Man with shotgun holding kids

[letmetellyou]

I am surprised nobody posted this. It just re-afirms my position that you can protect your property where I live in Maryland.

SoMdNews.com: St. Mary’s mothers express fears after sons detained at gunpoint

Two St. Mary’s mothers awaiting the results from an inquiry into an incident two months ago in Wildewood, where they say their teenage sons were accosted at gunpoint, came forward this week to publicly express their fears after Friday’s massacre at a school in Connecticut.

St. Mary’s County’s state’s attorney said Monday that a Wildewood resident was lawfully protecting his family and property during the nighttime confrontation, and that no charges will be filed in the matter.

Where's all the people who say that you can't use a firearm to protect your property in Maryland?

 

[Lurk]

I am surprised nobody posted this. It just re-afirms my position that you can protect your property where I live in Maryland.

Yer right. This does sound like another Trayvon-like issue of a kid being where he shouldn't. In this case he had an accomplice, which makes it even more dangerous for a homeowner to confront the scofflaw on his own. Oh, and by the way:

During that time period, the prosecutor said, there had been numerous break-ins to cars in the Wildewood community, incidents of vandalism and reports of possible home burglaries.

from your link.

 

[itsrequired]

Yer right. This does sound like another Trayvon-like issue of a kid being where he shouldn't. In this case he had an accomplice, which makes it even more dangerous for a homeowner to confront the scofflaw on his own. Oh, and by the way:

from your link.

I call on the Trayvon comment from both you and the mother. Travon Martin was walking through a neighborhood and then decided to assault a person. These two were in a man's yard in the middle of the night. The mothers trying to use either the Trayvon incident or especially the Newtown incident make them deplorable.

Maybe they should be more concerned with why their kids were in this man's yard. They weren't found lying on commmon property when the cops got there, they were in the mans yard.

 

[desertrat]

I am surprised nobody posted this. It just re-afirms my position that you can protect your property where I live in Maryland.

SoMdNews.com: St. Mary’s mothers express fears after sons detained at gunpoint

Two St. Mary’s mothers awaiting the results from an inquiry into an incident two months ago in Wildewood, where they say their teenage sons were accosted at gunpoint, came forward this week to publicly express their fears after Friday’s massacre at a school in Connecticut.

St. Mary’s County’s state’s attorney said Monday that a Wildewood resident was lawfully protecting his family and property during the nighttime confrontation, and that no charges will be filed in the matter.

Where's all the people who say that you can't use a firearm to protect your property in Maryland?

Not sure anyone actually said that. If you fire it you may find yourself in trouble though, especially if you hit someone. Outside your house? Big trouble.

 

[dan0623_2000]

Kids

All the kids have to do is stay off the mans property. Sounds like a classic case of rich mommy and daddy trying to protest that their little darlings got caught.

 

[MMM_donuts]

We really are having crime problems in Wildewood. We're all suspicious of everyone these days.

If someone was wandering around my property in the middle of the night, I might have done something very similar.

 

[BernieP]

All the kids have to do is stay off the mans property. Sounds like a classic case of rich mommy and daddy trying to protest that their little darlings got caught.

you need to read the entire story, later Fritz says it doesn't matter if the one boy was on his property, he was simply close enough. The two boys were not together, the other boy was on the road, had come out of his house when he heard his friend.

Pretty hard to justify shooting someone, a teenage boy, when (a) he is not on your property, (b) doesn't have a weapon and (c) his offense is walking.

In most jurisdictions the only justification for using deadly force is fear for your life, and that it is the last resort. Protecting one's "property" with a firearm is frowned upon and considered excess force.

 

[desertrat]

you need to read the entire story, later Fritz says it doesn't matter if the one boy was on his property, he was simply close enough. The two boys were not together, the other boy was on the road, had come out of his house when he heard his friend.

Pretty hard to justify shooting someone, a teenage boy, when (a) he is not on your property, (b) doesn't have a weapon and (c) his offense is walking.

In most jurisdictions the only justification for using deadly force is fear for your life, and that it is the last resort. Protecting one's "property" with a firearm is frowned upon and considered excess force.

Yeah, he was just heading over to his friends house at midnight.

 

[blazinlow89]

Yeah, he was just heading over to his friends house at midnight.

Did it all the time when I was teenager. I would drive though.

 

[Rommey]

We really are having crime problems in Wildewood. We're all suspicious of everyone these days.

I guess I'm glad I live in PG...

 

[desertrat]

you need to read the entire story, later Fritz says it doesn't matter if the one boy was on his property, he was simply close enough. The two boys were not together, the other boy was on the road, had come out of his house when he heard his friend.Pretty hard to justify shooting someone, a teenage boy, when (a) he is not on your property, (b) doesn't have a weapon and (c) his offense is walking.

In most jurisdictions the only justification for using deadly force is fear for your life, and that it is the last resort. Protecting one's "property" with a firearm is frowned upon and considered excess force.

Does this sound plausible?

 

[Lurk]

Does this sound plausible?

It was such a warm night that night, I'm sure the friend had all the windows and doors open and it was easy to hear the confrontation in the middle of the neighbor's back yard across the street. You know how acute a kid's hearing is resulting from all that i-Pod and Video gaming stuff they play these days.

 

[desertrat]

It was such a warm night that night, I'm sure the friend had all the windows and doors open and it was easy to hear the confrontation in the middle of the neighbor's back yard across the street. You know how acute a kid's hearing is resulting from all that i-Pod and Video gaming stuff they play these days.

Yep.

 

[letmetellyou]

Not sure anyone actually said that. If you fire it you may find yourself in trouble though, especially if you hit someone. Outside your house? Big trouble.

I call b.s. on that!

SoMdNews.com: Homeowner faces no charges in shooting of burglary suspect

This guy was outside when he was shot. There was another incident in Southern Maryland where a guy shot outside his house in the last couple of years too but I can't remember it.

I would agree in this incident if this guy shot them simply for being on his property he would have a problem, but thats not what happened. The guy, justifiably, took a gun out on his property to defend himself. As long as the two teens didn't do anything they didn't have a problem. If they would have fought the guy and he shot them, the homeowner wouldn't have any problem. Too many people try and distort the truth, which is you can defend yourself on your property with a gun.

 

[Baja28]

you need to read the entire story, later Fritz says it doesn't matter if the one boy was on his property, he was simply close enough. The two boys were not together, the other boy was on the road, had come out of his house when he heard his friend.

Pretty hard to justify shooting someone, a teenage boy, when (a) he is not on your property, (b) doesn't have a weapon and (c) his offense is walking.

In most jurisdictions the only justification for using deadly force is fear for your life, and that it is the last resort. Protecting one's "property" with a firearm is frowned upon and considered excess force.

Oh give me a break! He detained them and here you go off the deep end talking about shooting.

Newsflash.... If my hood was having crime issues and some kids (or adults) were inconsiderate enough to cut through my yard, I'd hold them at gun point too.

Feel froggy? Jump!

 

[letmetellyou]

you need to read the entire story, later Fritz says it doesn't matter if the one boy was on his property, he was simply close enough. The two boys were not together, the other boy was on the road, had come out of his house when he heard his friend.

Pretty hard to justify shooting someone, a teenage boy, when (a) he is not on your property, (b) doesn't have a weapon and (c) his offense is walking.

In most jurisdictions the only justification for using deadly force is fear for your life, and that it is the last resort. Protecting one's "property" with a firearm is frowned upon and considered excess force.

You need to re-read the story and stop adding stuff that was not there. Nobody said the second kid came from his house! Fritz, in a response to the mothers saying the two were on common ground, said that they were close enough for the guy to defend his property. The only person saying the kids offense is walking is you! What's the guys offense? Defending his property? Calling the police on someone who is near his shed? The two "boys" are adult size men.

Nobody used deady force either. Deadly force occurs when the bullet leaves the barrell.

So armored car drivers are excessive?

 

[desertrat]

I call b.s. on that!

SoMdNews.com: Homeowner faces no charges in shooting of burglary suspect

This guy was outside when he was shot. There was another incident in Southern Maryland where a guy shot outside his house in the last couple of years too but I can't remember it.

I would agree in this incident if this guy shot them simply for being on his property he would have a problem, but thats not what happened. The guy, justifiably, took a gun out on his property to defend himself. As long as the two teens didn't do anything they didn't have a problem. If they would have fought the guy and he shot them, the homeowner wouldn't have any problem. Too many people try and distort the truth, which is you can defend yourself on your property with a gun.

Yeah that was kind of weird. The guy had been inside though.

 

[justiceforall]

you need to read the entire story, later Fritz says it doesn't matter if the one boy was on his property, he was simply close enough. The two boys were not together, the other boy was on the road, had come out of his house when he heard his friend.

Pretty hard to justify shooting someone, a teenage boy, when (a) he is not on your property, (b) doesn't have a weapon and (c) his offense is walking.

In most jurisdictions the only justification for using deadly force is fear for your life, and that it is the last resort. Protecting one's "property" with a firearm is frowned upon and considered excess force.

Well here's a shocker. You are taking what the mommies of the two little boys say instead of what the attorney who reviewed the incident said. Good call. I bet you believe the mothers of the innocent youths shot in D.C. when they say my little boy was an angel too.

 

[BernieP]

You need to re-read the story and stop adding stuff that was not there. Nobody said the second kid came from his house! Fritz, in a response to the mothers saying the two were on common ground, said that they were close enough for the guy to defend his property. The only person saying the kids offense is walking is you! What's the guys offense? Defending his property? Calling the police on someone who is near his shed? The two "boys" are adult size men.

Nobody used deady force either. Deadly force occurs when the bullet leaves the barrell.

So armored car drivers are excessive?

Here are the simple rules I was taught, never pull a gun unless you intend to use it. You are not allowed to defend your property with a firearm proactively and if "close enough" is the measure, please define that distance, 10, 20, 100 feet, yards?
I have also been taught that you cannot use deadly force, and pointing a loaded firearm is considered deadly force, to "defend" your property. The use of a weapon is only justified when you are in fear for your or your families's life and there are no safe alternatives - like not calling the kid onto your property.
What's not stated is as daming as what is. There were not allegations of mischief, no accusations of noise, damage or other bad behavior, just walking. The mere fact Fritz had to add "close enough" indicates the parents' comment that the boy was on common ground may be in fact true.

I know that when I was their age we had access to a car but we walked to our buddy's house to "hang out". We would play cards, shoot hoops (he had a hoop and lights on his driveway) or watch tv - just chill. If the local pizza sho was open we might even take the path behind the houses up to the shoppng center to buy a snack.

If the boys had been together, if it were a group my opinion, my rationale to believe the parents' version would be different.

 

[sockgirl77]

I call b.s. on that!

SoMdNews.com: Homeowner faces no charges in shooting of burglary suspect

This guy was outside when he was shot. There was another incident in Southern Maryland where a guy shot outside his house in the last couple of years too but I can't remember it.

I would agree in this incident if this guy shot them simply for being on his property he would have a problem, but thats not what happened. The guy, justifiably, took a gun out on his property to defend himself. As long as the two teens didn't do anything they didn't have a problem. If they would have fought the guy and he shot them, the homeowner wouldn't have any problem. Too many people try and distort the truth, which is you can defend yourself on your property with a gun.

I had forgotten that the homeowner's last name was Gaydar.