Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Ernie S.]

The dead kid's companion confessed to intention to commit burglary.

Illegal entry, with intent to commit a felony.

Whoops.

Montana juries aren't likely to take kindly to the case of dumbass ferners tryna rob feller Murkins.

...

And where's your source? ::click:: ::click:: not workin'...

There are literally scores of diverse sources on the subject of his companion (from Ecuador) confessing to having been in the process of 'garage hopping' at the time of the shooting.

A link from a National Public Radio (NPR) station in Liberal-land Boston, MA, will do nicely for our purposes, though...

======================

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping'

May 8, 2014 (Here & Now / WBUR-FM)

The surviving teen from a fatal April 27 shooting in Missoula, Montana, has reportedly told police that he and his friend were “garage hopping.”

Diren Dede and a friend, both high school exchange students in Missoula, were out around midnight on April 27 when Dede entered an open garage. The homeowner, Markus Kaarma, opened the inside door and shot four times, killing Dede.

.....

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping' | NCPR News from NPR


Next slide, please...

======================

I uh.. don't think he can speak for the dead. Isn't he in Ecuador anyway?

Uh, that's exactly what he DID do - speak for the dead; disclosing what he and his dead friend were up to, when the shooting occurred. The video surveillance camera evidence supports this confession.

So now, among other things, the stupid decisions made by this idiot, and his dead idiot companion, have created a condition whereby the one idiot is seen to be speaking on behalf of both, forevermore clouding the memory of the dead kid with the appelation: thief.

And it doesn't matter a damn whether the kid is now in Ecuador.

He provided the police with that information prior to his departure.

A state of affairs which is going to work very well in favor of the shooter.

I'll bet the Montana jury will be licking its chops, to get to the juicy part, where the Defense shreds the Prosecution's case, by serving up sworn testimony that those idiot teens were in the process of committing a felony at the time of the shooting.

Next slide, please.

WAIT A MINUTE, HERE!!! Did Kaarma go to the garage from an inside door? All the while we have been led to believe that he shot from outside the garage at Dede who had no way out. Pogo has insisted that the kid wad "trapped" in the garage. If the above description is true, the kid wasn't trapped and Kaarma shot from within his home. Case closed not guilty. Extradition papers drawn up to charge the accomplice with felony murder.

 

[Pogo]

...

And where's your source? ::click:: ::click:: not workin'...

There are literally scores of diverse sources on the subject of his companion (from Ecuador) confessing to having been in the process of 'garage hopping' at the time of the shooting.

A link from a National Public Radio (NPR) station in Liberal-land Boston, MA, will do nicely for our purposes, though...

======================

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping'

May 8, 2014 (Here & Now / WBUR-FM)

The surviving teen from a fatal April 27 shooting in Missoula, Montana, has reportedly told police that he and his friend were “garage hopping.”

Diren Dede and a friend, both high school exchange students in Missoula, were out around midnight on April 27 when Dede entered an open garage. The homeowner, Markus Kaarma, opened the inside door and shot four times, killing Dede.

.....

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping' | NCPR News from NPR


Next slide, please...

======================

I uh.. don't think he can speak for the dead. Isn't he in Ecuador anyway?

Uh, that's exactly what he DID do - speak for the dead; disclosing what he and his dead friend were up to, when the shooting occurred. The video surveillance camera evidence supports this confession.

So now, among other things, the stupid decisions made by this idiot, and his dead idiot companion, have created a condition whereby the one idiot is seen to be speaking on behalf of both, forevermore clouding the memory of the dead kid with the appelation: thief.

And it doesn't matter a damn whether the kid is now in Ecuador.

He provided the police with that information prior to his departure.

A state of affairs which is going to work very well in favor of the shooter.

I'll bet the Montana jury will be licking its chops, to get to the juicy part, where the Defense shreds the Prosecution's case, by serving up sworn testimony that those idiot teens were in the process of committing a felony at the time of the shooting.

Next slide, please.

WAIT A MINUTE, HERE!!! Did Kaarma go to the garage from an inside door? All the while we have been led to believe that he shot from outside the garage at Dede who had no way out. Pogo has insisted that the kid wad "trapped" in the garage. If the above description is true, the kid wasn't trapped and Kaarma shot from within his home. Case closed not guilty. Extradition papers drawn up to charge the accomplice with felony murder.

Huh?

Where do you read anything about an "inside door"?
Wait never mind -- I see it. Up there in the story that also gets the date wrong.

I took my scenario directly from the criminal complaint, which clearly has Kaarma grabbing his shotgun and going out the front door and taking a position facing the open garage. I posted that complaint 200 posts ago. It's still there.

And I quote:
"walked out the front door and to the driveway."

And by the way (@Kondor3) NCPR is not in Boston, it's in rural upstate New York. I remember it from when I lived in that area. Nor would it affect the content of the story anyway, but I listened through the whole thing and they don't mention 'burglary'.

 

[Ernie S.]

And since the intruder is dead, there was by definition nothing stolen. Therefore his intent is entirely speculation. Ergo: simple trespassing.

See, this is why when police set up a sting they make sure their target follows through, sells the drugs, names her price for specific sex, etc. Otherwise they have no crime to charge. Kaarma, obviously, didn't do that.

You can't have it both ways, Pogo. The homeowner either set a trap and the kid entered the garage intending to take the purse, or the kid entered unprovoked and never intended to take the purse. Which is it?

It isn't necessarily that black and white Ernie.

There's nothing in the story that requires the kid to have been enticed by the bait, number one. Given how dark it supposedly was he may not have even seen it. Nor was there anything mentioned in the stories about Dede having anything in his possession except his own cellphone. The entry and the imaginary intention are separate and unconnected. They do not necessarily depend on one another.

"Garage hopping" for all we know may be simply roaming around this garage and that garage looking to see what's in there. I did it. There was a house at the corner that had about five thousand comic books. I walked in there often.

As just noted, we can never know what the kid's intent was. Kaarma made that impossible.

But you've made a big deal about how the kid was baited and trapped. Which is it? It seems like the accomplice already blew "trapped" out of the water. Now you can't make up your mind whether or not he was baited. Sorry, pal. Game over.

 

[Pogo]

You can't have it both ways, Pogo. The homeowner either set a trap and the kid entered the garage intending to take the purse, or the kid entered unprovoked and never intended to take the purse. Which is it?

It isn't necessarily that black and white Ernie.

There's nothing in the story that requires the kid to have been enticed by the bait, number one. Given how dark it supposedly was he may not have even seen it. Nor was there anything mentioned in the stories about Dede having anything in his possession except his own cellphone. The entry and the imaginary intention are separate and unconnected. They do not necessarily depend on one another.

"Garage hopping" for all we know may be simply roaming around this garage and that garage looking to see what's in there. I did it. There was a house at the corner that had about five thousand comic books. I walked in there often.

As just noted, we can never know what the kid's intent was. Kaarma made that impossible.

But you've made a big deal about how the kid was baited and trapped. Which is it? It seems like the accomplice already blew "trapped" out of the water. Now you can't make up your mind whether or not he was baited. Sorry, pal. Game over.

You're giving up just because you're losing?

Hang on, take your medicine... I made a big deal of the bait and trap (as did the criminal complaint) because it shoots his "self-defense" posture to smithereens, that's why. That part has nothing to do with Dede or anyone else; it's important because it undermines the defendant's case. You can't be on defense when you're on offense.

Simple enough?

I've never claimed to know what was in Dede's head going in there. Other posters here are remarkably clairvoyant but I don't pretend to know that. What I'm dealing with here is what was in the mind of the defendant -- Markus Kaarma.

 

[Ernie S.]

It isn't necessarily that black and white Ernie.

There's nothing in the story that requires the kid to have been enticed by the bait, number one. Given how dark it supposedly was he may not have even seen it. Nor was there anything mentioned in the stories about Dede having anything in his possession except his own cellphone. The entry and the imaginary intention are separate and unconnected. They do not necessarily depend on one another.

"Garage hopping" for all we know may be simply roaming around this garage and that garage looking to see what's in there. I did it. There was a house at the corner that had about five thousand comic books. I walked in there often.

As just noted, we can never know what the kid's intent was. Kaarma made that impossible.

But you've made a big deal about how the kid was baited and trapped. Which is it? It seems like the accomplice already blew "trapped" out of the water. Now you can't make up your mind whether or not he was baited. Sorry, pal. Game over.

You're giving up just because you're losing?

Hang on, take your medicine... I made a big deal of the bait and trap (as did the criminal complaint) because it shoots his "self-defense" posture to smithereens, that's why. That part has nothing to do with Dede or anyone else; it's important because it undermines the defendant's case. You can't be on defense when you're on offense.

Simple enough?

I've never claimed to know what was in Dede's head going in there. Other posters here are remarkably clairvoyant but I don't pretend to know that. What I'm dealing with here is what was in the mind of the defendant -- Markus Kaarma.

Only it wasn't bait and trap. He wasn't baited because according to you, he had no intention of taking the purse and he wasn't trapped because he had a whole garage door to escape from.

YOU LOSE. Could have told you that would happen 500 posts ago, Possum Boy.

 

[Pogo]

But you've made a big deal about how the kid was baited and trapped. Which is it? It seems like the accomplice already blew "trapped" out of the water. Now you can't make up your mind whether or not he was baited. Sorry, pal. Game over.

You're giving up just because you're losing?

Hang on, take your medicine... I made a big deal of the bait and trap (as did the criminal complaint) because it shoots his "self-defense" posture to smithereens, that's why. That part has nothing to do with Dede or anyone else; it's important because it undermines the defendant's case. You can't be on defense when you're on offense.

Simple enough?

I've never claimed to know what was in Dede's head going in there. Other posters here are remarkably clairvoyant but I don't pretend to know that. What I'm dealing with here is what was in the mind of the defendant -- Markus Kaarma.

Only it wasn't bait and trap. He wasn't baited because according to you, he had no intention of taking the purse and he wasn't trapped because he had a whole garage door to escape from.

YOU LOSE. Could have told you that would happen 500 posts ago, Possum Boy.

No, YOU lose. I just reiterated that I have no idea what his intention was. I only said that about nine times tonight. But nooooo, that doesn't work for you, you wanna put words in my mouth. BULLSHIT. Once again, the point about the trap is a point about Kaarma and the failure of his "self-defense" defense. It has zero to do with Dede. Just like the last point you got caught with your rhetorical pants down and are trying to deflect to yet another bullshit point.

Nobody in the world can say what the kid would have done; Markus Kaarma made sure of that. And I posted this just a while ago too and am now repeating myself. And you can't escape from an open door when that exit point is full of shotgun coming toward you. You might make it if the guy has really really bad aim but that was not the case here.

You sure get emotional when you dig yourself into a hole...

 

[Pogo]

...

And where's your source? ::click:: ::click:: not workin'...

There are literally scores of diverse sources on the subject of his companion (from Ecuador) confessing to having been in the process of 'garage hopping' at the time of the shooting.

A link from a National Public Radio (NPR) station in Liberal-land Boston, MA, will do nicely for our purposes, though...

======================

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping'

May 8, 2014 (Here & Now / WBUR-FM)

The surviving teen from a fatal April 27 shooting in Missoula, Montana, has reportedly told police that he and his friend were “garage hopping.”

Diren Dede and a friend, both high school exchange students in Missoula, were out around midnight on April 27 when Dede entered an open garage. The homeowner, Markus Kaarma, opened the inside door and shot four times, killing Dede.

.....

Shot Teen Said To Be 'Garage Hopping' | NCPR News from NPR


Next slide, please...

======================

I uh.. don't think he can speak for the dead. Isn't he in Ecuador anyway?

Uh, that's exactly what he DID do - speak for the dead; disclosing what he and his dead friend were up to, when the shooting occurred. The video surveillance camera evidence supports this confession.

So now, among other things, the stupid decisions made by this idiot, and his dead idiot companion, have created a condition whereby the one idiot is seen to be speaking on behalf of both, forevermore clouding the memory of the dead kid with the appelation: thief.

And it doesn't matter a damn whether the kid is now in Ecuador.

He provided the police with that information prior to his departure.

A state of affairs which is going to work very well in favor of the shooter.

I'll bet the Montana jury will be licking its chops, to get to the juicy part, where the Defense shreds the Prosecution's case, by serving up sworn testimony that those idiot teens were in the process of committing a felony at the time of the shooting.

Next slide, please.

WAIT A MINUTE, HERE!!! Did Kaarma go to the garage from an inside door? All the while we have been led to believe that he shot from outside the garage at Dede who had no way out. Pogo has insisted that the kid wad "trapped" in the garage. If the above description is true, the kid wasn't trapped and Kaarma shot from within his home. Case closed not guilty. Extradition papers drawn up to charge the accomplice with felony murder.

Ernie closes the case and bangs his gavel before reading the police report that would have shown the error. "Case closed!" Classic.

By the way it's not necessary to "extradite" somebody from Missoula Montana. It's actually one of the 57 states.

 

[Pogo]

I'll bet the Montana jury will be licking its chops, to get to the juicy part, where the Defense shreds the Prosecution's case, by serving up sworn testimony that those idiot teens were in the process of committing a felony at the time of the shooting.

Reeeeaaallly. You're saying Montana juries go into a case already prejudiced? Interesting.

Did you say more than you meant to say here?

Still can't speak for a dead boy, nor can you make a case of "what would have happened if". Once again you've morphed "intention of garage hopping" into not only a burglary but one that has already taken place. Unless you're the Catholic Church you can't penalize somebody for "what they would have done if". Your evidence that such a crime was taking place is where?

 

[Ernie S.]

You're giving up just because you're losing?

Hang on, take your medicine... I made a big deal of the bait and trap (as did the criminal complaint) because it shoots his "self-defense" posture to smithereens, that's why. That part has nothing to do with Dede or anyone else; it's important because it undermines the defendant's case. You can't be on defense when you're on offense.

Simple enough?

I've never claimed to know what was in Dede's head going in there. Other posters here are remarkably clairvoyant but I don't pretend to know that. What I'm dealing with here is what was in the mind of the defendant -- Markus Kaarma.

Only it wasn't bait and trap. He wasn't baited because according to you, he had no intention of taking the purse and he wasn't trapped because he had a whole garage door to escape from.

YOU LOSE. Could have told you that would happen 500 posts ago, Possum Boy.

No, YOU lose. I just reiterated that I have no idea what his intention was. I only said that about nine times tonight. But nooooo, that doesn't work for you, you wanna put words in my mouth. BULLSHIT. Once again, the point about the trap is a point about Kaarma and the failure of his "self-defense" defense. It has zero to do with Dede. Just like the last point you got caught with your rhetorical pants down and are trying to deflect to yet another bullshit point.

Nobody in the world can say what the kid would have done; Markus Kaarma made sure of that. And I posted this just a while ago too and am now repeating myself. And you can't escape from an open door when that exit point is full of shotgun coming toward you. You might make it if the guy has really really bad aim but that was not the case here.

You sure get emotional when you dig yourself into a hole...

According to the other kid, karma entered the garage from the house door, not the overhead. That leaves a huge hole in the side of the garage opposite Kaarma from which Dede could have escaped.

No, Pogo, YOU lose. I'm done with you. You're either to thick or too closed minded to bother with. Good night.

 

[Pogo]

Only it wasn't bait and trap. He wasn't baited because according to you, he had no intention of taking the purse and he wasn't trapped because he had a whole garage door to escape from.

YOU LOSE. Could have told you that would happen 500 posts ago, Possum Boy.

No, YOU lose. I just reiterated that I have no idea what his intention was. I only said that about nine times tonight. But nooooo, that doesn't work for you, you wanna put words in my mouth. BULLSHIT. Once again, the point about the trap is a point about Kaarma and the failure of his "self-defense" defense. It has zero to do with Dede. Just like the last point you got caught with your rhetorical pants down and are trying to deflect to yet another bullshit point.

Nobody in the world can say what the kid would have done; Markus Kaarma made sure of that. And I posted this just a while ago too and am now repeating myself. And you can't escape from an open door when that exit point is full of shotgun coming toward you. You might make it if the guy has really really bad aim but that was not the case here.

You sure get emotional when you dig yourself into a hole...

According to the other kid, karma entered the garage from the house door, not the overhead. That leaves a huge hole in the side of the garage opposite Kaarma from which Dede could have escaped.

No, Pogo, YOU lose. I'm done with you. You're either to thick or too closed minded to bother with. Good night.

Bullshit. Where did anyone say that?

Criminal complaint (already linked June 20th, post 202) sez, and again I quote:

>> Kaarma took his shotgun and exited the front door of the house. Pflager followed him. He went around the front of the house and into the driveway between his pickup truck and the car that was parked in the garage with the partially open garage door.

He stated he heard a noise that sounded like metal on metal and he was afraid that the intruder would exit the garage and harm him. lt was dark and he could not see *into the garage. <<​

Note that the second paragraph --- if not the entire description -- comes from Kaarma himself.

Tell me Ernie, how could he be harmed by an intruder "exiting" the garage, if one is in the back of the garage? On the other hand if Kaarma is in front of the garage, as he and the police report say, an intruder exiting the garage would indeed be running toward him.

And tell me Ernie, how do you note that it's dark and you cannot see into the garage -- if you're already IN the garage?

Criminal complaint again, once again the shooter's own description:

>> According to Kaarma, he shot four times into the garage
... Pflager then heard the male in the garage say &#8220;hey&#8221; or &#8220;Wait&#8221; and then Kaarma fired two shots into the dark garage.<<​

Tell me Ernie -- how do you shoot "into" a garage you're already standing in? Doesn't this violate some law of the space/time continuum?
You think Einstein knew about this?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, no it isn't. We posted this far back in the thread:

>> Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.

There are cases of minors committing breaking and entering in recreational pursuits, unaware of the legal consequences of their offense. In many states, a minor can be charged and subject to serious penalties, including institutionalization, under a state's juvenile offender laws covering offenses such as breaking and entering. This charge may also have a lasting affect on employment and other opportunities in adulthood. <<​

(this one from USLegal.com -- emphasis added)

That's why I corrected Kondor above to note that trespassing is a misdemeanor. Over and over I see wags in here trying to morph the event into what it was not in order to make their case, but facts are facts.

Only it was burglary, wasn't it? He intended to take the purse, after all.

We can never know, can we?

I would raise an objection for cause of speculation here. "Why else would he have been there?" I would ask. "To say hi? Or to steal the purse? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I intend to prove that Dede had the intent of committing burglary. It is this: his accomplice stated in his deposition that Dede had the full intent of burglarizing the home the day he was killed. Unless his accomplice perjured himself during his deposition to police, then can we assume that Dede had every intention of burglarizing that home?"

I mean, that's what I'd say if I were a lawyer.

One other thing I'd like to note here, is that I would also object to Pogo's citation of the law, known as "Arguing the law," he is telling us all how we should interpret the law, instead of letting us apply applicable law as it is codified and intended. In the court of law, and as I can tell in this debate; that is not a permissible thing to do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh and upon further reading, I would agree the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in this case in determining whether or not Kaarma feared for his life or property. The key point I notice here is that Kaarma's home had been previously burglarized, which would lead me to believe he did, psychologically a burglary is traumatizing. Me and my grandmother came home to discover it had been burglarized when I was 6 years old. I know how I would feel if it happened to me a second time.

As much as some folks wouldn't like this, this is a proper application of the state's castle doctrine.

 

[Noomi]

It seems to me that this bloke saw a chance to shoot a kid whom he knew posed no threat at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

STILL irrelevant. Apparently you're practicing the message board version: "opine first, read the story later".

The point is definition: a person who exists on your property uninvited IS by definition an intruder but IS NOT by definition a threat. Attributing threat (or anything else) from one's own imagination does not make it real. If you think reality works that way, I've got a guy in Nigeria who has a bunch of money for you.

I read the story and I don't care what the story says.

This piece of shit walked into a man's home uninvited. I don't care if every door ad window to the house was open no one has a right to enter someone else's property unless invited by the home owner or they are a law enforcement officer with a valid warrant.

I would never convict a home owner who shot someone who invaded his home.

You're STILL dancing around the point. It appears to be all you have. And the point has to do with the flow on this thread, not the story.

But you illustrate something basic here that maybe we haven't touched on:

This piece of shit walked into a man's home uninvited

How do you know the kid is a "piece of shit"? Do you know him personally? What can you tell us about him?

He entered a man's home uninvited under cover of darkness. What do you suppose he had in mind?

 

[Kondor3]

Ah so now you're backtracking. Your previous post said "intention to commit burglary", now it's downgraded to "garage hopping". Which we all already knew. Still, you cannot speak for the dead.

I'm not backtracking in the slightest.

That's a Fig Newton of your imagination.

The Ecuadorn boy spoke for the dead; no need for any of us to fabricate anything.

Actually it's a Fig Newton of the content of the posts. You could look it up.

The Ecuadoran boy said whatever he said on his own behalf; he cannot speak for a dead boy who's not here to disagree or modify what he says. This is actually pretty basic stuff. Hearsay.

Confession of the accomplice serves as confession for the dead.

That will be enough to inject "Reasonable Doubt" into the felony-in-progress aspect of the Defense, insofar as the jury is concerned.

...damn Kondor, you're older'n dirt if you remember when that phrase was used. I do too.

I don't know which phrase you're talking about. And I am exactly as old as I need to be.

The phrase "next slide please". I actually remember (barely) when a slide projector had to be at least started by an accomplice manually. I think that was history about 30 years ago.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Guilty as charged.

 

[Kondor3]

It seems to me that this bloke saw a chance to shoot a kid whom he knew posed no threat at all.

Yes.

There IS that nagging element to what we know of the story so far.

However, the Ecuadoran student's confession that they were engaged in 'garage hopping' (which implies unauthorized entry, and theft, a.k.a. 'burglary') is likely to fatally impair the Prosecutor's case.

The law gives the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner/shooter; requiring that the Proscution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner was NOT in fear of his life or that of his family, in order to actually arrive at a Guilty verdict.

There is an old maxim with which you may be familiar:

"Better that a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man be condemned".

It is a maxim employed quite liberally by both Liberals and Conservatives, depending upon the case in question.

It is an imperfect world, is it not?

 

[Kondor3]

Ahh and upon further reading, I would agree the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in this case in determining whether or not Kaarma feared for his life or property. The key point I notice here is that Kaarma's home had been previously burglarized, which would lead me to believe he did, psychologically a burglary is traumatizing. Me and my grandmother came home to discover it had been burglarized when I was 6 years old. I know how I would feel if it happened to me a second time.

As much as some folks wouldn't like this, this is a proper application of the state's castle doctrine.

Yes.

Agreed.

And we are a nation of laws,

Barring any further substantive developments in favor of the Prosecution, as things stand now...

Kaarma will be acquitted by a jury of his peers.

 

[Kondor3]

He entered a man's home uninvited under cover of darkness. What do you suppose he had in mind?

But... but... but... but... we cannot know, with that last itty-bitty ounce of certainty, because he's now pushing-up daisies in Germany.

Reasonable doubt... a gift on a silver platter, from Dede to Kaarma, attributable to Dede's actions...

Reasonable doubt... it's a bitch-kitty...

 

[thanatos144]

Liberals. They cry when a criminal dies yet cheers the deaths of millions of babies. ..

tapatalk post

 

[Skull Pilot]

It seems to me that this bloke saw a chance to shoot a kid whom he knew posed no threat at all.

Anyone who willingly breaks the law and enters your home uninvited under the cover of darkness is a threat.