Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can see one shot into the garage but seven. With no warning. Why couldn't the shooter just make the kid eat a Butt sandwich with a second helping. Better yet scare the living Hell out of the kid and confesicate his wallet to turn over to LEO.Patching holes in roof is a simple thing. Though the resounding crunch of bone and teeth colliding does have a satisfying feel and not informing LEO can do.

The shooter went all out to kill someone and trying to use the law to justify it. Question though. Why in Gawds name was he, a foreign exchange student, prowling around in the middle of the night. Where was the adult supervision on this kid?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The broader examples of the "castle doctrine", though, seem to indicate that "I thought he was going to steal my car" is a valid reason. In my view, that justifies a "frontier" mentality which is out of place in the western world.

I think you are misunderstanding what the castle doctrine is.

In many states, you can can only use lethal force if your or someone else is in mortal danger and you cannot escape - in other words, in the maniac kicking in your door holding a machete example you used earlier, you have a "duty to retreat" - i.e. you must turn and run out of your own house even if you have a loaded gun in your hand.

The castle doctrine simply removes the duty to retreat from your home ("a man's home is his castle"). It is not carte blanche to kill someone trying to steal your car. In other states, castle doctrine is expanded to include your car, and in others still, the doctrine is further expanded (to the much maligned) "stand your ground"; which simply means you do not ever have a duty to retreat as long as you are in a place you lawfully have a right to be. It doesn't mean you have the right to shoot someone because you were scared or because they were stealing your barbeque grill.

Castle doctrines essentially create venues for legal use of lethal force in self defense (or more accurately remove restrictions). They don't spell out the situations in which lethal force is allowed.

There is a massive difference between shooting an a intruder and setting a trap so you can ambush someone investigating what is a rather suspicious situation. This kid could quite easily have been trying to be a good Samaritan and making sure that the garage hadn’t been left open in error. Given that this kid was an exchange student of good character I think that’s the obvious explanation.

The ‘castle doctrine’ is fine in theory but there is no way it should apply to situations like this one. I’m glad the authorities in Montana think so too. I hope this guy goes away for a very long time.

The intention of the student in going into the garage is unknown, unknowable -- since he is dead -- and anyway irrelevant to the case.

The key intention to understand is in the mind of the shooter. If he genuinely believed he was in danger, then he had a good excuse for shooting.

It appears that he did not genuinely think that, as he premeditated a trap for a suspected burglar and was aware of their approach. He was relying on a perhaps faulty understanding of the "castle doctrine" to excuse shooting. (Thanks to Ouze above, for explaining the variations of castle doctrine.)

http://www.abcfoxmontana.com/story/25392184/exclusive-photo-diren-dede-moments-before-shooting

He's a thief inside a home. Unload 00 buckshot warning shot center mass.

True story. Years ago in Austin, the neighbor was a single mom and her young teenage boy. In the evening Wife came in saying her garage was open and people were in there messing around. It was dark and her garage was open as she was wont to leave, and there were teenagers rooting around in there. Yours truly went over and threw several teenagers out who were “friends” with the teenage boy. One bolled up after he picked himself off the ground saying he was going to call the cops. The Wife called the police for him and he just managed to pick himself up a second time when they showed up (police station is just down the way).
The police rousted all the teenagers big time, almost as good as LA PD would do. They made it very clear that (the teenagers) could have died that night because YOU DON’T MESS IN OTHER PEOPLE’S HOUSES. When the parents came they lit into the teenagers too. Strangely there were no more incidents after that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Castle doctrines essentially create venues for legal use of lethal force in self defense (or more accurately remove restrictions). They don't spell out the situations in which lethal force is allowed.

I'll be honest. If I win the Lotto I'm building a castle, or at least a Mission style hacienda with big walls and gardens, and very shallow wave pools for the wiener dogs. I want a moat and drawbridge with pissed off sea bass with frigging Lazer Beams.

And a giraffe. Named Bubba. Just because.

 Ouze wrote:


The castle doctrine simply removes the duty to retreat from your home ("a man's home is his castle"). It is not carte blanche to kill someone trying to steal your car. In other states, castle doctrine is expanded to include your car, and in others still, the doctrine is further expanded (to the much maligned) "stand your ground"; which simply means you do not ever have a duty to retreat as long as you are in a place you lawfully have a right to be. It doesn't mean you have the right to shoot someone because you were scared or because they were stealing your barbeque grill.

I actually like my new State's CD/SYG laws (theyre more a hybrid of the two) in that, should some over-zealous lawyer type decide it's a good idea to take me to court in a stand your ground case, where the Law has already cleared me of wrong doing, the judge will throw out the case, AND force that lawyer to pay ALL court fees and my own legal fees to defend against him/her.

A lot of our problems with prosucetorial discretion (as it it not being used when it should be) would be alleviated if we made district attorney's appointees rather than elected officials. Yes yes elections good, but elections have allowed a psychotic judge to be on her bench for two decades and lead to prosecutors going after cases (or dropping them) for purely political reasons that are completely their own.

