Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: More PDR of Maryland stupidity

  1. #1
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    More PDR of Maryland stupidity

    If the facts are as stated in this article, we clearly have an overzealous prosecutor trying to make political points, or he knows he can't win but wants to punish the shooter financially through legal fees.

    http://misguidedchildren.com/justice...ed-with-murder
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Originally outraged, now I am not so sure.

    While the article says early on that the shooter did not know the dead man, it turns out, as finally mentioned later in the article, that the wife did!

    Also, the use of the term "home invasion" is disingenuous. It is designed to evoke the typical image of a home invasion: armed intruder(s) who come with intent to do bodily harm and/or to rob.

    This could well be a domestic disturbance gone bad. Since there are questions in my mind, and since the only article posted clearly is biased in favor of the shooter, I'll withhold judgment pending facts from an impartial source or a biased account from the other direction to compare/contrast with the biased account we now have.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    IIRC Maryland has a "duty to retreat" that takes you all the way to your back against the wall. If my addled memory is not wrong, then the shooter jumped the gun, so to speak.

    I'm not saying I endorse such a law. I'm saying that if you make up your mind that if one day you find yourself in a situation where you intend to shoot, you are better off knowing the local laws about when, where, and how much you can.

    Also, if I'm not wrong about the law, it shows why it needs to be changed. SYG has never meant blowing somebody away preemptively, in spite of what the hoplophobes think.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Why should you be required to provide evidence that could be used against you in court? And that would include a 911 call.

    I would just dump the body outside with a note ... "special trash pickup" or something ...
    Compounding a possible crime with another crime makes no sense at all.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    So I'm assuming the guy wasn't armed? Does Maryland have a castle doctrine? From what I'm reading the guy shot him based on "flicking of his shirt near his waist band". Seems like a stretch to be a good shoot. Even the biased report posted says the guy "busted the door in" (how do you do that one kick? anyone tried to boot a door in? Takes alot) and then the guy shot him as he walked in. No gun, nothing. Need more info, but dead men don't speak so I guess he got that half right.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Compounding a possible crime with another crime makes no sense at all.
    That is the kind of "legal advice" we routinely get from that poster. Why such a post, that advocates a crime, is allowed to stand is beyond me.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    So I'm assuming the guy wasn't armed? Does Maryland have a castle doctrine? From what I'm reading the guy shot him based on "flicking of his shirt near his waist band". Seems like a stretch to be a good shoot. Even the biased report posted says the guy "busted the door in" (how do you do that one kick? anyone tried to boot a door in? Takes alot) and then the guy shot him as he walked in. No gun, nothing. Need more info, but dead men don't speak so I guess he got that half right.
    Broken door, guy shot in the house? That's enough for me. What, you have a metal detector on your entryway? Anyone who breaks into a house is not there to give you a Publishers' Clearinghouse check. 9th Amendment ...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    What is "good enough" for some posters around here may not be "good enough" for the LAW.

    The advice from this poster is, at best, useless and, at worst, dangerous legally. Pay attention to this troll at your legal peril. Know the law in your State. This troll does not.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marion County, Tennessee
    Posts
    214
    From what I have read on this article and of Maryland law, it appears Skid is both correct and incorrect; the man would have had a Duty to Retreat outside the home, but Castle Doctrine applies in the house.

    Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:
    "[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." Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963).

    Slightly off-topic, I noticed issues with the article. The author called Duty to Retreat a common law principle and even went so far as to call the Castle Doctrine "somewhat hackneyed."
    I carry everywhere because crime doesn't make appointments.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Silvertongue View Post
    From what I have read on this article and of Maryland law, it appears Skid is both correct and incorrect; the man would have had a Duty to Retreat outside the home, but Castle Doctrine applies in the house.

    Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:
    "[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." Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963).

    Slightly off-topic, I noticed issues with the article. The author called Duty to Retreat a common law principle and even went so far as to call the Castle Doctrine "somewhat hackneyed."
    Thanks for the clarification.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •