Man Charged With Murder In Home Shooting Case

[alsaqr]

Markus Karma ambushed and killed a German exchange student. He is charged with murder.

Some guys don't understand that you can't legally set an ambush, kill someone and call it self defense.

Prosecutors allege Kaarma fired a shotgun into the garage four times after Dede tripped sensors outside. Dede was struck in the head and arm. Sunday's shooting has reignited debate over a Montana law that gives a person the right use force to protect his or her own home from a threat

http://www.mail.com/int/news/us/2812934-man-charged-with-shooting-death-threats.html

More:

In Montana, Markus Kaarma told investigators his Missoula home had been burglarized twice within the last week before Sunday's shooting death of 17-year-old Diren Dede. Kaarma told his hairdresser he had stayed up three nights waiting to shoot a kid, the woman told investigators.

The night of the shooting, Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, left their garage door open. Pflager left her purse in the garage "so that they would take it," she told a police officer. She also set up a video baby monitor and installed motion sensors, prosecutors said.

http://news.yahoo.com/stand-ground-law-tested-recent-shootings-062150849.html

 

[KansasSasquatch]

I don't necessarily agree with "ambushing" burglars, but I don't really think it should be unlawful either. If burglars would quit trying to steal other people's property, they wouldn't have to worry about being shot and/or killed.

 

[Kleanbore]

A person who shoots a burglar in Montana would have to present at least some evidence in support of a reasonable belief that his action had been immediately necessary to prevent a forcible felony-- that is, physical harm to a person. Whether he would succeed in establishing reasonable doubt that the shooting had not ben lawfully justified would than be seen.

If the reports here are to be believed, the shooter in this case seems to have gone out of his way to create evidence to indicate prior intent to shoot someone. That will not help his credibility one iota in his efforts to articulate reasons for having believed that the shooting had been necessary at that time to protect himself or anyone else from imminent harm.

Based on the reports, which of course may not be accurate, this looks a lot like murder.

And he has been so charged.

I would hazard a guess that Kaarma had not been following the trial in Minnesota.

 

[200Apples]

.

I don't necessarily agree with "ambushing" burglars, but I don't really think it should be unlawful either.

I disagree.

I do agree with the following; the last paragraph from the linked story:

"If they're going to possess the means to apply lethal force," he said, "they need to have a good understanding of when and how that is permissible."

 

[Field Tester]

Didn't we just go through this?
I'm surprised no one has made a pun of the suspect's name yet.

 

[Telekinesis]

Some guys don't understand that you can't legally set an ambush, kill someone and call it self defense.

What's your definition of "ambush"?
The general advice we typically see is "in the case of a home invasion, get your family to a safe place, and then shoot any attacker who comes through the door". That is essentially the definition of ambush. Youre lying in wait for someone to move into your line of fire.

Do you propose then that we have to be actively clearing our house in order to not be prosecuted for murder?

Don't get me wrong, im not trying to defend this guy and there are certainly people who take it to the extreme, but just because someone uses some rudimentary tactics when defending their family doesn't mean they should be written off as murderers.

 

[Robert]

We have done this twice already. Both closed as is this one.

 

[Kleanbore]

The twice-closed thread had to do with the trial and conviction of Byron Smith in Minnesota.

The OP here refers to a shooting that occurred in Montana on Sunday.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

10 pages on a similar case in Minnesota and we still get posts like #2.

We need to turn that old saying "There's nothing in here worth dying for" around - there's nothing in here worth killing for. Shoot to protect my family, only if I absolutely must. Shoot to protect my property, no, never.

Re #6, the ambush is an offensive tactic designed to attack an unsuspecting opponent. Defending a fixed position, such as a safe room in a house, is not an ambush. It may bear a superficial resemblance to one, but it's not the same thing at all; in ambush you want the other guy to take the bait and walk into the killing zone, in defense you want the other guy to stay away so you never have to engage him.

The difference between offense and defense is the difference between murder and self-defense. It's a question of intent.

This case, like the Minnesota case recently discussed ad nauseam, is murder, plain and simple.

 

[Robert]

KB, thanks for the help. I somehow missed that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Telekenesis: The general advice we typically see is "in the case of a home invasion, get your family to a safe place, and then shoot any attacker who comes through the door".

Yes indeed.