Shifting all judges/DA's to appointees would help to insulate the Justice System from the Mob.

Hurray for the castle doctrine:

http://kfor.com/2014/05/02/knock-knock-oklahoma-door-to-door-meat-salesman-says-airman-shot-him-just-for-knocking/

 d-usa wrote:
Hurray for the castle doctrine:

http://kfor.com/2014/05/02/knock-knock-oklahoma-door-to-door-meat-salesman-says-airman-shot-him-just-for-knocking/

Now thats truly sounds like a good shoot.
Says he had a .410 with buckshot. I've never heard of a .410 with buckshot. Checked on Cabellas - learn something every day.

That's a great story. It's just a pity Oklohoma doesn't have a "stand your ground" law that would have allowed the meat salesman to shoot the householder.

 Jihadin wrote:
I can see one shot into the garage but seven. With no warning. Why couldn't the shooter just make the kid eat a Butt sandwich with a second helping. Better yet scare the living Hell out of the kid and confesicate his wallet to turn over to LEO.Patching holes in roof is a simple thing. Though the resounding crunch of bone and teeth colliding does have a satisfying feel and not informing LEO can do.

The shooter went all out to kill someone and trying to use the law to justify it. Question though. Why in Gawds name was he, a foreign exchange student, prowling around in the middle of the night. Where was the adult supervision on this kid?

Funny you should say that. This always brings to mind an incident when I was at University, stumbling home from the town with some friends on the way home from the pub. One friend decided to take a pee in someone's front garden, and the owner of the house (a skinhead with tattoos on his neck - although fair enough, someone is pissing in his front yard) came out and hit him.

I can't help but think that in this kind of instance, seeing a big hooded figure looming by the window in the early hours, had it been in the States my friend would have got a bullet rather than just a bloody nose, and a bit more of a sore head the next morning than usual.

Wonder if it was the same kind of instance here?

Are you referring to the meat wagon guy? No THATS intentional...

 Pacific wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I can see one shot into the garage but seven. With no warning. Why couldn't the shooter just make the kid eat a Butt sandwich with a second helping. Better yet scare the living Hell out of the kid and confesicate his wallet to turn over to LEO.Patching holes in roof is a simple thing. Though the resounding crunch of bone and teeth colliding does have a satisfying feel and not informing LEO can do.

The shooter went all out to kill someone and trying to use the law to justify it. Question though. Why in Gawds name was he, a foreign exchange student, prowling around in the middle of the night. Where was the adult supervision on this kid?

Funny you should say that. This always brings to mind an incident when I was at University, stumbling home from the town with some friends on the way home from the pub. One friend decided to take a pee in someone's front garden, and the owner of the house (a skinhead with tattoos on his neck - although fair enough, someone is pissing in his front yard) came out and hit him.

I can't help but think that in this kind of instance, seeing a big hooded figure looming by the window in the early hours, had it been in the States my friend would have got a bullet rather than just a bloody nose, and a bit more of a sore head the next morning than usual.

Wonder if it was the same kind of instance here?

Well, you would be thinking wrong then. In most states with the castle doctrine, you can't shoot someone in your front yard. For the castle doctrine to apply they have to actually be inside your house.

 Hordini wrote:

Well, you would be thinking wrong then. In most states with the castle doctrine, you can't shoot someone in your front yard. For the castle doctrine to apply they have to actually be inside your house.

That's all well and good assuming that everyone understands the law.

Which is a pretty dumb assumption, considering the news story this thread is about

Considering the very cases, its a pretty excellent assumption actually. CHLers have the lowest crime rates of, well anyone including priests and police. Ok maybe nuns, unless they're flying nuns. Never trust a flying nun, or an elf.

Not the first time this kid of things happen, though. See :


Yeah, I know that the Onion is satire.
Well, you know what they say : Amerika ist wunderbar.

And much later:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/18/371659442/montana-man-found-guilty-of-killing-german-exchange-student

A Montana man's shooting in April of a German exchange student was a test of the state's "castle doctrine," which says a man's home is his castle and can be defended as such. But on Wednesday, a jury convicted Markus Kaarma of deliberate homicide in the death of 17-year-old Diren Dede, who was in his garage.

As Montana Public Radio's Christopher Allen reports, "Kaarma's defense team argued deadly force was justified because he was defending his home. Prosecutors argued Kaarma, who had been previously burglarized, set a trap with intent to harm and committed deliberate homicide."

On Wednesday, a jury agreed with the prosecution.

The Associated Press reports that cheers erupted when the verdict was read in the courtroom. Dede's parents hugged and cried.

Kaarma, a resident of Missoula, Mont., faces a minimum of 10 years in prison when he is sentenced on Feb. 11, 2015. His lawyers said they would appeal.

As we previously reported, Dede, from Hamburg, Germany, was unarmed at the time of the April 27 shooting, but he may have been engaged in "garage hopping" – a local tradition in which teens duck into open garages in search of beer or pot.

Laws like the "castle doctrine" – and "stand your ground" – have come under scrutiny following the shooting death last year of Trayvon Martin.

It's good he got convicted, what he did was seriously messed up.

That said, I like how they had to throw in a line about Trayvon Martin, whose case didn't have anything to do with either the castle doctrine or stand your ground.

Damn, it's almost like the Justice System works.

Glad it came out this way.

And what Hordini said, I noticed that as well.

 djones520 wrote:
Damn, it's almost like the Justice System works.

Well, it helps when the victim was a white teenager obviously.

I'm glad justice was done. This was essentially premeditated murder.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note, +1 to Manchu for the title. One of my favorite short stories.

They also seem to whitewashing the teenager again. Now he was engaged in "garage hopping" - "a local tradition" and then they go on to describe burglary. I'd be quite interested to know if the local burglaries continued, following this event.

Also what is deliberate homicide? Is that Montana speak for murder or is it a lesser crime?

It's a legal term used in Montana (and other states maybe?) that describes intentional wrongful death.

And it is possible that the "garage hopping" did continue, since it was described as a thing that was common in the area among teens.

 Jihadin wrote:
I can see one shot into the garage but seven. With no warning. Why couldn't the shooter just make the kid eat a Butt sandwich with a second helping. Better yet scare the living Hell out of the kid and confesicate his wallet to turn over to LEO.Patching holes in roof is a simple thing. Though the resounding crunch of bone and teeth colliding does have a satisfying feel and not informing LEO can do.

The shooter went all out to kill someone and trying to use the law to justify it. Question though. Why in Gawds name was he, a foreign exchange student, prowling around in the middle of the night. Where was the adult supervision on this kid?

They kid was 17, were your parents still holding your hand to go out at that age?

It's pretty clear that the homeowner intended to kill. I'm not that familiar with US laws but I'm thinking you are supposed to defend yourself until you are safe. It's not a free pass to blow someone to pieces for being on your property. It's clear that the homeowner had decided that the next person to go in his house wasn't coming out alive. That's not self defence, that's a clear intent to kill. If he'd been watching the video like he says, I imagine it would be fairly clear that the kid wasn't armed. But he shot him seven times all the same. Must have been easy knowing they had no where to run and couldn't shoot back.

 Smacks wrote:
They also seem to whitewashing the teenager again. Now he was engaged in "garage hopping" - "a local tradition" and then they go on to describe burglary.

Yeah, I eyerolled a bit at that too.

 Platuan4th wrote:
If you're admitting to baiting someone with a purse in an intentionally open garage, you're not "reasonably believing" you're in harm, you're looking to lure someone in to shoot and kill because you want to kill someone. This guy's going to FPYITA Prison and he deserves every minute of it.

Also, if you can actually prove this intent beyond reasonable doubt, you've got malice aforethought, a precondition for murder 1, and if there's malice aforethought, you can't possibly have self defense.

My guess though is that it won't quite rise to that, it'll probably be voluntary manslaughter due to wanton and gross negligence. There isn't a self defense law in the states that allows for luring people into a situation where you can use deadly force as a result of the lure. And before anyone mentions it and proves idiocy beyond reasonable doubt, no, not even stand your ground allows for luring.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Damn, it's almost like the Justice System works.

Well, it helps when the victim was a white teenager obviously.

I'm glad justice was done. This was essentially premeditated murder.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note, +1 to Manchu for the title. One of my favorite short stories.

As D-USA pointed out (before the post dissapeared), the victim was of Turkish decent.

i would type another Tl;dr post about what i think of this, but it is perfectly summed up in this here song.... Just look at the lyrics...


If you haven't got what i mean: The guy who shot the student will probably be set free because of a loophole in a law, and numerous bullcrap claimings of thinking it was a burglar(why would you BAIT burglars into your garage and then shoot them in the first place??? this guy is a psychopath.... IF they judge him not guilty, they should lock him up in a mental institution because he isn't a normal person

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Damn, it's almost like the Justice System works.

Well, it helps when the victim was a white teenager obviously.

I'm glad justice was done. This was essentially premeditated murder.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note, +1 to Manchu for the title. One of my favorite short stories.

As D-USA pointed out (before the post dissapeared), the victim was of Turkish decent.

Yup. You beat me to it.

ThatSwellFella wrote:
If you haven't got what i mean: The guy who shot the student will probably be set free because of a loophole in a law, and numerous bullcrap claimings of thinking it was a burglar(why would you BAIT burglars into your garage and then shoot them in the first place??? this guy is a psychopath.... IF they judge him not guilty, they should lock him up in a mental institution because he isn't a normal person

Might want to read the whole thread before posting, he was convicted and will be spending a nice long time in prison.

 Peregrine wrote:

ThatSwellFella wrote:
If you haven't got what i mean: The guy who shot the student will probably be set free because of a loophole in a law, and numerous bullcrap claimings of thinking it was a burglar(why would you BAIT burglars into your garage and then shoot them in the first place??? this guy is a psychopath.... IF they judge him not guilty, they should lock him up in a mental institution because he isn't a normal person

Might want to read the whole thread before posting, he was convicted and will be spending a nice long time in prison.

lol whoops