Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Stand your ground’ defense fails in Montana murder trial (Markus Kaarma found guilty)
Associated Press ^ | Dec 18, 2014 2:20 AM EST | Lisa Baumann

Posted on 12/17/2014 11:57:19 PM PST by Olog-hai

Just days before he shot to death a 17-year-old German exchange student, Markus Kaarma told hair stylists he had been waiting up to shoot some kids who were burglarizing homes.

He told them they would see it on the news.

Kaarma hoped to bait an intruder by leaving his garage door partially open and placing a purse inside, prosecutors said. And when he did, a motion detector alerted him early April 27. Kaarma took a shotgun outside and almost immediately fired four blasts into the garage. Diren Dede, unarmed, was hit twice. He died after the final shot hit him in the head.

For those reasons, Kaarma’s “castle doctrine” defense, which allows people to use deadly force to protect their home and family, failed him Wednesday. A Missoula jury convicted him of deliberate homicide. …

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: banglist; direndede; lynching; markuskaarma; missoula; psychokiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-172 next last
To: x1stcav

Please describe.


101 posted on 12/18/2014 9:53:08 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

What innocent people would be drawn to such a “trap”?

This is not a case where Kaarma knew Dede and called him to a certain location in order to murder him—which would be murder. Or am I addressing one who regards “murder” and “kill” as synonyms?


102 posted on 12/18/2014 9:55:33 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It is murder if it is unjustified killing. He would have had no justification for killing had he not preset the situation. His words to the barber show he was deliberately setting up a situation IN ORDER to justify killing someone. That in itself removes all validity to that justification. Just as it is not legal for a concealed weapon carrier to start a fight and THEN claim he was in fear of his life when he drew and killed. He was only in fear for his life because he had put his life in danger. The man in this story was only justified by the robbery which he himself had invited. Not through negligence but through deliberate action. I can’t leave my car window down with an ipad on the seat and then wait behind the next car with a gun, to shoot whoever steals it. Beyond merely illegal it is grossly immoral. This man did not set out to defend his property. He deliberately put his property in danger (open garage door) in order to bait in someone to kill. he determined on his own volition that the robber was deserving of death and he then set up the situation whereby he would be able to administer it. Just because he did not know the kid by sight did not mean it wasn’t premeditated murder. He knew someone was robbing garages and he systematically planned and carried out a killing of that person. Had he not blabbed to the hairdresser he might have been able to make a case for justification (by lying or omitting his premeditation).


103 posted on 12/18/2014 10:06:29 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
But the jury cannot appreciate that

The jury is not called to judge the crime of theft. The alleged thief will never get his day in court because he is dead. He is dead because someone premeditated killed him. Not in self defense and not in defense of property. You can't put property in danger with the intent to shoot someone and then 'save' it by shooting someone. Elimination of a 'potential' criminal is not a legally recognized justification for shooting someone. We are a nation of laws and I for one want it to stay that way.
104 posted on 12/18/2014 10:10:11 AM PST by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

No, premeditation requires that the assailant knows the assailed, especially in a murder case.

Like another person on this thread pointed out, it seems that some on here think only the government law enforcement can set “traps” and not the citizens. Best of luck with that way of thinking.

Dede, by being in Kaarma’s garage when he ought not be, was no “potential” criminal. Dede crossed the line.


105 posted on 12/18/2014 10:18:52 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

“Preset the situation”? No. Dede created the situation by going into the garage. Nobody goes into the garage, then no “situation”.

Equating this with starting a fight is mendacity.

And please don’t throw around the word “immoral” without describing which moral law was broken.


106 posted on 12/18/2014 10:21:34 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
So you’re actually claiming that Kaarma would have shot a “small child” because he just wanted to trap any human being to shoot rather than stop (a) criminal(s) who had been burglarizing him?

Given that Kaarma told police that he shot blindly into the darkness and never saw the person in his garage until he'd killed him, yeah, it could have been anyone, including a kid.

