I KNOW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE . . . AND SO DO YOU

December 17, 2014
Howard Galganov

IN DEFENSE OF THE HOMEOWNER

WHO’S MARKUS KAARMA OF MISSOULA?

There’s a National Debate over a shooting incident in Missoula, Montana, where a homeowner (Markus Kaarma) SHOT and KILLED a “young man” (Diren Dede) . . . who is described by the media as a 17-year old German Exchange Student, who came UNINVITED into the garage of Markus Kaarma in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.

The DEBATE amongst the media . . . and between the lawyers, is whether the HOMEOWNER planned to commit murder, by setting-up a CONDITION that lured the “young man” into the Homeowner’s Garage.

HERE ARE SOME FACTS:

1 – Montana has a Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use EXTREME force to stop a CRIME in PROCESS and protect oneself, whether or NOT he or she believes that his or her life is in danger in HIS OR HER OWN HOME.

2 – Markus Kaarma has had his home broken into several times over a short period of time, to the extent that he installed sensors, alarms and cameras.

3 – On the night of the shooting, the HOMEOWNER’S garage had been left open with the purse of the HOMEOWNER’S wife being in plain sight.

4 – According to a friend of the DECEASED . . . the DECEASED broke into the garage, supposedly in search of liquor, when the HOMEOWNER opened fire with his Shotgun.

The DECEASED’S friend . . . also added that breaking into untended garages in the middle of the night, in search of liquor or whatever, was something the “students” did for kicks on a routine basis.

SO HERE’S THE ARGUMENT FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY:

1 – The HOMEOWNER set a trap to lure an intruder inside, for the EXPRESS purpose of killing that person. AND THAT MAKES IT MURDER.

2 – The HOMEOWNER’S life was never in jeopardy.

3 – The HOMEOWNER made no attempt to capture or scare the teenager away, or to call the police, before the HOMEOWNER opened fire.

4 – Some neighbors of the HOMEOWNER have described him as being a scary guy who frightened even them.

HERE’S THE ARGUMENT FROM THE HOMEOWNER:

1 – He had made all manner of efforts to protect himself and his wife from home invaders.

2 – He had no idea who had entered his garage in the dark of night, and was in fear for his life. And that’s why he opened fire.

HERE’S MY ARGUMENT:

The DECEASED had no business whatsoever being in the HOMEOWNER’S Garage, whether the door was open or shut. Whether there was a visible purse for the “taking”. Or whether it was night or day.

NONE OF THE FOLLOWING MAKES A DIFFERENCE:

The Media and the Prosecutor want to show the DECEASED as being a YOUNG MAN, who was an exchange student from Germany, who was just doing some stupid stuff with other teenagers.

AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED . . . It doesn’t matter if he was a young man, or an exchange student, White, Black or Asian. It didn’t even matter what the gender was. And it doesn’t matter if this was just a teenage “prank”.

All that matters . . . is that the DECEASED broke into someone’s home.

When I was a “kid”, like most kids . . . I also did some STUPID THINGS, but I never burglarized someone’s home, shop or store. Or entered someone’s property uninvited or unannounced . . . AND I NEVER STOLE ANYTHING.

It’s too bad this kid is dead. And perhaps the HOMEOWNER did set a trap, and his REAL intention was to KILL AN INTRUDER.

But . . . none of that would matter if the DECEASED did NOT enter the SHOOTER’S home.

ALSO . . . IN DEFENSE OF THE HOMEOWNER:

Even though he MIGHT have set this whole thing up. He had no idea what was in the heart of the person who broke into his home. AND HE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO FIND OUT.

THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME IS SIMPLE:

The DECEASED was singularly responsible for his own death. And anyone in Montana, who might think about breaking into someone’s house, as a result of this Castle Doctrine, would do very well to think long and hard before doing it.

AND THAT’S NOT A BAD THING.

Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov