SnyderShrugged Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 actually it was a detached garage. the kid grabbed a sword, left his own home, walked across his lawn, saw the door to the garage ajar, entered (thereby blocking the only exit) and killled the guy inside.but yeah i'm sure you guys are right -- the kid probably did a criminal background check on the guy, and knowing his existing criminal record, was therefore qualified to serve as executioner. why am I not surprised that you would support the criminal, who broke in twice, after being out of the clink for a whole day and a past of 29 similar occurrances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Are you serious? The dude got out of jail Saturday night for stealing a car:This guy was a compulsive criminal. He illegally entered a residence, and lunged at the resident. He played the odds one too many times, and rolled snake eyes. Yes I'm serious but I wasn't making the point you seem to be arguing. The guy who chopped his ass up was well within his rights IMO. I was just saying that 29 convictions doesn't mean a lot in today's legal climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Not usually, but sometimes. Maybe it will at least make them consider not committing a crime just so they don't have to go back. 29 convictions, it's not helping. Maybe sometimes. I think most of the time it does the opposite though. Which is why recidivism rates are so high. This guy probably had a drug problem. That's normally the case when criminals don't move on to bigger and more lucrative crimes. I mean 29 convictions and he's still doing the same petty stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 why am I not surprised that you would support the criminal, who broke in twice, after being out of the clink for a whole day and a past of 29 similar occurrances? why am i not surprised you would be unable to discern the difference between opposing stalking and killing a thief and supporting a criminal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 29 convictions and he's still doing the same petty stuff. Not any more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 why am i not surprised you would be unable to discern the difference between opposing stalking and killing a thief and supporting a criminal? LMAO!!! Stalking and killing a thief! You make my day fun. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 stalking and killing a thief um... what?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 the dude left his house, crossed his lawn, entered his detached garage (where he knew the thief was) and killed the guy with a sword. sorry, that does NOT sound like self defense to me. you could argue he was defending his STUFF but that doesn't justify murder either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 the dude left his house, crossed his lawn, entered his detached garage (where he knew the thief was) and killed the guy with a sword. sorry, that does NOT sound like self defense to me. you could argue he was defending his STUFF but that doesn't justify murder either. So you don't believe that you have the right to defend your property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 the dude left his house, crossed his lawn, entered his detached garage (where he knew the thief was) and killed the guy with a sword. sorry, that does NOT sound like self defense to me. you could argue he was defending his STUFF but that doesn't justify murder either.Here is the text I think you refer to:The student told police that he heard a commotion in the house and went downstairs armed with a samurai sword, Guglielmi said. He saw the side door to the garage had been pried open and found a man inside, who lunged at the student. There was no indication that the suspected burglar was armed, however, according to Guglielmi.Nowhere does it say that the door was outside the house. He walked downstairs and saw the side door to the garage open. The side door to my garage is in my basement.EDIT: After further diging, the garage appears to be indirectly linked to the house: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailYeah Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 the dude left his house, crossed his lawn, entered his detached garage (where he knew the thief was) and killed the guy with a sword. sorry, that does NOT sound like self defense to me. you could argue he was defending his STUFF but that doesn't justify murder either. I would never say "good for this guy" just because he killed someone, be it self-defense or not. So there, I agree with you. However, I have a sister that worked at Johns Hopkins and had to move back to DC from Baltimore because of crime. The things that go on in that city are outrageous - I can see defending one's property in that environment, no one else is going to help you. If it turns in to self-defense, then obviously, what happens happens. Not sure you can say definitely one way or another in this case though. Some people think defense of property can justify killing someone. I live by a different code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayH81 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 actually it was a detached garage. the kid grabbed a sword, left his own home, walked across his lawn, saw the door to the garage ajar, entered (thereby blocking the only exit) and killled the guy inside. Okay, a property owner (or renter or whatever lawful tenant label you want to use) heard a disturbance, armed himself, and went to investigate. All legal and prudent so far. Are legal residents supposed to ensure that exits are clear for those who have trespassed, so they may safely egress? but yeah i'm sure you guys are right -- the kid probably did a criminal background check on the guy, and knowing his existing criminal record, was therefore qualified to serve as executioner. Okay, he didn't need to run a background check. He physically and personally saw someone breaking at least one, and likely more laws on the property that he is the owner (or other legal tenant) of. Supposedly, the person lunged at him. Common sense aside (lunging at someone armed with a sword when you are not similarly armed is just dumb), placing someone into a split session decision as to if you the lawbreaker constitutes a mortal threat is not a smart play. More often than not, if the person responds in a reasonable manner, you will be (at best) injured. The rights of criminals do not cover this. They have a right to a fair trial. If they surrender, or are not otherwise placing the owner/legal tenant in jeopardy, they have the right not be injured or killed in a pre-meditated fashion. Only the two people involved know for a fact how the encounter went down. Without contrary evidence, we have to accept the only story we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 the dude left his house, crossed his lawn, entered his detached garage (where he knew the thief was) and killed the guy with a sword. sorry, that does NOT sound like self defense to me. you could argue he was defending his STUFF but that doesn't justify murder either.Maryland has a "Castle Law" http://house.state.md.us/2007RS/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0761.pdfOther states, like Maryland, have adopted an exception to the duty to retreat known as the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, “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.” See Burch v. State, 346 Md. 253, 283-4, 696 A.2d 443, 458 (1997) quoting Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 why am I not surprised that you would support the criminal, who broke in twice, after being out of the clink for a whole day and a past of 29 similar occurrances? Kind of a NavyDave cheap shot there, SS. I'm surprised. One can question vigilanteeism without "supporting criminals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 So you don't believe that you have the right to defend your property? you can defend your property, but not with lethal force. and in fact, i believe in that county is on my side. expect this kid to get charged. mark my words. Nowhere does it say that the door was outside the house. He walked downstairs and saw the side door to the garage open. The side door to my garage is in my basement. i read from a different source that stated it was a detached garage. the student noticed the side door to the garage open (it was the only way out), and he went inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Kind of a NavyDave cheap shot there, SS. I'm surprised. One can question vigilanteeism without "supporting criminals." Guess I took exception to his idiocy. No cheap shot, just calling out the idiotic response for what it was. There wasnt any vigilanteeism in this case, it was a simple case of self defense of himself and his property. To justify the dead criminals actions in any way shape or form will earn my ire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 as it was explained to me by someone close to the situation, the law in that particular jurisdiction is you are only allowed to use as much force as is used on you. seems weird, but that's what they said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Guess I took exception to his idiocy. No cheap shot, just calling out the idiotic response for what it was.There wasnt any vigilanteeism in this case, it was a simple case of self defence of himslef and his property. To justify the dead criminals actions in any way shape or form will earn my ire. again you show your failure to comprehend even the slightest nuance. i wasn't defending the criminal in any way, shape, or form. i said the killer was not justified in using lethal force when he was not defending himself. he was in a different building when the break-in occured. he grabbed a weapon and sought out the thief. defending your person is one thing. seekign out a thief and killing him is different both in my eyes and the eyes of the law. nowhere in there am i defending the actions of the burglar. there are few things i find more dispicable than robbery. murder happens to be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Bait Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 as it was explained to me by someone close to the situation, the law in that particular jurisdiction is you are only allowed to use as much force as is used on you. seems weird, but that's what they said. so you have to wait and let the criminal who broke into your garage try to kill you before you can kill him:insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Guess I took exception to his idiocy. No cheap shot, just calling out the idiotic response for what it was.There wasnt any vigilanteeism in this case, it was a simple case of self defense of himself and his property. To justify the dead criminals actions in any way shape or form will earn my ire. Except no one ever actually justified the dead criminal's actions in any way shape or form. No one ever does in these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 again you show your failure to comprehend even the slightest nuance. i wasn't defending the criminal in any way, shape, or form. i said the killer was not justified in using lethal force when he was not defending himself. he was in a different building when the break-in occured. he grabbed a weapon and sought out the thief. defending your person is one thing. seekign out a thief and killing him is different both in my eyes and the eyes of the law.nowhere in there am i defending the actions of the burglar. there are few things i find more dispicable than robbery. murder happens to be one of them. I think it has already been shown that A) he didnt "seek" out "stalk" or whatever nefarious term you choose to use, the burglar, he went to investigate an unsecured entry and brought a means of protection (thank goodness!) just in case. The garage was attached, at least indirectly. c) The burglar lunged at him D) There are Castle doctine protections for him (at least according to another poster) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 sunstone??http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=141295 http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=141488 First name that popped into my mind for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 as it was explained to me by someone close to the situation, the law in that particular jurisdiction is you are only allowed to use as much force as is used on you. seems weird, but that's what they said. Actually, the rule is generally that you are only allowed to use as much force as you reasonably need to protect yourself. So if someone threatens to throw a spitwad at you, you can't pull out a gun and shoot him. But if someone charges at you with a knife, you can shoot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Dave Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I keep a 1895 Spanish calvary trooper sword in my house just for that purpose. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Except no one ever actually justified the dead criminal's actions in any way shape or form. No one ever does in these threads. I took this comment as a form of "justification" "the kid probably did a criminal background check on the guy, and knowing his existing criminal record, was therefore qualified to serve as executioner." maybe he wasnt justifying per se, but he certainly is painting the victim of the crime as the bad guy for protecting himself and his property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.