the last three nights with a shotgun wanting to kill some kids,' " Colby said.

German student Diren Dede was fatally shot after he entered the garage of Markus Kaarma in Montana last month. Dede was on a one-year high school exchange program to the U.S.

Kaarma, his girlfriend and their infant son had been the victim of a burglary in their garage just days before the shooting. But Deputy Missoula County Attorney Karla Painter said Kaarma left his garage door open that night in order to exact vigilante justice.

"He had one thing on his mind, and that was revenge," Painter said.

Defense attorney Paul Ryan, however, argued Kaarma's use of deadly force was justified because he feared for his life and his family's safety.

"You shouldn't have to run out the back door, or lock up because the state wants to tell you to lock up," Ryan said. "It's my house. Not the burglar's house."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...guilty-of-killing-german-exchange-student.jpg

My take - regardless of whether it's the first time you're breaking into a man's home or the tenth, why does your life value more than the people who live in that home ? As far as I'm concerned, this man should have been found not guilty. He had every right to assume the worst of the person who broke into his home in middle of the night.

 

This sick (*)(*)(*)(*) bragged to neighbors and others about how he wanted to kill kids, baited his garage, and then left the relative safety of his house to shoot, multiple times, an unarmed 17 year old kid in his garage.

Hope he gets the max sentence because this guy needs to be off the street.

 

The bold part is the only part that where he really screwed himself.

You can't "bait" someone into your garage/home. The (now dead) perp was the one who made the decision to go into a persons garage (which btw is PART of the house, not mere trespassing into his front yard) to likely steal something. And I consider my garage to be as equally safe as my house, so if I walk out to get something out of one of my cars and encounter an intruder then they are fair game as they are the ones who made the choice to be there and I can safely assume they will go to any means to escape or get into my house where my family is.

And the whole "unarmed kid" phrase really lost any and all meaning a while ago (seriously stop using it, you're making yourself out to be a fool). So did accusing someone of firing more then they "need" because you're a self proclaimed expert on weapons and ballistics.

The court system did it's job and found this guy guilty based on facts and evidence. But you're making a weak attempt at justifying robbing peoples homes and not expecting to win stupid prizes as long as you're "unarmed" and a "kid"

 

I agree. The man had a wife and baby in the house.

There was a huge thread about this already, but I think it got deleted.

 

This kid came from a culture where people don't murder each other for stepping onto each others property.

Foreign exchange students should be warned about people like you before they enter the country.

- - - Updated - - -

He wasn't defending his home.

 

I agree with defending yourself and your home but he deliberately set it up where someone would come in. That coupled with what he said about wanting to kill some kids erases any claim he makes about self defense. I believe the jury was right in their decision.

 

How do you know? I bet I could do some serious damage to someone even without a weapon.

If someone is in my home, uninvited, they are fair game. Defending or not, I've seen hundreds of videos of officers having the life beat out of them by 'unarmed' suspects.

That unarmed (*)(*)(*)(*) doesn't fly. The kid was where he wasn't supposed to be, he got what was coming to him.

If the kid never went into the garage, he would be alive right now. End of discussion.

 

In what culture or world is it acceptable to walk into other peoples dwellings?

Foreign exchange students have to follow the same laws as everybody else. I know it's hard to comprehend for you, but other people's homes are not public property as much as you would like them to be.

You can however put up a sign saying "all foreign exchange students welcome inside this home to take what they want" in front of your own house. It's up to you and I wouldn't try to stop you.

You're just making too much sense now for our friends on the far left

 

I see, a few tools in a garage are more valuable than a life. gottcha"....

 

You obviously don't know the price of tools

 

First tools. Then someone's $2000 bike. Then they break into the home and take jewelry, Ect. Threaten someone's life. Same ol story. If he didn't brag to anyone it would've been pretty clear cut.

And by the way if it's ok for someone to steal your property just because it's on display I guess it's ok to steal some sex from someone when they're wearing a low cut skirt. Hey, isn't it baiting and taunting? There's liberal logic😄

 

Sorry, but you'll never convince normal people that it's fine to shoot anyone for any reason if you find them in your garage.

Besides, that's not what this guy was doing. He baited a kid into his garage and then shot him for being in his garage, using the Castle Doctrine as his defense.

 

Post 6 says otherwise.

 

Fortunately, your idea of 'normal' is only shared by a couple of far left loons.

 

In these circumstances a person should only use lethal force when it is absolutely necessary. Whatever circumstances, you should take steps to avoid killing someone. Of course this needs to be judged case by case but that should be the guiding principle. Taking another human life is quite a serious issue and people should not be so eager to make use of such force.

The only circumstances where you should take another person's life is when you genuinely believe that your life or another is in immediate danger, which can result in death or severe injury.

In this case I agree that the man should have been convicted. I get the impression he just wanted to shoot someone and then boast about it. I'm not aware of the details of the case but I suspect he could have avoided killing the person in question.

 

Got what he deserved. He set a trap specifically to kill someone. That isn't self defense in anyone's book (except maybe a couple of far right loonies) it is murder, and premeditated murder at that. throw the book at him.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Rule 6 Removed<<<

Thats why you don't ask questions. Ask anybody who's been killed in a home invasion whether they would stop and ask questions if given the chance to do it again. Their lives are over. Over. Because they gave someone that was in their house the benefit of the doubt.

 

the word love is to emotional by yah, to insert into this psychology theory of yours about rightwingers, and just shooting someone is just you packaging everyone into the gun sights of rightwingers, as all are out of control and that is another false narrative.

 

Like I said before everyone is entitled to defend themselves and use of lethal force should be used when it is absolutely necessary. All cases where a burglar has been killed should be judged case by case.

 

i agree now if he the suspect was closer to the child or wife and in the house except the garage, and was in close range of kidnapping them or grabbing a kitchen knife, then he would of been fair game.

 

Where he screwed up was announcing his intentiion to kill someboy and leaving the door open. That ceases to become defense and becomes an announced offense. He crossed the line and got what he deserved. So did the kid. Stupid actions win stupid prizes.

 

I agree with you on the assuming part. However, IMO I believe that the jury got this one right. For me the biggest things is that this homeowner's life wasn't in any immideditly danger. That along with this statements lead me to believe that this guy was looking to shoot someone regardless.

 

This nitwit did not defend himself or his family...he went hunting and set out bait.