Stand -your-ground study

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Funny, in Maryland you have to ask the perp what weapon he has first as if he as a 22 pistol, then you have to produce less 22 to defend yourself.

No joke. Shoot a perp with a 45 when he's carring a knife, club, or 38 you've violated MD law in using a force greater than what is used against you.

Hey bro, what gun you got? I need to decide what to use to defend myself. bla bla bla. law makers have their heads up there ass.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland

Why don't you answer his question?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[OHCHUTE 0]

I suppose you'd have to sit in court and reveiw dockets and listen to cases to learn if any perp sued the defender as I've not heard any cases. But there could be cases. Facts are, perps have the right under existing law if excessive force is used against them. Which makes defending yourself problematic. Hope this helps.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Funny, in Maryland you have to ask the perp what weapon he has first as if he as a 22 pistol, then you have to produce less 22 to defend yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland

You have misunderstood the contents of your link.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

Funny, in Maryland you have to ask the perp what weapon he has first as if he as a 22 pistol, then you have to produce less 22 to defend yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland

You have misunderstood the contents of your link.

Defendant means: home owner charged with crime.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Funny, in Maryland you have to ask the perp what weapon he has first as if he as a 22 pistol, then you have to produce less 22 to defend yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland

You have misunderstood the contents of your link.

Defendant means: home owner charged with crime.

Your claim: Some states, including MD have duty to flee. Yes that's right. You have to run. If you stand and defend and hurt the perp, you can be sued by the perp or the perps heirs. If you can believe it. So having a gun in the house for self defense, as legal, will be of no use if perp breaks in and attempts to kill you.

Your link: The duty to retreat also does not apply if one is attacked in one's own home. "[A] man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker." .... "* * * A man is not bound to retreat from his house. He may stand his ground there and kill an[y] person who attempts to commit a felony therein, or who attempts to enter by force for the purpose of committing a felony, or of inflicting great bodily harm upon an inmate. In such a case the owner or any member of the family, or even a lodger in the house, may meet the intruder at the threshold, and prevent him from entering by any means rendered necessary by the exigency, even to the taking of his life, and the homicide will be justifiable."



Your claim: Funny, in Maryland you have to ask the perp what weapon he has first as if he as a 22 pistol, then you have to produce less 22 to defend yourself. No joke. Shoot a perp with a 45 when he's carring a knife, club, or 38 you've violated MD law in using a force greater than what is used against you.

Your link: a homicide, other than felony murder, is justified on the ground of self-defense if the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;

...(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.



As you can see, in the first case you're absolutely flat wrong, you have no duty to retreat from an attacker in your own home. In fact, according to the link that you provided, you do not need to believe that the 'perp' intends to murder you in order to justify deadly force in your own home. If they have entered by force and intend to commit any felony, or harm you in any way, you can kill.

In the second case you misunderstand the law. Being legally bound not to use more force than necessary does not mean you aren't allowed to use a more powerful weapon than is used against you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

As you can see, in the first case you're absolutely flat wrong, you have no duty to retreat from an attacker in your own home. In fact, according to the link that you provided, you do not need to believe that the 'perp' intends to murder you in order to justify deadly force in your own home. If they have entered by force and intend to commit any felony, or harm you in any way, you can kill.

Not necessarily. Laws vary from state to state. Although you are correct in reading the links the previous poster had.

Westchester County New York, where the newspaper published a list of all registered gun owners, does have a requirement to retreat, even in your own home.

Wisconsin used to have the duty to retreat in its law, with no exception for being in your own home. That was recently changed with the passage of the "Castle Doctrine," which removes the duty to retreat and establishes forcible entry into an occupied dwelling as "intent to inflict injury or death" on the occupants.

The self defense laws in the US are not the same in every state. The circumstances that allow use of deady force vary widely from state to state.

The wise person makes sure he understands those laws clearly before the need for self defense arises.
It's actually one of the better arguments against carry permit reciprocity.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,594]

Fair enough, I was reponding to what he said about MD vs the info he provided about MD but I see that he did also say 'some states...'

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Fair enough, I was reponding to what he said about MD vs the info he provided about MD but I see that he did also say 'some states...'

Yes, and a lot of states now have a "Castle Doctrine" that removes the requirement to retreat in one's own home. Many of these are recent changes to the laws.
Some of the states even go as far as including the car as a place where retreat isn't required.

And the SYG extends that to anywhere someone has a legal right to be. That takes it a step too far, IMO, given some of the cases where SYG has been used.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Still waiting for examples of homeowners prosecuted for defending themselves in their home.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Still waiting for examples of homeowners prosecuted for defending themselves in their home.

Don

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/unusual/no-drug-bust/

Also, in Texas looks like time of day is a factor in defending property.

I'm sure if you conducted research you will find many instances of some property owner being charged that they must defend against.

1. Could you just walk out without a fight?
2. Did you use more force than what was necessary?
3. Was the person a threat on your life? Just because they are in your house doesn't mean your life is threatned.
4. So the bullet hole was in his back and was shot from 30 feet.... please explain how he was a threat etc.


People think they can just go out and buy a gun and use it on anyone they think is in their house without any consideration to laws. But fact of the matter is and we all know this: criminals have rights too! Plus they get a free lawyer and you'll have to pay for one once you've discharged your firearm especailly if your life was not in any immediate danger.

Before defending property or your life please check you local laws.

(Fleeing is an appropriate defense. We might try that in Afgan or Iraq and we'd most defenitly save lives doing it. ) We fled Vietnam and it seem to work there.

Run

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

4. So the bullet hole was in his back and was shot from 30 feet.... please explain how he was a threat etc.

Unless you're just changing the goalposts here, I seriously doubt many people have a house big enough to be able to shoot an intruder who is 30 feet away.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

3. Was the person a threat on your life? Just because they are in your house doesn't mean your life is threatned.

interesting -

if you don't have any other info than he's illegally in the house - you only know a couple things:

1 - they are in your house without your permission
2 - they've proven they will break the law to your detriment

why would choose to assume your life (your daughter's life?) is not threatened vs is threatened? hate to make the wrong call when his presence is 100% his fault and clearly against the law in the first place. He's demonstrated his character by being there.

If I can safely get my family out without a direct conflict, I'd prefer that. But my assumption is always that an intruder means to do the worst. He's not there to give us christmas presents

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

He's not there to give us christmas presents

Not even if he's a really big guy in a red suit with chimney soot all over him?

Ho Ho Blam Blam Blam Blam Blam

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

3. Was the person a threat on your life? Just because they are in your house doesn't mean your life is threatned.

interesting -

if you don't have any other info than he's illegally in the house - you only know a couple things:

1 - they are in your house without your permission
2 - they've proven they will break the law to your detriment

why would choose to assume your life (your daughter's life?) is not threatened vs is threatened? hate to make the wrong call when his presence is 100% his fault and clearly against the law in the first place. He's demonstrated his character by being there.

If I can safely get my family out without a direct conflict, I'd prefer that. But my assumption is always that an intruder means to do the worst. He's not there to give us christmas presents

I'm not debating what you or anyone else might do should they see someone in the house threatning or not. Just talking about various laws.

When there are teenagers living on the property, you don't have a clue who might show up or not. That you might be surprised you see someone you might not know.


We have 30 foot straight shot and in some places 40 from which a shot could be fired inside the house.

Chances of being struck by lighting, run over by cell phone user, dying in a skydiving accident are greater than ever having to use a gun here. This may differ where you are sleeping.

[dpreguy 14]

This one is from the UK. Could that scenario be replicated here? Good question.

Google: Tony Martin Aug 22,1999 Norfolk England.
He shot and killed one burglar, wounded the other.
He spent 3 years in prison. He was sued as well.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/unusual/no-drug-bust/

So, the only example you could find was of a guy who killed a police officer as the officer was serving a warrant to search the house for drugs.

Quote

I'm sure if you conducted research you will find many instances of some property owner being charged that they must defend against.

You have repeatedly made the assertion that homeowners are not allowed to defend themselves in their own home, yet you are so far completely unable to substantiate that claim. That's because the claim is bogus, part of the mythology that is being spun around the gun control debate.

Quote

But fact of the matter is and we all know this: criminals have rights too! Plus they get a free lawyer and you'll have to pay for one once you've discharged your firearm especailly if your life was not in any immediate danger.

It may bother you and others of your ilk, but you can't just shoot anyone who happens to be on your property and expect to not have to answer any questions. You can't shoot the guy delivering the mail, or the fedex guy leaving a package, or the person who is reading your electric meter, and not have consequences. The person has to pose some kind of a threat to you. And yes, everybody in America, including criminals, have rights. How would you do it otherwise? Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, except criminals? So as soon as you are charged with a crime you lose your right to a trial? The right applies only to those who don't need it?

Here is an interesting case. Do you think this should be acceptable behavior?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/unusual/no-drug-bust/

So, the only example you could find was of a guy who killed a police officer as the officer was serving a warrant to search the house for drugs.

Quote

I'm sure if you conducted research you will find many instances of some property owner being charged that they must defend against.

You have repeatedly made the assertion that homeowners are not allowed to defend themselves in their own home, yet you are so far completely unable to substantiate that claim. That's because the claim is bogus, part of the mythology that is being spun around the gun control debate.

Quote

But fact of the matter is and we all know this: criminals have rights too! Plus they get a free lawyer and you'll have to pay for one once you've discharged your firearm especailly if your life was not in any immediate danger.