That is essentially the definition of ambush. Youre lying in wait for someone to move into your line of fire.

Not by a long shot. You are staying in a position from which you can defend yourself, should it become necessary.

Do you propose then that we have to be actively clearing our house in order to not be prosecuted for murder?

No.

Don't get me wrong, im not trying to defend this guy and there are certainly people who take it to the extreme,

It would seem that way, and we need to avoid dong that.

....but just because someone uses some rudimentary tactics when defending their family doesn't mean they should be written off as murderers.

But if someone leaves a garage door open, places valuables inside to attract criminals, sets up detection devices, and then goes outside for the purpose of shooting into the open door at someone inside, that someone is likely to be charged with murder.

That is what seems to have happened here.

 

[MtnCreek]

200 Apples:I do agree with the following; the last paragraph from the linked story:

Quote:
"If they're going to possess the means to apply lethal force," he said, "they need to have a good understanding of when and how that is permissible."

+1. Best I could tell from the link, it seemed the man thought his plan / actions were fine.

 

[javjacob]

I decided to remove my comment... The thief and the homeowner were both in the wrong.

 

[MtnCreek]

Fair enough, but let the murder charges be a lesson too.

 

[SilentStalker]

So, while I don't necessarily agree with someone getting killed over this, I would like to know what others propose one do? I mean so if someone was in your house with your family, you are supposed to go to a safe place and wait there while they just take all of your stuff? That seems pretty crazy to me as well. So, what do you do exactly? I am no saying shooting them is the right thing to do either but what do you do? You could call the police but chances are they will be long gone by the time the cops arrive. There are only so many cops and they can't be everywhere all of the time. So, I ask again, what do you do? I don't really like the argument that everything can be replaced either because there are some things that can't be replaced. And, nobody forced these people to do into this dude's house. Seems to be that the right to defend oneself and property has gotten majorly skewed over the years. Criminals know these laws and tactics and a lot of them use this to their advantage and get away with stuff precisely because they know you can't really do anything.

 

[Sam1911]

If I can NOT kill someone, that's worth more to me than any of the "stuff" in my home, aside from my family members. Redirect your thinking to that perspective -- the ONLY lawful one -- and it becomes more clear.

 

[Ed Ames]

So, while I don't necessarily agree with someone getting killed over this, I would like to know what others propose one do?

Closing and locking your garage when you are not visibly around would seem to be a good first step.

But if someone leaves a garage door open, places valuables inside to attract criminals, sets up detection devices, and then goes outside for the purpose of shooting into the open door at someone inside, that someone is likely to be charged with murder.

Even if the homewner is not charged criminally, it seems like begging for tort liability under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The victim here was a minor.

 

[xXxplosive]

Sorry..........but as far as I'm concerned a home invasion is just that. This fella was in his own residence and the two broke in....Nuff Said.

 

[SilentStalker]

I agree Sam, but my point here is that there has to be some kind of punishment for this kind of behavior. It is evident that this was not the first time these same people stole from them. However, I am not sure what was done previously either. But, you cant just allow people to come in and take whatever they feel like taking.

What they should have done was used those cameras and stuff to catch them in the act, let them steal that, then call the cops and hand over the video. However, they may have already gone down this route. I have no idea of the complete back story behind this. It just seems to me that there are many laws that are exploited by criminals because they know they can do certain things and get away with it.

When I was younger I worked for a very large hardware store (the big orange kind), worked my way to store manager over the years. At any rate, we went through several different stages on how to handle people that would steal from the store. At one point in time, we were ordered to stand down and not pursue anyone and for the most part this seemed like a good idea. However, the people coming in and stealing stuff were not idiots by any means. I have seen some very elaborate methodology that they use to get stuff out of the store. Trust me they are usually just your come in and grab something and walk out kind of guys. Some are but most aren't The point is, over time, those that stole learned that there was nothing the store could do so they came in and got as much as they wanted over and over and over. Eventually, the company got wise and hired LPM's who would watch things in the store and set up stings. They were allowed to apprehend and most times had the cops on the scene before anything was stolen but it took them years and millions in profit loss to learn this.

Ed, thats a good start and most people do this. However, if I want to leave my garage door open in my own house without worry of someone coming in then I think I should be able to do so. is it smart? Of course not, which is why I and others do not do it, but nobody made these people enter a private residence either.

 

[Fiv3r]

I have homeowner's insurance to protect my stuff. I do not have such insurance on my wife and daughter.

If someone wants to steal my things, so be it. The weight on my psyche for shooting another human being outweighs the aggravation of filing a police report and submitting some paperwork to my insurance agent.

Anything of value is on the first floor. The only thing on the second floor are beds and bodies...and bullets. If you take a single step up the stairs toward my family, I will cut you in half.

This guy was calculated. Sounds like murder to me.

 

[MtnCreek]

Many here wouldn't advise it, but you don't have to let someone take your stuff; you can confront them for stealing. You can make them stop, physically if need be, but that does not mean lethal force.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I'm hoping that some of you who are OK with this didn't read the article, or fully understand what he did. I'm 100% for home defense, regardless of someone's intentions once they are inside my home, but he went too far. What he did was wrong, and he'll pay for it. I don't feel bad for thieves, but a locked door would have prevented this.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm feeling close to saying this thread should be merged with the one on the Byron Smith killings, or closed with a suggestion that folks should read these exact conversions as they happened in that thread.

As I said (twice) therein:

It isn't a simple issue, especially in that it goes counter-intuitively to what I think most Americans believe about one's right to property and self-defense. We have an ingrained aesthetic that says, if you violate the sanctity of "me and mine" you are subject to whatever hellfire and brimstone I'm willing and able to bring down on you.

Hence the popularity of those droll faux warning signs like, "If you're found here tonight, you'll be found here tomorrow!", and "Nothing in here is worth your life..." -- all of which rather baldly suggest the message that the owner feels within his rights to kill someone for intruding and/or theft.

Too many John Wayne movies where the "law of the old west" says the good guy can hang the bad guy for suspicion of cattle rustling, or old action dramas with the good guy yelling after a fleeing burglar, "STOP or I'll SHOOT!" and then firing a warning shot or two.

That sort of thing has built and reinforced a really distorted view of self defense, home defense, and the law.

In other words, sure you've got a right to make an attempt to stop someone who is stealing from your property (sometimes with force, depending on your state's laws). And you clearly have a right to stop -- with lethal force if necessary -- someone from physically hurting or killing you and your loved ones.

You do NOT have carte blanche to bait a trap, lure someone into your snare, box them in so they can't escape, and execute them for petty theft. That's murder, premeditated.

You can't lure someone into behaving badly -- in a relatively minor way, no less -- and then execute them for taking the bait.

No law in this country gives one person the right to decide that another person will die -- and even the state (who ultimately does hold that power) does not execute anyone for minor crimes like burglary.

This should go without saying, but clearly it is a point lost on many -- often willfully so.

 

[Defc0n]

I'm not an expert on law but wouldn't the fact that he set this up to catch the person, or in this case shoot him (and killing him), meet the legal requirement for premeditation that a murder charge would need?

Shooting someone in a spur of the moment home invasion is one thing, but he planned on shooting this person. One could probably argue the fact that there was the premeditation to kill someone, which (again not a legal expert) could indeed meet the legal requirements for being charged with murder regardless of the fact that they were in a place that they shouldn't have been.

Even if he does not end up being convicted I still say it was a horrible judgement call.

I guess Sam beat me to the premeditated part, didn't refresh the page after reading through the thread and article.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I'm feeling close to saying this thread should be merged with the one on the Byron Smith killings, or closed with a suggestion that folks should read these exact conversions as they happened in that thread.

As I said (twice) therein:



In other words, sure you've got a right to make an attempt to stop someone who is stealing from your property (sometimes with force, depending on your state's laws). And you clearly have a right to stop -- with lethal force if necessary -- someone from physically hurting or killing you and your loved ones.

You do NOT have carte blanche to bait a trap, lure someone into your snare, box them in so they can't escape, and execute them for petty theft. That's murder, premeditated.

This should go without saying, but clearly it is a point lost on many -- often willfully so.

I didn't read the other thread yet, but figured I should get a word in before this one is closed with a last word from one of you.

I agree with most of what you said, but I honestly think it's fairly simple. A locked door is the difference, and shows his intention. They went through a lot of trouble to ensure they would get to teach someone a lesson. Not close to the same thing as defending your home from an invasion. One is legal, and the other isn't. I don't know the laws of Montana, so I only speak for where I live.