The Castle Doctrine, designed to give homeowners some leeway in shooting intruders?who enter?a home, is under fire around the country as citizen vigilantes have tested the law’s limits by turning it into a license to bait and kill would be trespassers. On April 30th, Byron Smith of Little Falls, Minnesota was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering two teens who entered his home.
Smith had been burglarized before, and nobody disputes that the two teens, one boy and one girl, were in his home unlawfully. However, the jury took only three hours to convict Smith of four counts of murder, because he planned the executions in advance. Smith moved?his vehicle to make it appear as if he was away, and then sitting down with loaded guns, he hid?in ambush waiting for the teens to arrive, so that he could shoot them. Like a hunter in a deer stand, he sat and waited. When the two teens arrived he shot them repeatedly and sadistically called them names and yelled “You’re dead” as he opened fire. The jury considered his actions excessive and beyond how?a reasonable person would act under similar circumstances. Smith will spend the rest of his life in prison.
A day before?Smith’s April 30th murder conviction, a similar story?began unfolding about 1000 miles West of Little Falls in Missoula, Montana.?Markus Kaarma shot and killed a 17-year old German foreign exchange student who was in his garage. Like Smith, Kaarma had been burglarized before. Also like Smith, Kaarma allegedly set a trap and planned to shoot an intruder. Smith’s girlfriend,?Janelle Pflager intentionally left an unattended purse in the garage. She and Kaarma left the garage door open so that it would be more inviting for prospective trespassers.?
When someone finally entered the open garage, Kaarma stepped outside, went to the front of the garage and opened fire. He fired four shots, two of which connected with his target Diren Dede, killing him. Kaarma is being charged with deliberate homicide.
The two cases illustrate the moral dilemma posed by the Castle Doctrine and similar laws that empower gun owners to use lethal force, but are often misinterpreted by home owners to mean they can shoot anybody on their property for any reason. The law’s intent, if confined to protecting the safety of the home owner to defend himself (or herself) and his family, is understandable. However, the rhetoric of gun rights advocates has perhaps done a disservice to gun owning home owners by giving them the false impression that the Castle Doctrine gives them an absolute right to kill in “their castle” without fear of legal consequences.
Empowered by the notion that defending one’s home with lethal force is sanctioned by the law, some home owners feel emboldened enough to set traps for trespassers, so that they then can have an opportunity to execute the miscreants for having the audacity to enter an open garage or an unsecured home. While there is no excuse for trespassing onto someone’s property to steal or to commit teenage pranks, home owners also should exercise good judgement before resorting to lethal force. Castle Doctrine laws are not intended to serve as licenses to kill people who enter your property simply because they have set foot on your private land. They are designed to protect home owners who fear bodily harm or death, and choose to defend themselves.
Ellie Boldman Hill (D) who represents Missoula, Montana in the state legislature, is trying to rewrite the state’s?Castle Doctrine?law to eliminate some of the ambiguity that may have allowed Kaarma to feel justified in killing the boy who entered his garage. Prior to 2009, Montana’s law stipulated that a home owner could shoot an intruder if they tried to enter a home in a “violent, riotous or tumultuous manner”. In other words, lethal force was allowed, if the intruder posed a threat?to the occupants of the home. In 2009, the law was changed to give homeowners much wider latitude in using lethal force. Hill wants to revert back to the earlier law which protected homeowners, but did not permit them to essentially open fire on anybody who stepped onto their property simply for being there.
Castle Doctrine laws have their place in protecting home owners. However, the laws should be written clearly so that when possible lives are spared. Clearly defined laws might also prevent people like Byron Smith and Markus Kaarma from assuming that Castle Doctrine?laws are an unfettered license to kill. In addition,?the mentality of America’s gun culture needs to shift from the?fear-based defensive paradigm of “shoot first, ask questions later” to a more nuanced position that weighs circumstances in a reasonable manner and that relies upon lethal force only as a last resort. When home owners are too eager to shoot to kill, everyone loses. Byron Smith may have defended his property, but in the process he killed a teenage boy and girl, and he will spend the rest of his life behind bars. One would be hard pressed to argue that his decision was beneficial to anyone, including himself. As Americans come to grips with the implications of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, they should reject the kind of fear-mongering rhetoric that leads to itchy trigger fingers, and instead chart a course that balances the right to self-protection with something?as basic as exercising a little common sense.
Edited/Published by: SB
