Posted on 02/13/2015 8:36:34 AM PST by Oliviaforever
A Montana homeowner was sentenced to 70 years in prison for the “stand your ground” killing of German exchange student.
Markus Kaarma, 30, was convicted in December of deliberate homicide after he gunned down 17-year-old Diren Dede in his garage. He’ll have to serve 20 years before he’s eligible for parole.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.nydailynews.com ...
“Then you’re OK with the states allegedly invalidating the Castle Doctrine”
I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Castle doctrine is.
“An open garage at 1 am is not “bait”.”
When you open it specifically to entice someone to enter, complete with some exposed valuables as a lure, then of course it is a trap.
“And there was nobody waiting in the shadows either way—except Dede.”
That’s not what the state investigators found. Do you have some evidence that they did not?
How do we know? Any false witness can say any thing.
An open garage door at 1 am is not bait. And defense of the home against a stranger walking in at 1 am is not murder.
This is the kind of thinking that leads to 70 year prison sentences.
In an open garage with bait. It was a deliberate trap. That is clearly and rightfully illegal. The home owner got what he deserved. So did the perp.
Most states require some sort of threat OR forcible entry (which implies a threat) to justify using deadly force.
Bad Kaarma, indeed...
“The Castle Doctrine is just like Stand Your Ground. It just means you don’t have to run from your house. It doesn’t grant authority to use force. To use force the other elements of self-defense have to be met”
I don’t know about Montana but Colorado law is very specific. Entry into your occupied dwelling authorizes you to use force, period. You are not required to even articulate any concern for your safety. And our law specifically protects you from civil liability. If all it did was remove the ability of someone to claim you had a “duty to retreat” it would be a “stand your ground law” and not a “castle doctrine” law.
If the cops can do it with a "bait car" or "bait bag", why can't we mere citizens in dealing with our homes?
The only issue I would have is him firing blind into the garage, without knowing his target.
“So any stranger can legally walk into your garage at 1 am simply because the entry was not so-called “forced” due to an open door?”
No, but just because an act is not legal does not mean that act justifies the use of deadly force.
“Remember: 1 am.”
The normal fear that an intrusion at such an hour would cause is not present in this case, as the homeowner was attempting to entice just such an intrusion.
Kaarma
You’d think with a name like that, he’d take more time to consider the consequences.
I don’t think I misunderstand. Nor do I misunderstand the liberals’ attempts to redefine it.
How does one “specifically entice someone to enter” a garage simply by leaving the door open? Anyone who dares enter is a criminal, and no good people are walking the street at 1 am seeking to enter strangers’ garages. Dede would have gone in even if the garage door was closed, given the already-extant prevalence of so-called “garage hopping”. No trap.
So much for “all Israel (or America) shall hear and fear”.
Does not justify use of deadly force according to whom?
Garage-hopping was an extant problem, besides. Quibbling about “normal fear” is equivocation. Someone is in your garage at 1 am no matter if the door is open or not; what does one do?
Wrong.
If you are in my home uninvited at night in Texas I can plug you for stealing an ashtray.
Oddly enough, I have to agree with the court. Here are some reasons.
1) No hunting in a baited field. He had set things up to entice a burglar to enter his garage, with intent to kill them.
2) This was an ambush. Again, the intent was not to stop a felony in progress, but to kill.
3) He testified on his own behalf poorly. He did not say that he was in fear for his life, or that he thought the burglar was armed and menacing, or any other compelling reason to shoot first or shoot to kill. And this was the worst thing he did. You don’t ever testify that your intent was to shoot to kill, or your emotions anything other than fear for your life.
4) He decided to tell people what he was going to do before he did it. Very bad idea, and damning.
5) Weaponry is always a trade off. A pistol justifies more shots than a shotgun, though a shotgun was better in this situation. Juries really ponder the number of shots.
“This was not a case of “stand your ground” at all no matter how much the LSM tries to spin it.”
Exactly right.
To invite him to a Bible study class he was starting.
On that, we both agree.
If he reloaded prior to fatally shooting a wounded burglar/thief then he murdered said burglar/thief.
If his first shot had kill the intruder I might be a bit more inclined to buy a “stand your ground” argument.
In these cases some people can’t get past the opening story, in this case a petty thief 17 year old wanting to steal alcohol and beer money, to what turns out to be the bigger story, uncovering a stone cold killer.
It is like that Oklahoma Pharmacist, at first the story was of two teens so bad that they took a gun in to do an armed robbery, and luckily the good guy killed one of them, the unarmed one, but then we see the video of the goody guy going over and getting a second gun and then pumping five shots into the unconscious body 16 year old.
At that point we realize that we have uncovered a bigger monster, and so it was, that murderer turned out to be a psycho who claimed to have led troops into deadly combat and so on.
A crime story can shift gears, and the crime of a bad guy can uncover a worse bad guy.
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.