No. Let's be reasonable. Breaking into someone's garage is not a capitol offense.
It should get prison time though.
UNLESS the perp is unlucky enough to come face to face with an occupant of the home with the God given and Constitutionally permitted right to defend his home.
What Ms. Hyperbole, Mr. Bullshit and Mr. Hyprbolic-Bullshit fail to recognize id that Mr. Dede unlawfully entered an occupied residence under cover of darkness without the owner's consent. He was engaged in a felony and could reasonably be expected to commit another, more violent felony if given the opportunity.
Mr Kaarma was well within his rights to defend his home and his family.
What he may have said to a couple hairdressers about future break-ins or cops is irrelevant. Should he have said it? Probably not. Did it rise to premeditation? Where did he name a specific target?
Trespassing is not a felony.
What he said to the hairdressers is not irrelevant, nor are the road rage incidents.
Nor is the fact that instead of calling the police, he went out and shot blindly into the dark at the person in his garage.
None of that is irrelevant.
You can't very well "specify" who's going to land in your trap. You can guess.
Actually Kaarma did estimate that the kids he was going after were "18 or 19 fucking years old" and the kids arrested for the first two thefts were 16 and 18, so there's a possible thought that Kaarma actually did know or suspect who those two (unrelated to this incident) were. And he specified "kids" -- plural.
Nobody in the prosecution suggested that AFAIK but .... it's out there. It strikes me as interesting that he couldn't have pinned down an estimated age out of a tabula rasa. Nor would you know there were two of them. Prosecution could choose to press this avenue to establish if what actually went down was that Kaarma was specifically targeting these two, assumed that leaving his garage open would attract the same guys and no one else, and that Dede was an unintended victim -- as opposed to two intended victims. Speculation, but plausible.
I'd say that's not only relevant but possibly a crucial avenue to explore.
Then there's those multiple "road rage" incidents where he's driving around the neighborhood at four miles an hour. Why would he do that? Looking for these two guys perhaps? My first question to him on this would be -- "did you have a gun with you?" Things that make a jury go hmmm...
Last edited: