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/2013/11/maryland-man-shoots-home-intruder-charged-with-murder

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.

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.

davidmcbeth said:

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 ...

Click to expand...

Compounding a possible crime with another crime makes no sense at all.

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.

Grapeshot said:

Compounding a possible crime with another crime makes no sense at all.

Click to expand...

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>

Primus said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 ...

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>

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."

Silvertongue said:

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."

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

stay safe.