German exchange student killed in "stand your ground" type shooting

[Dazey]

Apparently after a bunch of break ins in the area this guy left his garage door open with his wife's purse visible from the street as bait and waited with gun in hand. Some kid for whatever reason took the bait and ended up dead.

Thoughts?

MISSOULA — A 29-year-old western Montana man has been charged with deliberate homicide in the weekend shooting death of an exchange student in his garage.

Markus Kaarma of Missoula made an initial appearance in Justice Court on Monday afternoon for the felony charge filed after the death of 17-year-old Diren Dede of Hamburg, Germany. Kaarma’s bail was set at $30,000.

Kaarma told police he found an intruder in his garage after an alarm went off early Sunday. Dede was shot twice.

Missoula police spokesman Travis Welsh says there was a second person in the garage with Dede, but he ran when the shots were fired. Police have questioned him.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/viewart/20140428/NEWS01/304280009/Teen-shot-killed-Montana-man-s-garage-exchange-student-from-Germany

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27243115

Edited May 5, 2014 by Dazey

[Thin White Duke]

It was just kaarma.

[bacardimayne]

Fair game if you ask me. "Bait" or not, there's no excuse to break into a person's home.

[Thin White Duke]

We've never had this discussion before.

[Facekicker]

That's fucked.

[bacardimayne]

To clarify, I don't empathize with the guy who set up the trap at all, but I'm not going to weep for someone willing to break into a house and steal something.

[LightningBolt]

This guy left his garage door open with a purse sitting in there as bait, and shot and killed the person who took it? That is most definitely not acceptable.

[Johnny Drama]

Who's to say a potential target might be actually stealing the purse? if it were me, I'd definitely take the purse but knock at the front door with it.

[AxlisOld]

To clarify, I don't empathize with the guy who set up the trap at all, but I'm not going to weep for someone willing to break into a house and steal something.

Exactly, that's what I always bring up when someone shoots a burglar in the US and people do the lolAmercia thing. Breaking into a house is like playing with electric wires. If you don't know if they're live, consider them live. If you break into someone's house and they're allowed to have a gun, assume they do. As soon as you break the plain of MY domicile, you waive your right to be not shot or hit in the face with a bat.

[downzy]

To clarify, I don't empathize with the guy who set up the trap at all, but I'm not going to weep for someone willing to break into a house and steal something.

Exactly, that's what I always bring up when someone shoots a burglar in the US and people do the lolAmercia thing. Breaking into a house is like playing with electric wires. If you don't know if they're live, consider them live. If you break into someone's house and they're allowed to have a gun, assume they do. As soon as you break the plain of MY domicile, you waive your right to be not shot or hit in the face with a bat.

But that's insane. You're basically saying that the punishment for breaking into someone's house is death. What if they caught the perpetrator later on? Should the owner be allowed to shoot then?

I get the self-defence angle, but this is definitely not a matter of self-defence. Shit-for-brains was never in jeopardy of being harmed. The notion that one's personal property is worth more than the life of a person (regardless of whether that person is trying to forcibly take that property) is absurd. Again, if the intruder means to cause harm or death to the home owner, then fine, fire away - do what you need to do to protect yourself. But if it's just a matter of saving your computer or your wife's purse, then the use of force is absolutely not justified.

What this guy did was essentially entrapment; something that police are not even allowed to do.

Edited May 6, 2014 by downzy

[AxlisOld]

To clarify, I don't empathize with the guy who set up the trap at all, but I'm not going to weep for someone willing to break into a house and steal something.

Exactly, that's what I always bring up when someone shoots a burglar in the US and people do the lolAmercia thing. Breaking into a house is like playing with electric wires. If you don't know if they're live, consider them live. If you break into someone's house and they're allowed to have a gun, assume they do. As soon as you break the plain of MY domicile, you waive your right to be not shot or hit in the face with a bat.

But that's insane. You're basically saying that the punishment for breaking into someone's house is death. What if they caught the perpetrator later on? Should the owner be allowed to shoot then?

I get the self-defence angle, but this is definitely not a matter of self-defence. Shit-for-brains was never in jeopardy of being harmed. The notion that one's personal property is worth more than the life of a person (regardless of whether that person is trying to forcibly take that property) is absurd. Again, if the intruder means to cause harm or death to the home owner, then fine, fire away - do what you need to do to protect yourself. But if it's just a matter of saving your computer or your wife's purse, then the use of force is absolutely not justified.

What this guy did was essentially entrapment; something that police are not even allowed to do.

Don't. Break. Into. A. House.

How hard is that. Invading someones home is an absolutely traumatizing thing to do to them, and they waive their rights by doing it.

My analogy goes the other way too, if you are in your home, and you don't know if they mean harm, assume that they do.

How the fuck is it entrapment to leave your own property in your own house. If I leave my curtains open to let in some light, is it now my fault that someones sees that I have nice shit and breaks in?

[downzy]

To clarify, I don't empathize with the guy who set up the trap at all, but I'm not going to weep for someone willing to break into a house and steal something.

Exactly, that's what I always bring up when someone shoots a burglar in the US and people do the lolAmercia thing. Breaking into a house is like playing with electric wires. If you don't know if they're live, consider them live. If you break into someone's house and they're allowed to have a gun, assume they do. As soon as you break the plain of MY domicile, you waive your right to be not shot or hit in the face with a bat.

But that's insane. You're basically saying that the punishment for breaking into someone's house is death. What if they caught the perpetrator later on? Should the owner be allowed to shoot then?

I get the self-defence angle, but this is definitely not a matter of self-defence. Shit-for-brains was never in jeopardy of being harmed. The notion that one's personal property is worth more than the life of a person (regardless of whether that person is trying to forcibly take that property) is absurd. Again, if the intruder means to cause harm or death to the home owner, then fine, fire away - do what you need to do to protect yourself. But if it's just a matter of saving your computer or your wife's purse, then the use of force is absolutely not justified.

What this guy did was essentially entrapment; something that police are not even allowed to do.

Don't. Break. Into. A. House.

How hard is that. Invading someones home is an absolutely traumatizing thing to do to them, and they waive their rights by doing it.

My analogy goes the other way too, if you are in your home, and you don't know if they mean harm, assume that they do.

How the fuck is it entrapment to leave your own property in your own house. If I leave my curtains open to let in some light, is it now my fault that someones sees that I have nice shit and breaks in?

I'm not saying that breaking into another person's house is ever justified or defensible, but this notion that a death sentence is justifiable as a result is ludicrous. Why not codify such a punishment if that's your position? Why not kill anyone who has ever burglarized a property whether they're caught in the act or not?

Your assessment loses all sense of proportionality. Is the punishment of death proportional to the crime of stealing something. Absolutely not. It's why we view places like Saudia Arabia, where stealing something gets your hand cut off, as barbaric and backwards. The legal system would never hand down such a sentence for such a crime, so why does it make any sense to give home owners the right to exercise such action? There is absolutely no logic to it.

As for your assessment that it's not entrapment, this guy purposely left his garage door open with the purse in full view. This isn't akin to leaving your window open to let some fresh air in. Had the garage door been closed and valuable property not been in clear sight, it's likely the kid would have continued on in his travels. I'm not saying it was a smart move on the kid's part, but it seems unlikely he would have attempted to take the purse had the purse not been presented in such a way as to invite being taken. Entrapment is when you induce someone to commit a crime that they might not have committed otherwise. This is a perfect example of this.

Edited May 6, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

More on this story:

Pflager said she put personal items that she had cataloged in a purse in the garage 'so that they would take it.'

Early Sunday, the sensors went off, and Kaarma and Pflager looked at the video feed and saw that someone was in the garage."
So , this guy didn´t broke into the Garage.

"Kaarma told police he fired high to avoid hitting the car in the garage - but court records showed that three of four shots were aimed low.

He also told investigators 'wanted him to be caught' because 'police can't catch burglars in the act.'

No, that doesn't sound like entrapment at all.

[bacardimayne]

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

[downzy]

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

Nobody would ever express sympathy towards anyone who gets caught. Getting caught isn't the issue.

