• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

German student Diren Dede killed in 'castle doctrine' case

Phil1

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 3, 2009
465
7
Minot N.D.
BBC News

1 May 2014 Last updated at 10:27 ET
German student Diren Dede killed in 'castle doctrine' case

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.
Pressure authorities

Meanwhile, the German consulate in San Francisco has sent a diplomat to help Mr Dede recover his son's body and to meet local law enforcement and prosecutors.

"This is very important to us, and she is there to put pressure on the authorities to investigate thoroughly," consulate spokeswoman Julia Reinhardt said. "We don't have any doubt that this will happen."

The son of a family of Turkish immigrants to Germany, Diren was attending Big Sky High School in Missoula, Montana, for one year as part of an exchange program.

Diren, known in Hamburg for his football skills, had only six weeks left in the programme.

Mr Kaarma, a 29-year-old firefighter, has told investigators his home had twice been hit by burglars, and he told a hair stylist he had waited up at night to shoot intruders, prosecutors said.

On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police.

They set up motion sensors and a video monitor, prosecutors said.

When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times.

It is unclear what the teenager was doing inside in the garage.

Mr Kaarma's lawyer said his client planned to plead not guilty.

The state allows residents to protect their homes with deadly force when they believe they are going to be harmed, said his lawyer, Paul Ryan.

"We know with no question the individual entered the garage," Mr Ryan said. "Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed."

He said that there had been a spate of break-ins in the neighbourhood and Mr Kaarma did not think the police were doing anything about them.
'Castle doctrine' defence

The suspect was released on $30,000 (£17,800) bond, and has remained in his home.

Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" law was amended in 2009 to allow deadly force if a homeowner "reasonably believes" an intruder is trying to harm him or her.

Before that, residents could only use such force if the intruder acted in a violent way. The legislation was backed by the US' largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).

State Representative Ellie Hill told the Missoulian newspaper she has proposed legislation to repeal the 2009 amendments to the law.

"What the castle doctrine has done in this country is it has created a culture of gun violence and vigilante justice," Ms Hill, a Democrat who represents Missoula, said.

"And it's created a culture that it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later."

Diren will be buried in Turkey, his family said. His football team in Hamburg, SC Teutonia 1910, played a charity match on Wednesday to help the family pay for the funeral.
BBC News - German student Diren Dede killed in 'castle doctrine' case
 
On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police.
They set up motion sensors and a video monitor, prosecutors said.
When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times.

If this is an accurate description of what happened, he better be working on a plea bargain - that doesn't sound anywhere close to a justifiable shooting, castle doctrine or not.

It seems that often times the castle doctrine and/or stand your ground is blamed for something, when the facts being described by the person blaming the doctrine are not actually enough for a shooting to be legally justified under the doctrine.

Beyond that, foreigners can stuff it when it comes to telling us what our internal laws should be. Let's go over there and tell them how to run their countries. Germany, land of millions of unassimilated immigrants and the imprisonment of homeschooling parents.
 
Or it could be setting a trap to catch a thief. Don't steal don't get shot. Not such a bad idea.
 
I'm gonna say the property owner didn't do himself any favors IF the things stated in this article are factual. IH he did indeed place motion sensors and cameras and laid in wait AND he just opened fire at someone in his garage AND ran his mouth to it to a hairstylist, I'm afraid this may not go as he expected.

But it is Montana so I could be wrong.
 
I don't think the Castle Doctrine allows you to bait your house to purposely attract victims. If the door had been left open by accident maybe it would be justified. Sounds like premeditated murder to me.
 
I don't think the Castle Doctrine allows you to bait your house to purposely attract victims. If the door had been left open by accident maybe it would be justified. Sounds like premeditated murder to me.

Your 'reasoning' is the same as those who think a woman dressed provocatively is inviting and to be blamed for rape.

Begone troll.
 
I don't think the Castle Doctrine allows you to bait your house to purposely attract victims. If the door had been left open by accident maybe it would be justified. Sounds like premeditated murder to me.

What is considered baiting? Leaving the garage door open? My classic muscle car in the driveway? The motorcycles in the garage? Everybody drives by looking at my shit, am I supposed to hide it?
 
What is considered baiting? Leaving the garage door open? My classic muscle car in the driveway? The motorcycles in the garage? Everybody drives by looking at my shit, am I supposed to hide it?

I believe you baited him, if you used motion sensors, and cameras, then placed an object in the open to bait in a thief in the middle of the night. Its one thing if you catch someone out of the blue and its off guard. Its another if you use sensors and cameras to wait until he is in the perfect position to shoot. He is claiming self defense, if he had cameras up it will make it pretty hard to prove that he was in danger. They could argue he could have waited inside the safety of his house instead of hunting down the thief. While I hate thieves and I wish them all a painful existence. I think this was done the wrong way.
 
Your 'reasoning' is the same as those who think a woman dressed provocatively is inviting and to be blamed for rape.

Begone troll.
If the woman told her friend she was going to dress provocatively, and sit on the curb with her legs spread open with no undies. All the time hoping to be raped so she could cut the rapist dick off. She may just have a problem.

Troll logic I guess.


What is considered baiting? Leaving the garage door open? My classic muscle car in the driveway? The motorcycles in the garage? Everybody drives by looking at my shit, am I supposed to hide it?

Leaving the door open with her purse inside in the hope someone will show up to kill, is baiting.

Leaving your door open by mistake or just because you want to, is a different story.
 
The only stupid thing here to learn from is - Don't be a moron and tell anyone you left bait outside. The answer is always, I heard something, I went to check it out, I was scared shitless, the guy came at me. Boom.
 
Last edited:
Why plant motion lights and cameras if you intend to shoot somebody???

They are either stupid or the story is not clear yet. Maybe they think the Castle Doc is a license for murder.
 
6 hours ago • Associated Press

HELENA — A Montana man is accused of setting a trap and blindly blasting a shotgun into his garage, killing a 17-year-old German exchange student. A Minnesota man is convicted of lying in wait in his basement for two teenagers and killing them during a break-in.

The two recent cases take the "stand your ground" debate to a new level: Do laws that allow private citizens to protect their property also let them set a trap and wait for someone to kill?

"We don't want it to be easy to be able to prosecute people. But we want to be able to hold individuals accountable when they have stepped outside the bounds of society," David LaBahn, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said Wednesday.

More than 30 states have laws expanding the self-defense principle known as the "castle doctrine," a centuries-old premise that a person has the right to defend their home against attack, LaBahn said. The name evokes the old saying, "my home is my castle."

Most of these changes have come since Florida in 2005 became the first state to interpret the "castle doctrine" to apply outside the home with a measure known as the "stand your ground" law.

These laws make it far easier for a person to shoot someone and avoid prosecution by saying they felt an imminent danger - whether or not the person who was shot was armed.

The principle came under national scrutiny in the 2012 shooting of an unarmed Florida teenager, Trayvon Martin, by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was following the 17-year-old. George Zimmerman was acquitted last year after arguing self-defense.

The Montana and Minnesota cases involve homeowners who had been burglarized and said they were afraid of it happening again. Prosecutors say they lured intruders into fatal encounters.

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.

After midnight, they heard the sensors trip. Pflager turned to the video monitor and saw a man in the garage. Kaarma took his shotgun, walked out the front door and to the driveway.

He told investigators he heard metal on metal and without speaking fired four times - sweeping the garage with three low shots and a high fourth shot. Dede was hit in the head and the arm.

Montana's law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent an assault or a forcible felony.

Since it passed in 2009, the law has been raised at least a dozen times in Montana cases. In several, it was the reason prosecutors decided against filing charges.

Kaarma attorney Paul Ryan said he intends to use that law as a defense in his client's deliberate homicide charge. That shifts the burden to prosecutors, who will have to prove their case and that deadly force wasn't justified, he said.

Kaarma didn't intend to kill Dede, Ryan said. "He was scared for his life. It shouldn't be up to a homeowner to wait and see if (an intruder) is going to shoot him when he announces himself," he said.

Because the laws typically leave it up to the shooter to decide if a danger exists, prosecutors often have no way to challenge such a claim. LaBahn said the case in Missoula appeared to reflect the same concerns raised repeatedly by prosecutors in Florida.

"It doesn't sound to me that a reasonable person is going to shoot through a garage door," LaBahn said.

He added there could be mitigating factors yet to emerge in the exchange student's death.

Minnesota law allows the use of deadly force in a home to prevent a felony, but it must be considered a reasonable response.

Byron Smith, a 65-year-old retiree, unsuccessfully used that defense to justify his shooting of Nick Brady, 17, and Haile Kifer, 18, after the cousins broke into his Little Falls home in 2012. Smith's attorney said his client's home had been burglarized, and he was afraid.

Smith was convicted of premeditated murder Tuesday. Prosecutors said Smith moved his truck to make it look as though no one was home. He turned on a handheld recorder, had a surveillance system running and waited in the basement with food, water and two guns.

Brady descended the basement stairs first, and Smith shot him three times, saying "You're dead." He dragged the body to another room and waited until Kifer followed, and he shot her. "You're dying," he told her, according to the audio recording.

Since Martin's death in Florida, lawmakers in at least seven states have introduced legislation to weaken or repeal self-defense laws. None of the measures have passed, according to the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Gary Marbut, who heads the Montana Shooting Sports Association and helped draft the state's law, said Kaarma's case could help clarify it.

"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."
'Stand your ground' law tested in recent shootings
 
If the woman told her friend she was going to dress provocatively, and sit on the curb with her legs spread open with no undies. All the time hoping to be raped so she could cut the rapist dick off. She may just have a problem.

Troll logic I guess.

Only he wasn't in a public place, he was at home so yes, your logic is flawed. It's really simple, he has EVERY right to leave his garage open, to have whatever in the garage. If the kid hadn't entered property that clearly wasn't his this wouldn't have happened. The whole sequence of events was triggered by the first crime that was committed - trespass.




FS1 said:
Leaving the door open with her purse inside in the hope someone will show up to kill, is baiting.

Leaving your door open by mistake or just because you want to, is a different story.

You really are a fool or of dubious intent being here. How does an opportunistic thief tell the difference pray tell? He doesn't - he simply sees an opportunity to commit a crime. Leaving a garage door open is not baiting.
 
Only he wasn't in a public place, he was at home so yes, your logic is flawed. It's really simple, he has EVERY right to leave his garage open, to have whatever in the garage. If the kid hadn't entered property that clearly wasn't his this wouldn't have happened. The whole sequence of events was triggered by the first crime that was committed - trespass.
No doubt the kid was a scumbag, but he was baited.


You really are a fool or of dubious intent being here. How does an opportunistic thief tell the difference pray tell? He doesn't - he simply sees an opportunity to commit a crime. Leaving a garage door open is not baiting.
What the kid thinks is meaningless. But leaving your door open so you can sit in wait to kill them is baiting.

Why don't we just all put a pile of gold in our garage so we can shoot all who approach. Public service right?
 
If you have the balls to go into someones home or vehicle with the intent of committing a crime and you get killed it is clearly your own fault.
 
You can't set a trap and then enforce anything now thats funny. Cause I was just watching a show that had these guy sitting a bike on the curb and waiting on the thief and then they would cacth them and but them under arrest.
 
Seems like a setup for murder to me. That's like using a deer feeder and calling it hunting...


The kid didn't have to take the bait... Everyone knows that you're taking a risk if you break into somebody's house the consequences can range from getting a new TV all the way to getting killed, it's the gamble the thieves chose to take and the thieves have to live with the consequences be they watching tv or being buried.
 
Last fall, I was walking my dog around 9pm at night and saw that someone had left the lift gate of their minivan up; the dome lights of the van were off and the front of the house appeared dark.

I was going to softly put the gate down myself, but didn't as I didn't want somebody to think I was trying to take their stuff. I thought about knocking on their front door, but that's complicated with even a well behaved a black lab on a leash...and again, who expects a knock on the door at night?

So I kept walking, as that seemed the "safest" bet...though it sure didn't seem like the "right" thing to do.

I make no justification for somebody being in somebody else's garage...but can see how things might not necessarily be the nefarious act they can appear to.

<shrug>
 
Why did the kid go into the garage of someone he didn't know after dark for anyways? He couldn't know there was a purse in there, unless he went into look for something to take. He is dead because he shouldn't have been in there anyways. The owner of property should have door down and locked too. It does sound like the guy and his partner were wanting to kill someone. Both individuals (shooter and victim)were in the wrong.
 
The first story says the garage door was left open the second says he shot through the garage door. It's clear no one has all the facts they are just writing stories with a political agenda attached
 
Hmm, no sense of escalation of force either? The kid was unarmed, right? Just straight to lethal force for potential burglary...interesting.
 
Hmm, no sense of escalation of force either? The kid was unarmed, right? Just straight to lethal force for potential burglary...interesting.

I get your point but everyone knows that a very real risk you take when breaking into somewhere can be your own death so why does a homeowner have to escalate?
 
Leaving items in the open only keep honest people honest. The kid had no business entering private property, let alone an open garage. A crime of opportunity turned violently against the perpetrator. All actions, both good and bad, have consequences. Was this too severe? In my opinion, yes. I do not think the end results fit the crime. But I know how having your hard earned things taken by douchebags feels. Not good, especially repeatedly. A video, a locking door, and a call to the local LEOs might have been a better alternative.

If nothing else, taking another person's life will be something these people will have to live with forever. Personally, I do not feel possessions are worth someone's life. The kid definitely deserved some jail time, but not the forfeiture of his life for burglary. If he had broken into the house, I might feel differently. A sad day for all of us who will be affected by the bad publicity. Just more ammunition for the anti-gun crowd.
 
I may be wrong, but I believe TX stands alone on that. Castle Doctrine gives a lot of protection to the legal occupant of the home, but there are still limits.

If the story is correct:
He told the girl that cuts his hair that he intended to bait / shoot them.
He then proceeded bait and set a system to alert him when the guy was there.
Left his home and walked around the house and fired several times into the garage.
Then him and/or his 'partner' tell the cops all about it.

Hate if for him, but he's most likely got a long, hard row ahead of him.


I totally agree and I'm kinda just playing devils advocate here in this thread. This guy totally fucked the dog and will get nailed for it just like the guy last week who was found guilty of murder (I think) that set a trap for kids in his basement and shot 2 kids. He recorded the whole thing and convicted himself by giving the cops the audio tapes of the event and all that (same stupid ass mistakes this guy made). I agree with you guys here that this homeowner will get convicted, I just don't agree that he should be.
 
Seriously? Do you really think comparing a deer's natural instinct to a human who clearly knows right v. wrong and risks is a winning strategy for you in this debate?

FS1 is a troll. Don't waste your time, I won't be anymore.
 
Isn't being certain someone poses a physical threat to yourself or others pretty much the bottom line when we take matters into our own hands?

Castle Doctrine or not, they're still gonna try to rake our asses over the coals for shooting unarmed people.
 
I am all for Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws but I'm starting to hear more people breaking/taking advantage of those laws to take a life.
Between this and the old man that was just convicted of killing the 2 teens who broke into his house, it's pretty despicable.

I have no problem pulling the trigger if I genuinely feel my family is in danger, but setting things up and "baiting" someone just to do it so you can shoot them is pretty fucked up! Especially when you brag about it.
 
Seriously? Do you really think comparing a deer's natural instinct to a human who clearly knows right v. wrong and risks is a winning strategy for you in this debate?

Deer eat, thieves steal. That's is the way it is.

This man was frustrated and his thinking was clouded with hate as much as fear. He interpreted the Castle Doc as a license to murder in cold blood. Had he retreated and called the police and the intruder kept coming he was defending. Lying in wait is murder. JMHO

That's the troll view.
 
Deer eat, thieves steal. That's is the way it is.

This man was frustrated and his thinking was clouded with hate as much as fear. He interpreted the Castle Doc as a license to murder in cold blood. Had he retreated and called the police and the intruder kept coming he was defending. Lying in wait is murder. JMHO

That's the troll view.

Thieves get smoked. That's the way it is.
 
Well, I'm going to put the flame suit on but I don't really believe that anyone here feels that the penalty for larceny should be death (of course, I've been wrong before.) Maybe a butt kicking but ................... We only have the reported details about the incident and who knows how reliable the info is anyway but killing someone for trespass? Yeah, I've been ripped off and mad as hell about it but killing a kid for being in your open garage with bait on a table..........don't think any jury is going to believe that is reasonable defense of life or even property. At this juncture it appears to be pretty much speculation but who knows if the 17 year old was even in the process of burglary.........................college kid, partying, drunk, etc.? He is going to need one heck of a barrister!
 
Last edited:
Intent is the name of the game. He clearly left the door open and property out to lure the thief inside and shoot him. If he would have done everything the same, told the kid to get down on the ground or put his hands up or whatever and the kid ran towards him, I would be okay with the shooting. But that is not what happened. He did not lure the thief there to catch him, he did it to kill him. That is a huge distinction when it is between murder and self defense.
 
Thieves get smoked. That's the way it is.

If our gun rights are to be threatened it will not be the school/movie loonies that cause it. It will be when people see average hard working otherwise good men doing evil things with guns. The logic will be if these men don't know how to tell right from wrong. Maybe they cannot handle the responsibilities of gun ownership.

They will never be to take them all, but they sure as hell can make harder and more limited to own and buy. So stand up for what you believe, but be sure what you believe is right.
 
I would have confronted the dude with gun in hand, if he attacked me I would have shot him dead, if he ran away I would have let him live. I don't think I would kill over property, I would over my own and others safety and in defense of the Consitution, that's about the only scenarios I can see myself killing someone. I do think this homeowner has the absolute right to shoot someone inside his garage if he chooses to do so, I think its stupid and chances are he could have killed a relative or a drunk friend but it is his right to defend his property.
 
German student Diren Dede killed in 'castle doctrine' case

Hmm, no sense of escalation of force either? The kid was unarmed, right? Just straight to lethal force for potential burglary...interesting.
You nailed it:

In general (not legal advice specific to Montana law), the law presumes that someone who breaks into your house is there to harm you. That's why deadly force is permissible inside the home: Because the law presumes that inside your house you are defending yourself and your family.

The "castle doctrine" that everyone is talking about (aka: stand-your-ground laws) expands this concept to permit the use of deadly force in self-defense, and without any duty to first retreat, anywhere that you are lawfully present (like outside your home in your garage).

However, setting a deadly force trap, like a spring gun, is flat-out illegal. Here the homeowners set a trap, but not an automatic one.

So, if the homeowner fired in self-defense without first trying to retreat then doing that is probably lawful under stand-your-ground principles. But if he set a trap and then came out shooting when the trap was activated (but not in self-defense), then without more facts it's murder.

That is, unless Montana's version of the 'castle doctrine' law law expands the presumption of harm to the curtilage of the home. I don't know the answer to that, but I doubt that it does.

There never was, and there is no right to shoot people simply because they are on your property. That's because there is no right to use deadly force solely to protect property (Texas gets the closest, but no, not even in Texas).

The homeowner knew only enough to get himself into serious trouble, which is what results when one combines ignorance plus deadly weapons.
 
Last edited:
I think what happened is a man was sick and tired of being broken into and nothing happening. He got fed up with the slack police effort to thwart the burglaries so he took matters into his own hands. Did he go to far...???

About 8 years ago my ex-sister in law and her crack head friends robbed my parents home while they were at church Sunday morning. She was caught about 2 weeks later with about half the goods still in her car she was driving when arrested. She stole about $20,000.00 worth of jewelry and playing cards, Michael Jordan, David Robinson rookie cards a few of each, and others worth alot of $$$. What happened to her? Nothing, didn't spend a day in jail, didn't pay back 1 dime, NOTHING. Our prisons are over crowded so thieves know they will get a slap on the wrist, and so they continue.
So, what incentive do people have to NOT break into homes? The penalty is so small compared to the reward of a good heist and easy $$$ !!!

Now, was the kid baited, no, he wasopportunized !!! I made that word up, but it SHOULD be a word !!!
 
German student Diren Dede killed in 'castle doctrine' case

So, what incentive do people have to NOT break into homes?
The swift and immediate penalty of justifiable homicide.
 
Last edited:
He is only going to be standing before a judge now. His bigger problem is someday He will be standing at the pearly gates.
 
quiettimes.jpg