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 ...
That's what you said. But you didn't explain how that's supposed to be, and you are wrong.
"There was no murder committed here."
So you seem to think.
Not at all. I pretty much described what he did.
"And given that the garage was broken into at 12:30 AM, the intent on Dede’s part ought to be crystal clear."
And again, a point that has already been answered. Dede' guilt for intending to steal has nothing to do with it.
Now where did the "deliberately aim for the head" straw man come from?
That came from the prosecutor.
Nothing to do with what?
An open garage door is not a trap.
It ought to be self-explanatory. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land; aside from the Second Amendment’s outlining the right to keep and bear arms, the Fourth Amendment guaranteeing the right of people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” is what applies. Tying a person’s hands by state law with respect to accusing them of “murder(ing)” a deliberate intruder who enters in the middle of the night violates the Fourth Amendment and such laws and rulings are unconstitutional.
I just saw this story, so maybe I’m missing other details. But the garage was attached. An attached garage is part of the house. That means that the student entered Kaarma’s house.
Is anyone in the media asking why this student snuck into someone’s house in the middle of the night? It seems the articles are focusing on the story as if this student was a victim.
Sometimes homeowners leave their garage doors open by mistake. Sometimes people leave their doors open. Those are not invitations to strangers to enter, and if someone does, he does so at his own risk.
I don’t think that planning to trap someone and shoot him was the right thing to do. And maybe Kaarma should have been prosecuted. But, unless there are details I’m missing, the student wasn’t exactly a victim.
I’m very curious about the prosecution’s witnesses. The demeanor of the prosecutor begs several questions too, never mind the big push for a murder charge, which is an utter outrage AFAIAC.
What is worse, is that he bragged about how he was going to trap and kill someone before he did it. That is more than stupid.
Nobody is challenging the right to keep and bear arms in this case.
"...the Fourth Amendment guaranteeing the right of people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” is what applies. Tying a person’s hands by state law with respect to accusing them of “murder(ing)” a deliberate intruder who enters in the middle of the night violates the Fourth Amendment and such laws and rulings are unconstitutional."
Absolute nonsense. Nothing in the 4th gives you the right to kill someone for entering your home. That is not what it says.
When you resort to making stuff up to win an argument it's a sign that you should give up the argument. You are losing.
Nobody disputes that he entered to steal. So? As has already been pointed out, he doesn't have to be innocent to make killing him unlawful.
I’m not making anything up. You, however, are denying facts in order to fit the “Kaarma as murderer” agenda. The Fourth Amendment clause illustrating the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” is unambiguous. What there is no right to is to walk into someone’s garage uninvited, especially at 12:30 am.
That’s the word of a hairdresser. I do not see that it has been corroborated.
> “That’s the word of a hairdresser. I do not see that it has been corroborated.”
According to what I read when it first happened, the hairdresser reported what he said to the police before he did it. That’s pretty corroborating to me.
If mantraps. are illegal then stop all of the undercover sting operations which essentially bait people.
When people steal, it isn’t just “stuff” they are stealing. It is a part of someone’s life....literally.
After getting a paycheck and paying a multitude of taxes, one must pay the mortgage, car, insurance and on and on until at the end they may have some disposable income left.
How long will it take to earn said money to replace the items stolen? That is literally taking a part of a person’s lkfe......make no mistake about it.
More like......the law is wrong.
People should never go to prison for defending their home and property.
So why weren’t the police watching Kaarma’s house?
I'm not disputing that shooting a trespasser could be unlawful in a case of entrapment.
My argument is with the tone of the stories surrounding this case, as if the student was an innocent victim. It's a shame that he decided to sneak into someone's house. But, unless someone else tricked him into going into that garage, he wasn't an innocent victim. He'd entered a stranger's home with obvious criminal intent.
That's why this case is questionable to a certain degree.
“People should never go to prison for defending their home and property.”
If it actualy took a gunshot to the back of this kid to stop him as he was running away with the purse - that would be a legal shoot in my state.
But not wildly firing into the dark at some unknown noise.
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.