But if you have no problem with this, you're essentially saying that death is an appropriate punishment for anyone who burglarizes the property of others. And that's nuts. The punishment in no way is proportional to the crime. I have no sympathy to anyone who catches a beating or gets caught by the police and as a result of their transgression gets thrown in prison. This will likely affect their lives tremendously. What I think any rational minded person would object to is that death is warranted for these types of situations.

[Amir]

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

Nobody would ever express sympathy towards anyone who gets caught. Getting caught isn't the issue.

But if you have no problem with this, you're essentially saying that death is an appropriate punishment for anyone who burglarizes the property of others. And that's nuts. The punishment in no way is proportional to the crime. I have no sympathy to anyone who catches a beating or gets caught by the police and as a result of their transgression gets thrown in prison. This will likely affect their lives tremendously. What I think any rational minded person would object to is that death is warranted for these types of situations.

If it was just a case of potential theft, then yeah, death is a disproportionate punishment. But in a lost of cases (not so much this one), if an intruder is in your home, you really don't know if they pose a threat to you or not. If you give them a warning that might be all the time they need to bring out their own weapon to use against you. In this case, yes, it doesn't seem there was a chance of danger to the homeowners, but I can see how in other cases someone may choose to shoot first and ask questions later.

[AxlisOld]

More on this story:

Pflager said she put personal items that she had cataloged in a purse in the garage 'so that they would take it.'

Early Sunday, the sensors went off, and Kaarma and Pflager looked at the video feed and saw that someone was in the garage."

So , this guy didn´t broke into the Garage.

"Kaarma told police he fired high to avoid hitting the car in the garage - but court records showed that three of four shots were aimed low.

He also told investigators 'wanted him to be caught' because 'police can't catch burglars in the act.'

No, that doesn't sound like entrapment at all.

Setting your own items anywhere you want in your house is fine, because it's your fucking house. I don't care what their motivation was, even if it was to entrap. Sometimes I leave my garage open, sometimes my car has shit in it. Is it my fault if someone walks into my garage? Am I forcing someone to walk into my garage? I see items in stores, I bet I could steal them. Is it the store's fault if I steal from them?

I'm sick of this bullshit "pity the criminal" thing that goes around. You know exactly what your are getting yourself into when you violate the sanctity of someone's home. If someone breaks into my house, they know that I am allowed to kill them. I will not ask, "are you just trying to steal my things or are you going to rape and murder my family?"

[bacardimayne]

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

Nobody would ever express sympathy towards anyone who gets caught. Getting caught isn't the issue.

But if you have no problem with this, you're essentially saying that death is an appropriate punishment for anyone who burglarizes the property of others. And that's nuts. The punishment in no way is proportional to the crime. I have no sympathy to anyone who catches a beating or gets caught by the police and as a result of their transgression gets thrown in prison. This will likely affect their lives tremendously. What I think any rational minded person would object to is that death is warranted for these types of situations.

If it was just a case of potential theft, then yeah, death is a disproportionate punishment. But in a lost of cases (not so much this one), if an intruder is in your home, you really don't know if they pose a threat to you or not. If you give them a warning that might be all the time they need to bring out their own weapon to use against you. In this case, yes, it doesn't seem there was a chance of danger to the homeowners, but I can see how in other cases someone may choose to shoot first and ask questions later.

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

Nobody would ever express sympathy towards anyone who gets caught. Getting caught isn't the issue.

But if you have no problem with this, you're essentially saying that death is an appropriate punishment for anyone who burglarizes the property of others. And that's nuts. The punishment in no way is proportional to the crime. I have no sympathy to anyone who catches a beating or gets caught by the police and as a result of their transgression gets thrown in prison. This will likely affect their lives tremendously. What I think any rational minded person would object to is that death is warranted for these types of situations.

If someone grabs your iPod and runs off, death isn't an appropriate punishment.

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night while you and your kids are sleeping, I'm more warm to the idea.

[downzy]

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

Nobody would ever express sympathy towards anyone who gets caught. Getting caught isn't the issue.

But if you have no problem with this, you're essentially saying that death is an appropriate punishment for anyone who burglarizes the property of others. And that's nuts. The punishment in no way is proportional to the crime. I have no sympathy to anyone who catches a beating or gets caught by the police and as a result of their transgression gets thrown in prison. This will likely affect their lives tremendously. What I think any rational minded person would object to is that death is warranted for these types of situations.

If it was just a case of potential theft, then yeah, death is a disproportionate punishment. But in a lost of cases (not so much this one), if an intruder is in your home, you really don't know if they pose a threat to you or not. If you give them a warning that might be all the time they need to bring out their own weapon to use against you. In this case, yes, it doesn't seem there was a chance of danger to the homeowners, but I can see how in other cases someone may choose to shoot first and ask questions later.

Well, the conversation was regarding this particular case. The argument, as I understand it, isn't whether the use of force and the resulting death of an assailant is ever justified, but whether it was justified in this particular instance. Since the guy purposely set up his garage to be burglarized, and since there was no indication that the kid who took the purse was a threat to the home owner, any argument that the kid got what he deserved or that we shouldn't express sympathy for him is ridiculous.

But as to your point as to whether the benefit of the doubt should be given to the home owner in most cases, that seems like an invitation to more carnage. Look, if someone is knocking down your door and you've already warned them that you're home and the police are on their way, then the use of force is more than acceptable. Of if confronted and the assailant charges at the home owner, then sure, fire away. But if the burglar is, say, downstairs and the homeowner is upstairs in his or her bedroom, I think the argument of self-defence loses its credibility if the homeowner leaves the bedroom to seek out and harm/kill the burglar.

There's a lot of grey area around home invasions, but for me personally, I'm not in favour of giving the home owner cart blanche to inflict death on the assailant because they're pissed about their stuff being stolen. Only when there's clear and credible threat to the home owner's wellbeing and life is force warranted.

[AxlisOld]

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

Nobody would ever express sympathy towards anyone who gets caught. Getting caught isn't the issue.

But if you have no problem with this, you're essentially saying that death is an appropriate punishment for anyone who burglarizes the property of others. And that's nuts. The punishment in no way is proportional to the crime. I have no sympathy to anyone who catches a beating or gets caught by the police and as a result of their transgression gets thrown in prison. This will likely affect their lives tremendously. What I think any rational minded person would object to is that death is warranted for these types of situations.

You accept your fate by entering someone's home. It is widely known that they can fucking kill you, legally. If you enter, you have accepted that risk.

[downzy]

More on this story:

Pflager said she put personal items that she had cataloged in a purse in the garage 'so that they would take it.'

Early Sunday, the sensors went off, and Kaarma and Pflager looked at the video feed and saw that someone was in the garage."

So , this guy didn´t broke into the Garage.

"Kaarma told police he fired high to avoid hitting the car in the garage - but court records showed that three of four shots were aimed low.

He also told investigators 'wanted him to be caught' because 'police can't catch burglars in the act.'

No, that doesn't sound like entrapment at all.

Setting your own items anywhere you want in your house is fine, because it's your fucking house. I don't care what their motivation was, even if it was to entrap. Sometimes I leave my garage open, sometimes my car has shit in it. Is it my fault if someone walks into my garage? Am I forcing someone to walk into my garage? I see items in stores, I bet I could steal them. Is it the store's fault if I steal from them?

I'm sick of this bullshit "pity the criminal" thing that goes around. You know exactly what your are getting yourself into when you violate the sanctity of someone's home. If someone breaks into my house, they know that I am allowed to kill them. I will not ask, "are you just trying to steal my things or are you going to rape and murder my family?"

But there's a qualitative difference between leaving your garage open because that's what you want to do and leaving your garage door open while you lay in wait with a gun in your hand.

And again, you're completely missing the point about proportionality. The punishment should fit the crime. In what fucking world do you live in where stealing something should result in a death sentence. FFS.

If the law of the land is that home invasion results in the loss of life, then fine. But it isn't. Only in the most barbaric societies do guilty individuals lose their lives or limbs as a result of their crimes. But for whatever reason, you think that because the person was caught in the act that death is warranted. Nobody is "pitying the criminal" had the criminal received the punishment that's codified in law. But he didn't, he was killed, which is a punishment that far exceeds what's associated with stealing. The purpose of self-defence is meant for one's own life, not for one's own property. Protection of property should never supersede the protection of life. Or do you honestly think that the woman's purse was worth more than that 17 year old's life?

[Chris1989]

Ffs, it's Burgled, not Burglarised - stop barstardising the English language. That's the real crime in this thread.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Chris1989

[downzy]

I don't see anyone defending the trapper. All we're saying is that when someone breaks into or enters someone's property with the intent to steal, we feel no sympathy for them when they don't get away with it.

Nobody would ever express sympathy towards anyone who gets caught. Getting caught isn't the issue.

But if you have no problem with this, you're essentially saying that death is an appropriate punishment for anyone who burglarizes the property of others. And that's nuts. The punishment in no way is proportional to the crime. I have no sympathy to anyone who catches a beating or gets caught by the police and as a result of their transgression gets thrown in prison. This will likely affect their lives tremendously. What I think any rational minded person would object to is that death is warranted for these types of situations.

You accept your fate by entering someone's home. It is widely known that they can fucking kill you, legally. If you enter, you have accepted that risk.

Actually, it's not widely known or accepted. If it were, the guy wouldn't be currently charged on homicide charges. It was pre-mediated and thought out ahead of time. The risk of burglary isn't death; that's the risk if you threaten or attempt to kill or harm someone.

Ffs, it's Burgled, not Burglarised - stop barstardising the English language. That's the real crime in this thread.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burglarize

[AxlisOld]

More on this story:

Pflager said she put personal items that she had cataloged in a purse in the garage 'so that they would take it.'

Early Sunday, the sensors went off, and Kaarma and Pflager looked at the video feed and saw that someone was in the garage."

So , this guy didn´t broke into the Garage.

"Kaarma told police he fired high to avoid hitting the car in the garage - but court records showed that three of four shots were aimed low.

He also told investigators 'wanted him to be caught' because 'police can't catch burglars in the act.'

No, that doesn't sound like entrapment at all.

Setting your own items anywhere you want in your house is fine, because it's your fucking house. I don't care what their motivation was, even if it was to entrap. Sometimes I leave my garage open, sometimes my car has shit in it. Is it my fault if someone walks into my garage? Am I forcing someone to walk into my garage? I see items in stores, I bet I could steal them. Is it the store's fault if I steal from them?

I'm sick of this bullshit "pity the criminal" thing that goes around. You know exactly what your are getting yourself into when you violate the sanctity of someone's home. If someone breaks into my house, they know that I am allowed to kill them. I will not ask, "are you just trying to steal my things or are you going to rape and murder my family?"

But there's a qualitative difference between leaving your garage open because that's what you want to do and leaving your garage door open while you lay in wait with a gun in your hand.

And again, you're completely missing the point about proportionality. The punishment should fit the crime. In what fucking world do you live in where stealing something should result in a death sentence. FFS.

If the law of the land is that home invasion results in the loss of life, then fine. But it isn't. Only in the most barbaric societies do guilty individuals lose their lives or limbs as a result of their crimes. But for whatever reason, you think that because the person was caught in the act that death is warranted. Nobody is "pitying the criminal" had the criminal received the punishment that's codified in law. But he didn't, he was killed, which is a punishment that far exceeds what's associated with stealing. The purpose of self-defence is meant for one's own life, not for one's own property. Protection of property should never supersede the protection of life. Or do you honestly think that the woman's purse was worth more than that 17 year old's life?

The world I live in acknowledges that when a house is broken into, possessions are not the only thing taken, it is emotional stability, and a feeling of security in what is supposed to be the only place you are completely safe.

Break into a house, you acknowledge the risk involved.

[bran]

if you do not break into someone's house you do not run the risk of being shot to death by the home owner, it is really that simple. people leave garages open all the time with thousands of dollars worth of items in them all the time, it does not give someone the right to steal your belongings. i go to a walmart sometimes and see the sliding glass door to all the video games/video game systems open. this does not give me the right to snag those things because i was "baited".