107 posted on 12/18/2014 10:23:35 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels"-- Tom Waits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
A little kid would enter Kaarma’s garage at 12:30 in the morning? Absurd.

Besides, that is not what the prosecutor or witnesses (witnesses?) said.
In their rebuttal, prosecutors called Kaarma the aggressor and told the jury it is “sickening” that he adjusted his aim for the final gunshot. Witnesses testified Kaarma fired three times at roughly the same level, but readjusted and raised his aim for the shot that killed Dede. …
Seems to me that whatever witnesses there were are biased witnesses, not to mention accessories to Dede’s attempt at burglary.

It also looks like the hairdresser’s testimony was not corroborated.
108 posted on 12/18/2014 10:54:23 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Not to mention that Dede entered the garage at thirty minutes after midnight. His “friend” claimed that Dede did this in order to get “something to drink”. Who goes into a stranger’s garage at 12:30 am to procure a beverage?


109 posted on 12/18/2014 11:00:07 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"Stand your ground defense fails.."

Looks like the AP has corrected the headline and the story to reflect that it is not a "Stand Your Ground" case at all. Good for them. It's about time they stopped being stupid.

110 posted on 12/18/2014 11:05:49 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"No, premeditation requires that the assailant knows the assailed, especially in a murder case."

Premeditation does not require knowing the victim, no. Naturally in most cases they would, because in most cases people don't plot to murder strangers. But if you do plot to murder a stranger it is premeditation.

"Like another person on this thread pointed out, it seems that some on here think only the government law enforcement can set “traps” and not the citizens. Best of luck with that way of thinking."

Even the government can't set a trap to execute someone.

"Dede crossed the line."

So? Apparently some people have a problem with the concept that both parties can be guilty.

111 posted on 12/18/2014 11:09:15 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Figured AP would do that.

Kaarma did get railroaded FWICS. Nobody goes into a garage at 12:30 in the morning merely looking for something to drink—there are convenience stores for that purpose.


112 posted on 12/18/2014 11:09:46 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: airedale

Seems to me....the FBI, CIA, DNC, DEA, set up traps and stuff all the time.


113 posted on 12/18/2014 11:12:22 AM PST by Osage Orange (I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Herzo61
"Show me where Kaarma had reason to “fear for his life” and I will support the “Stand your ground” defense."

If he had a reasonable fear for his life, and hadn't instigated it, it would be self-defense. "Stand Your Ground" has nothing to do with it. SYG is not a synonym for self-defense.

114 posted on 12/18/2014 11:13:20 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: mlo

This isn’t execution (which even in the case of the death penalty merely means to perform a deed).

Take a closer look at the facts. Dede went into Kaarma’s garage at 12:30 am; the garage was dark (unlit); the alleged “bait purse” was not only therefore invisible, but located in an obscure corner to boot. Prosecutor Karla Painter alleged that Kaarma could have deliberately aimed and shot Dede in the head successfully in said unlit garage. “Execution”?


115 posted on 12/18/2014 11:14:16 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
"Kaarma did get railroaded FWICS. Nobody goes into a garage at 12:30 in the morning merely looking for something to drink—there are convenience stores for that purpose."

Doesn't have anything to do with Kaarma's guilt.

116 posted on 12/18/2014 11:14:43 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Says the newly minted defense lawyer.


117 posted on 12/18/2014 11:15:01 AM PST by Lee'sGhost ("Just look at the flowers, Lizzie. Just look at the flowers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mlo

What guilt?

Again, look at the facts. They all point to Dede having guilt. A murderer would not call 911 either, but attempt to conceal the body.


118 posted on 12/18/2014 11:16:05 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Don’t need to be one of those to assess the facts. Are jurors lawyers of any stripe?


119 posted on 12/18/2014 11:16:50 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Deliberately aiming or not has nothing to do with it either. If he set up a situation to entice a thief, then swept the room with a shotgun when one showed up, that’s not self-defense.


120 posted on 12/18/2014 11:17:03 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-172 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson