Man's Defense for Killing Teen: 'Castle Doctrine'
Markus Kaarma pleads not guilty to deliberate homicide
By Arden Dier, Newser Staff
Posted May 22, 2014 8:18 AM CDT
This undated still image taken from video shows Markus Kaarma at his home in Missoula, Mont.   (AP Photo/Bill Gorman)

(Newser) – Markus Kaarma, the man accused of laying a trap and then shooting a teen in his garage last month, feels badly about killing German exchange student, Diren Dede, 17, his lawyer says—but that doesn't change the fact that it was justified. "It was so dark in there and there was a metal-on-metal noise and a fast-moving reaction. Markus didn't know if he was being charged, if he was going to be shot," Paul Ryan tells NPR. Authorities say Dede may have been "garage hopping"—a term used by local kids to refer to poking around in open garages to look for booze—when the shooting occurred. Kaarma, who is free on $30,000 bail, pleaded not guilty to deliberate homicide yesterday, Reuters reports.

As for how Kaarma plans to defend his actions, Ryan says he'll use the "Castle Doctrine," a law Montana passed in 2009 that asserts a man's home is his castle and can be defended as such. It gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt, placing the burden of proof for "justifiable use of force" on prosecutors. (Other states have similar versions.) Michele Keiffer, whose son-in-law was shot during an argument in a man's Montana garage in 2012, has been campaigning against the law. "I always thought you had to escape the perpetrator before you do any bodily harm," she says; but due to the doctrine, no charges were filed. The chief sponsor of the 2009 law, however, argues that backpedaling on it would eradicate "the fundamental right of self-defense ... That's just not gonna work."

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Man's Defense for Killing Teen: 'Castle Doctrine' is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 470 comments
RE Hafner
May 23, 2014 8:57 AM CDT
If you don't live there, don't go there!
May 22, 2014 6:04 PM CDT
This is a difficult case to judge. Could he know that someone brazen enough to break into his garage was not dangerous enough that he genuinely thought he had to shoot first? Would it be reasonable to use deadly force to defend your home against someone who is about to destroy it? If you live in a house that can never be replaced would it be worth it for an old person who cannot survive as a street person to accept the death penalty if that is what he or she would get for shooting someone who is trying to set his house on fire? At the same time, I do not think gun nuts know how traumatic is it to kill a home invader. The news reports that those who have had to do it tell us that they suffer PTSD from such an experience. They feel no satisfaction when it is over.
May 22, 2014 5:57 PM CDT
hey markus........................................TMI