Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Markus Kaarma Convicted of Deliberate Homicide - Minimum 10 Years

Markus Kaarma waits to be dismissed during an afternoon break in Missoula County Court in Missoula, Montana, 5 December 2014.
Markus Kaarma

NPR

More than 30 states have laws that allow people to use deadly force if they have a reasonable fear for their life or property. But this week, a Montana jury said that type of law has its limits, finding a homeowner who shot a teenager in his garage guilty of deliberate homicide.
In the early hours of April 27, a motion detector alerted homeowner Markus Kaarma someone was in the garage of his home in Missoula, Mont. He went outside and almost immediately fired four shotgun blasts, killing 17-year-old Diren Dede, a German exchange student.
Prosecutors contended 30-year-old Kaarma was the aggressor and had purposefully lured an intruder into his garage to hurt him.
During the two-week trial, witness Tanya Colby testified to what Kaarma had told her just days before the shooting.
"He said 'I'm tired. I've been up for the last three nights with a shotgun wanting to kill some kids,' " Colby said.
Kaarma, his girlfriend and their infant son had been the victim of a burglary in their garage just days before the shooting. But Deputy Missoula County Attorney Karla Painter said Kaarma left his garage door open that night to exact vigilante justice.
"He had one thing on his mind, and that was revenge," Painter said.

20 comments:

  1. Once again it's been the pro-people who were right that self-defense laws don't cover what he did. Unlike the degreed lawyer who calls it "get away with murder law".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty of pro-gun people claimed this was a justified shooting.

      Plenty of people with greater legal and criminal justice expertise than you appear to have TS call the SYG and some of the versions/applications of the Castle Doctrine to be 'get away with murder' laws, as do public policy experts.

      It is not an observation unique to a single individual.

      Btw - do you know of an attorney who does NOT possess more than one degree (a BA/BS and then a JD?)? If not, then you are redundant.

      Delete
    2. A strong majority of pro-gun people expressed how SYG does not protect acts of luring. If we just look at this blog, Sarge, the lawyer Tennesseean, your buddy Greg Camp, and I, all argued that this case did not appear to be legitimate self-defense if he indeed baited him. There was one anonymous comment that could be construed as coming down on the other side. We were right, Laci was wrong. It's not a "get away with murder law".

      Delete
    3. TS, even those who call the SYG a get away with murder law, don't claim it works in every case. Why do you keep pretending they do?

      Delete
    4. A strong majority?

      Hell no. A strong majority of SYG proponents feel that shooting is justified in situations like this, where they have 1. an after-the-fact claim of fear for themselves and/or their families, and 2. the justification of taking life over relatively minor property loss. I've seen claims of shooting someone over the possible theft of $20 justified on this blog, although not as a comment specific to this case. I've seen SYG cases where someone was killed, shot through a locked door, even though they were not in any way trying to enter justified as valid SYG. I've seen cases where someone was fleeing a conflict, shot in the back, justified as legitimate SYG. There is no majority of pro-gunners who take the position you claim; this was just one of the incidents, given the push-back on Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, etc. where there is outrage at unarmed people, especially teens, being shot by right wing nuts.

      This one was as much an embarrassment because it resulted in the death of a white foreign student as the entrapment/baiting aspect of it.

      So NO. SYG and some interpretations of the Castle Doctrine as well, ARE get-away-with-murder laws, and rightly called out as such.

      Laci is in good legal and criminal justice company when he does so, some of it pretty damned prestigious legal company.

      Delete
    5. MikeB: “TS, even those who call the SYG a get away with murder law, don't claim it works in every case. Why do you keep pretending they do?”

      I have never seen Laci speak of the boundaries of self-defense laws. All he says is it’s a “get away with murder law”. I have not seen him say it’s a “sometimes get away with murder law”. I have specifically challenged Laci (and you and Dog gone as well) to speak of the boundaries of the law. Tell us in your own words what it doesn’t protect. But you guys can’t bring yourselves to do that, because your anti-self-defense campaign is all about misinformation and hyperbole. So now’s your chance- tell us what makes it not work in every case. What is different about the cases where it does not work?

      Delete
    6. Dog gone, I am talking about this case. All the major pro-rights commentators agreed that this was not protected by law. There are other examples where the vast majority of gun rights supporters recognize that a situation was not legitimate self-defense (like the Smith case in MN, Dunn, throwing popcorn incident, etc.). You’re throwing out generalizations, and specific incidents that were legitimate self-defense but you don’t agree with (like Zimmerman).

      MikeB: “Laci is in good legal and criminal justice company when he does so, some of it pretty damned prestigious legal company.”

      Laci is a different person when he comments here. He would never give his clients legal advice that you can kill anyone you want and just claim you “felt threatened” and get away with it. Like I said above, you guys still have the chance to speak knowledgably about the law by speaking of its boundaries and what it doesn’t protect. Go ahead, I’m listening.

      MikeB: “TS, even those who call the SYG a get away with murder law, don't claim it works in every case. Why do you keep pretending they do?”

      I’ll also add that Laci doesn’t call things like the 4th Amendment a “get away with murder law” even though sometimes people get away with murder because the police were not able to conduct illegal searches.

      Delete
    7. "MikeB: “Laci is in good legal and criminal justice company when he does so, some of it pretty damned prestigious legal company.”"

      I don't think I said that.

      Delete
    8. Yep, I accidentally attributed the quote to you went I meant Dog gone.

      Delete
  2. This sounds more like castle doctrine rather than stand your ground. Criminals often use about any defense available to them when charged with a crime. And through old fashioned police work, as evidenced by this case, the truth comes out. I wasn't able to find any mention of a separate stand your ground hearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is my understanding that Montana doesn't hold separate hearings the way they do for example in the state of Florida, but rather that this was one of the defenses asserted by the shooter - that he was afraid, and that this was self-defense and shooting someone engaged in committing a felony.

      Delete
    2. Sounds like he was a bit less extreme than the Byron Smith case in my county. The jury has spoken.

      Delete
  3. Good! I hope they slam his ass behind bars for a good long time -- and that he doesn't spend Christmas on the outside with anyone either.

    He is pure and simply a murderer, and his common law wife isn't much better. She cared more about her damn vehicle than human life.

    It is not at all clear that anything was actually stolen EVER, or that kids did it. THIS is what is wrong with vigilante justice; it is really just vigilante execution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm surprised he didn't get a worse sentence, though I can't speak to Montana law, the fact that he said to have stated that he wanted to kills some kids is especially disturbing. He should be out away for a lot longer. From my understanding stand your ground wouldn't apply and given the context castle doctrine would be quite a stretch too. This guy is a murderer plain and simple.
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the sentencing is in January, or did I miss something?

      Delete
    2. You are correct MikeB; this is addressing the POTENTIAL sentence range, not his specific sentence.

      Delete
  5. Dog gone, thanks for the clarification I missed the minimum, hopefully he stays away for a lot longer
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete
  6. My mistake, I missed the minimum. Hopefully he gets a lot longer.
    MikeZ

    ReplyDelete
  7. And the final number is.......

    "A Montana homeowner was sentenced Thursday to 70 years in prison for the shotgun slaying of a German exchange student he found trespassing in his garage late one night last spring."

    "Kaarma faced between 10 and 100 years behind bars. A police detective testified at Thursday's sentencing that in jail, Kaarma "relished the notoriety of being a murderer," The Missoulian reported.
    Police were monitoring his jail communications. In a late-December conversation, "he referred to himself as an American hero, but said he wasn't being treated as a hero," said Det. Guy Baker."

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/12/montana-homeowner-prison-killing-teen-trespasser/23309195/

    ReplyDelete