It may bother you and others of your ilk, but you can't just shoot anyone who happens to be on your property and expect to not have to answer any questions. You can't shoot the guy delivering the mail, or the fedex guy leaving a package, or the person who is reading your electric meter, and not have consequences. The person has to pose some kind of a threat to you. And yes, everybody in America, including criminals, have rights. How would you do it otherwise? Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, except criminals? So as soon as you are charged with a crime you lose your right to a trial? The right applies only to those who don't need it?

Here is an interesting case. Do you think this should be acceptable behavior?

Don

Don, so you did find an example. Lets get something clear. I'm all for guns. And I believe in the Second Amendment. If the behavior of this home owner is what you'd like to discuss then:

Yes he's in his right to defend his property. But murdering the youth after he'd already killed one and wounded another does border on murder, the reason he was probably charged. If the evidence shows his life was not in danger, he could gain a judgment. I gather the second kill will be the determining factor. What I want to know is why she went down the steps after hearing shots. (The teens could have been stoned, which will also complicate the case for the defendant.) The defendant looks like he's killed before.... seemed to enjoy the experience and perhaps even set them up. What was he doing in the basement with a rifle in wait?

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

This one is from the UK. Could that scenario be replicated here? Good question.

Google: Tony Martin Aug 22,1999 Norfolk England.
He shot and killed one burglar, wounded the other.
He spent 3 years in prison. He was sued as well.

Is it a good question? UK laws are different than US laws.

Also Mr. Martin is perhaps not quite the poster boy for defenseless homeowners that some would make him out to be. Apparently he told police he was awakened by the sound of breaking glass, but forensic evidence indicated he laid in wait for the 2 kids who burglarized his house. Further, after he had wounded both kids and they were down on the ground, he executed one and further wounded the other with shotgun blasts to the back.

Got any US examples?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Google: Tony Martin Aug 22,1999 Norfolk England.
He shot and killed one burglar, wounded the other.
He spent 3 years in prison. He was sued as well.

This one was discussed fairly heavily on here some years ago.

Complicating factors in Martin's case include: It was an illegally held shotgun that he didn't have a licence for, he shot them when they were trying to escape, he lied to police about how and where he shot them, he had a previous history of firearms violations and (though it shouldn't matter but realistically does) he came across as quite a nasty individual and is/has been a fascist bordering on the Neo-Nazi*.

If any one or two of those factors were removed he might well have been let off, even in the supposedly gun-fearing UK justice system.


* That's not hyperbole, those are genuinely his political leanings.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Hey Don, why don't you do some research. Here, call Baltimore City Police and learn the disposition of this case. Perhaps you'll have some answers. Fact of the matter is COPS WRITE TICKETS and let the courts sort out the issues. If you want to open yourself to possible criminal prosecution then use a gun and had this student pulled a pistol, IN MARYLAND, where this case occured, he would have got a ticket. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

The reason he used a sword. You know Hopkins students have heads on their shoulders! LOve this case. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/15/samurai.sword.killing/

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

The reason he used a sword.

Probably because he - wait for it..... owned a sword.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

The reason he used a sword.

Probably because he - wait for it..... owned a sword.

He was reported Asian. Not that Asians own swords. Gosh I wonder what it must have been like to take his hand before delivering the final blow.

[dpreguy 14]

Reread the google references and the stories I read were that he shot them once with birdshot as they were coming up a stairway, then twice more as they went down. No references that he shot either of them while they were laying on the floor - execution style. Also, all of the accounts agree that only one was shot in the back. Anyway, what is to say, even if they were going away, they wouldn't suddenly turn and shoot him? And, what is wrong with laying in wait? Sounds like a good plan to me. Lay in wait and shoot them while they are burglarizing. Nothing wrong with that. In Texas and Colorado, Wyoming and other Western states the homeowner can utilize the "Castle" defense. It is not an unlimited legal defense for shooting and killing someone in your home at any time under any circumstances, but in most "Castle" defense states, you can use deadly force if someone is burglarizing if you feel it is necessary to protect your home and your family. Once again, not an unlimited right to do so. You have to be "in the right" within the constraints of the Castle Defense definitions.

Why is anyone upset that the homeowner laid in wait? As if that would be a bad thing. Better to lay in your bed and wait until the burglars are standing over you with baseball bats, guns and knives? If you know it's coming you'd be stupid not to be there, ready and waiting.

The UK made a big thing about him owning an illegal shotgun and that he was unrepentant. It seems they were most upset about him not being repentant. Sounds like the media went out of their way to demonize him. Their laws and their attitudes are apparently opposed to defending your own home with deadly force. Guess in the UK you have to resort to harsh language; and if that won't stop them, lay in your bed and get burglarized and beaten or killed, along with your family.