Castle doctrine shooting

  • Thread starter KSaiyu
  • 122 comments
  • 3,284 views
KSaiyu

KSaiyu

(Banned)
2,822
German student Diren Dede killed in 'castle doctrine' case

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

BBC News
The father of a German exchange student shot dead in Montana after he trespassed in a man's garage has said the US cannot continue to "play cowboy" with firearms.

Markus Kaarma has been charged with deliberate murder in the Sunday killing of Diren Dede, 17, of Hamburg.

But he says Montana's self-defence law allowed him to shoot the boy.

Celal Dede said he would not have allowed his son to study in the US had he been aware of the lenient gun laws.

"I didn't think for one night that everyone here can kill somebody just because that person entered his back yard," Mr Dede told the German news agency dpa....
Click to expand...

_74580641_74580636.jpg


Thoughts on the case and how it will progress? Do you see it going the same way as Zimmerman/Trayvon, or is the race element (or lack of) a factor?
 
The shooting of burglars is not universally allowed in the US, as the law in this area is changing in some jurisdictions.

However, in the Montana case, the burglar was apparently shot unseen at night when detected by motion sensor, so race, religion or ethnicity could hardly be a factor.

Tragic as it is for a youth to pay with his life for a property crime, it has to be admitted that he did something stupid and wrong. Out west, life is tough, tougher when you're stupid.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Mr. Dede ought to have investigated Montana gun laws and, as a parent, armed his MINOR son with the knowledge before allowing him to go there and study. And if he wasn't happy with their leniency, found somewhere in the USA that was less lenient - as there are states have gun laws that compare to his native Germany and Turkey.

Or taught his son not to go into people's garages at night. Or both.
 
Does the law still apply if you bait intruders and so provoke a confrontation? I bring up race because this resembles the Zimmerman/Trayvon case ("hypervigilant" shooter, similar gun laws invoked) but the variable of race is removed from the equation.
 
KSaiyu
Does the law still apply if you bait intruders and so provoke a confrontation? I bring up race because this resembles the Zimmerman/Trayvon case ("hypervigilant" shooter, similar gun laws invoked) but the variable of race is removed from the equation.
Click to expand...

This is a possibility in some jurisdictions. In some places, if a child with an iron rod beats your car parked in your driveway until it catches on fire and burns the child to death, you can be charged and convicted for providing an attractive nuisance.
 
I've no idea.

See, the thing is, there isn't really an all-encompassing set of "US gun laws" - in the same way that there's not an all-encompassing set of "European gun laws". The Second Amendment (US law) says that citizens can have weapons ("the right to bear arms") but doesn't offer anything specific beyond that. Each state should be considered an independent entity that makes its own gun laws under that umbrella.

While Florida has Castle Doctrine laws (that state you can shoot intruders in your own home), they might be completely different to Montana's. One might say you can unload an RPG into the face of a salesman who puts his foot in the door to stop you closing it, while the other might say you can only use a BB gun aimed at soft tissue every other Thursday if the intruder is a man in a clown suit eating the contents of your fridge.


And I recall the Zimmerman case was Stand Your Ground (you can shoot someone you think is going to cause you physical injury) laws, rather than Castle Doctrine.
 
KSaiyu
Thanks for expanding. Blame my laziness for lumping them together under "gun laws".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't even say that.

It's something we're kinda fed over here - and the victim's dad has fallen prey to it too. We're told that the USA gives the right to bear arms (it doesn't - it gives a guarantee that federal government can't breach that right) and we're given the impression that you can buy a gun in any Walmart across the land and, unless you're literally drooling and experiencing a severe facial tic, walk out with it and shoot whatever you want.

The reality is that the fifty States have fifty different sets of gun laws, just as the 28 member states of the EU have 28 different sets of gun laws. The only real difference between the USA and EU is that the members of the USA all speak the same language and don't have heads of state.


As Zimmerman was about Florida gun laws, so Kaarma is about Montana gun laws. Unless he used a minigun or F16, US gun laws don't really enter into it.
 
Quick "Control-F" of wikipedias page on castle doctrine for "gun" reveals no results. "Self defence laws" is probably more technically accurate.

Still, guns undoubtably play a role in such cases. Could an argument be made for the man who relies on these laws after stabbing same victim to death?
 
Last edited:
Seems like a cut-and-dried case of premeditated violence on the homeowner's part.

How the case will play out will be affected by what the investigation reveals about how the boy came to be there in that garage. If he was indeed burgling, it might be an out for Kaarma.

If the defense can turn up no history of petty theft, misbehaviour or violence on the boy's part, their case is weakened. Although a good prosecutor should be able to press the issue that Kaarma had already set up a situation with the mindset to shoot anyone entering that garage, and that shooting before any physical or verbal contact precludes a "reasonable cause" defense.

Not looking good for the defense... but until more information is available, there's not much we can say at this point.
 
In this case the homeowner was allowed to shoot if he felt his life was going to be in danger even without a demonstrable method being in plain sight. I'd presume his defence would be that he saw an intruder in his property. It's reasonable for a US homeowner to presume that a trespasser might be armed.

As pointed out by @niky this particular shooting looks premeditated. A "honey trap" was set up and the first approacher was shot.

Here's the saddest thing; if I walked past a house and saw a garage open and lit with a handbag sitting on the bonnet of a car... I'd go to the house and knock on the door or try to attract someone's attention. It's human nature. 1-in-100 might grab the bag and run but most people would simply ignore it or try to attract the resident.

There's no way of knowing why the victim approached the house but it seems likely to me that he was offering help (or looking for help for other reasons), it's hard to imagine he was on the perp.
 
You're allowed to shoot intruders on your property in some jurisdictions. I don't think that means you're allowed to set up bait situations like this. Unless there's a lot more to this story we don't know, I'd say Kaarma's defense doesn't look very convincing.

That being said, if the kid hadn't entered the garage in the first place this wouldn't have happened.
 
So the guy set up a handbag as bait, to lure an "intruder" into the garage and then shoot them, in the hopes it would be the same "intruder" who burgled his house in the past? That's off-the-scale levels of idiocy right there, and a pretty cut-and-dried case of premeditated murder IMO.
 
KSaiyu
Does the law still apply if you bait intruders and so provoke a confrontation? I bring up race because this resembles the Zimmerman/Trayvon case ("hypervigilant" shooter, similar gun laws invoked) but the variable of race is removed from the equation.
Click to expand...

I don't see how in anyway this is similar...
 
BobK
The jury probably got it right, but again, if the kids hadn't broken into the house in the first place they'd still be alive.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that someone who died in a car accident is partly to blame because they're the ones who decided to go out for a ride in the first place. Its not an argument that should in any way justify or defend the actions of the shooter.
 
KSaiyu
Quick "Control-F" of wikipedias page on castle doctrine for "gun" reveals no results. "Self defence laws" is probably more technically accurate.

Still, guns undoubtably play a role in such cases. Could an argument be made for the man who relies on these laws after stabbing same victim to death?
Click to expand...

Yes because it is a self-defense law, not to be rude but it gets quite tiresome that people think here in the states "self defense" equals using a gun and thus it is now part of gun laws/rights. It's not, Castle Doctrine in AZ is similar to the Montana one, if unlawful entry of my home has occurred and my life is in danger (some states ask you prove it I believe) then I have the right to eliminate that threat to me and my family. If that is by means of using my shotgun or my knife or a metal bat then that is what I've used...

Soda01
That's like saying that someone who died in a car accident is partly to blame because they're the ones who decided to go out for a ride in the first place. Its not an argument that should in any way justify or defend the actions of the shooter.
Click to expand...

It is in no way similar, you're basically saying this is an accident that happened when comparing it to a car wreck. A better analogy would have been that if you go out drinking then get in a car and are surprised to get in a wreck and end up dead or crippled, it's your fault. If I intrude on to someones property and am hurt by the owner or guard dogs or laser beams implanted on their lawn that is my fault because I've trespassed without their consent.

You seem to have this notion that well he was just out for a walk and it's not his fault he ended up their and thus he shouldn't be harmed. Just like a driver hurt in a car accident should be blamed just because they went out for a Sunday drive.
 
BobK
The jury probably got it right, but again, if the kids hadn't broken into the house in the first place they'd still be alive.
Click to expand...

Like I said, a good prosecutor should be able to successfully close out a case like this.
 
BobK
The jury probably got it right, but again, if the kids hadn't broken into the house in the first place they'd still be alive.
Click to expand...
The audio in that story is chilling. He executed those kids. He even taunted them before killing them.
 
Soda01
That's like saying that someone who died in a car accident is partly to blame because they're the ones who decided to go out for a ride in the first place.
Click to expand...
If this comparison had both an illegal action with known potential consequences and an irresponsible use of force by someone to stop the action, it would be exactly like that, yes. A better comparison would be someone driving under the influence and the police taking care of it by shooting out his tires causing him to die in a wreck.


The blame ultimately rests on the person who pulled the trigger in such an example; but since self defense/castle doctrine encounters rarely do play out like Death Wish 3, it's far more often a series of errors by both sides that lead to a death rather than just an unhinged gun owner tricking people into his house so he has an excuse to shoot them.
 
Last edited:
LMSCorvetteGT2
Yes because it is a self-defense law, not to be rude but it gets quite tiresome that people think here in the states "self defense" equals using a gun and thus it is now part of gun laws/rights. It's not, Castle Doctrine in AZ is similar to the Montana one, if unlawful entry of my home has occurred and my life is in danger (some states ask you prove it I believe) then I have the right to eliminate that threat to me and my family. If that is by means of using my shotgun or my knife or a metal bat then that is what I've used...
Click to expand...

So I presume the argument for a castle doctine/stand your ground defence if you use a close quarters weapon would be stronger since you put yourself at risk of an altercation in comparison to blind firing into your garage?
 
KSaiyu
So I presume the argument for a castle doctine/stand your ground defence if you use a close quarters weapon would be stronger since you put yourself at risk of an altercation in comparison to blind firing into your garage?
Click to expand...

What? First off neither of them have anything to do with each other beside self defense. The context of that defense is quite different between the two. How is either scenario different from one another I'm already at risk in either case if my next viable option is defending and protecting my life and that of my family. So I don't understand your question and I feel it's a bit loaded or perhaps I'm being cynical and it is just a blind question because you still haven't researched the info.
 
It does seem to be a loaded question from an anti gunner due to a lack of knowledge to me.

I'm not familiar with the case and I strongly disagree with baiting, on the same token I'm all for protecting yourself and your castle. Hell, I could probably inflict just as much damage to an intruder in my garage chucking a brick at his head as I could shooting him with a shotgun, maybe even more if the strike is right. If you feel threatened by some ass hat trespassing do as you see fit, the truth usually unfolds. It amazes me how some feel a perpetrator has some right of wrong doing.
 
Soda01
That's like saying that someone who died in a car accident is partly to blame because they're the ones who decided to go out for a ride in the first place. Its not an argument that should in any way justify or defend the actions of the shooter.
Click to expand...
Can you please point me to just where I assigned any blame at all, or am trying to justify and/or defend the shooter? I merely stated a fact; to wit, if the kids hadn't entered the house they'd still be alive. I have no sympathy at all for the shooter, he'll likely get what he deserves, but I also have little sympathy for those who go breaking into somebody's home.
 
I don't really care about gun laws, and hopefully it's been settled that it's an honest mistake with my labelling the laws as "gun laws" instead of self defence due to a lack of research before posting. I'm speaking more on the strength of a self defence claim as an argument for the defence, and whether this is influenced by guns being involved or not. Are the laws as they are currently doing enough to deter people from setting traps, or are people misguided in the belief that any intrusion onto their property warrants deadly force.

It's not a stealth argument for gun control, my point is that I wonder if these same people would go to such lengths if they didn't have the gun in the first place. Since the 2nd ammendment is (again presumably) more entrenched in American law than self defence, if a change in the law is required is further scrutiny needed for castle doctrine/stand your ground?
 
I noticed in the article that the people said that they had left the purse out as a "trap."

The words "self incrimination" come to mind. How stupid do you have to be to go around saying that you had done that? This is beside the fact of how stupid trying to lay traps for criminals without law enforcement is in the first place.

KSaiyu
It's not a stealth argument for gun control, my point is that I wonder if these same people would go to such lengths if they didn't have the gun in the first place. Since the 2nd ammendment is (again presumably) more entrenched in American law than self defence, if a change in the law is required is further scrutiny needed for castle doctrine/stand your ground?
Click to expand...

Stand-Your-Ground and Castle Doctine laws are in response to many cases where the victim of an assault or home invasion has ended up behind bars. Many prosecutors will attempt to convict people who have defended themselves with lethal force under versions of the arguments of "Why didn't you flee your house?" or "Why didn't you comply with the attacker and then file a police report?"

Several US States and European countries have a "retreat at all costs" attitude towards self defense. Assailant enters your house? Leave your house. Assailant approaches you on the street? Run.

The concept because SYG and Castle Doctrine is that a person has no "duty to retreat." It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it has to do with compliance to criminals. The Trayvon Martin case did not use Stand-Your-Ground as a defense. The law was irrelevant to the case.
 
The use of a gun does not influence the claim of self defense, defense is defense. Setting traps is really lame but we have to look no further then to our own law enforcement agencies to see how the example has been set, they bait all the time. It is not misguided to know that if someone comes onto you property with an intent to harm you(stealing included) you have the right to defend not only yourself but also your belongings, how could it be any other way, communism? lol

Who knows what these same people would do, who knows who these same people are in the first place? Like I said, they learn this crap from the police, or they get tired of the premise that the police protect which is not their job. No change in the law is required, the 2nd amendment is all about government abuse and nothing to do with self defense, defense is a given that no one thought would ever be questioned.
 

Latest Posts

Back