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 ...
Please describe.
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?
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).
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Seems to me....the FBI, CIA, DNC, DEA, set up traps and stuff all the time.
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.
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”?
Doesn't have anything to do with Kaarma's guilt.
Says the newly minted defense lawyer.
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.
Don’t need to be one of those to assess the facts. Are jurors lawyers of any stripe?
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.
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.