Reality of Gun Ownership

[PsyOps]

Only if they die is there a death and his intent was not to institute the death penalty or cause a death.
He has a right to use force, even "deadly force" (defined as force which may cause death) to defend his dwelling from an attack. That is not "instituting the death penalty" by any definition a rational person would use.

Nice try. You pull your gun, your intent is to kill. There are no guarantees otherwise. It would be a complete false assumption that you would somehow incapacitate the intruder with a gun. Not unless you are a marksman that can hit a knee on a moving target, with 100% accuracy, at 20+ feet.

He is saying you are not allowed to use deadly force commit vigilantee justice. You are only allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself, your dwelling or others from harm. He has never said you can't shoot the attacker (use deadly force) in self defense.
You are reading way too much in what he has not said to assume he is saying something else. As a police officer there are some things he cannot say without getting into trouble somehow and you are confusing his caution with an endorsment of not allowing self defense.

There is no vigilante justice in defending your home. Vigilante justice is when you go out and hunt someone down that you believe committed a crime; take the law into your own hands. Smcop has said a lot of things on both sides of the argument because he’s getting cornered and trying to be safe. He stated early in this thread he believed burglary is a non-violent crime is not deserving of being killed over (i.e. the death penalty) but covers himself by stating that if you decide to use lethal force he is okay with that, but he would vote against a law that allow you to use lethal force. So, he’s making it easy to read too much into his words because he is all over the place on this.

If, as a police officer, he is restricted from saying certain things, then perhaps it’s best to just stay away from these conversations. It’s a little disconcerting to have cop tell me so many contradicting opnions.

 

[Novus Collectus]

You're really all over the place and don't even realize it. Your own words:



I'm not talking about the death penalty as instituted by our legal system, and either were you in this quote of yours that I just posted.

YOu are missing the nuances.

Not true. If you have a means of egress you have to abandon your own home instead of "eliminating the threat". If the intruder if fleeing, you cannot "eliminate the threat". MD has created laws that make it nearly impossible to defend your own property and family; given all the rights to the criminal and taken away the right of the innocent citizen to be secure in their person.

No, it is you who is incorrect. MD is a castle doctrine state where you have no duty to retreat in your own home and you may face the threat and use deadly force if necessary to stop the attack upon your dwelling.

How in the world do you define what an intruder's intent is?

The courts will ask if a reasonable person in his shoes at the time witnessing what he did would also percieve their intent the same way, then he can use that in his defense.

Suppose they want to flee but there only way out was through you?

You have right to defend yourself from an attack and unless the house was on fire for instance and they were trying to flee the flames, they are attacking you by trying to go through you.

You're asking the citizen to make all the determinations of a crime with absolutely no training or information to go on.

There are two situations here. The courts will ask how a police officer with training would reasonably react if it was him in the situation because he is a police officer, and for us they would as how a reasonable person who is not a police officer with training will react in a situation.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Nice try. You pull your gun, your intent is to kill. There are no guarantees otherwise. It would be a complete false assumption that you would somehow incapacitate the intruder with a gun. Not unless you are a marksman that can hit a knee on a moving target, with 100% accuracy, at 20+ feet.

Damn, you are so off base, it is ridiculous.


I am not pulling my gun or firing it with intent to kill, but I AM using deadly force in the eyes of the law. What my intent is, is a different situation from what I realize my actions can cause by using it. My intent is to use the force which can be deadly to save my life, but if I intended for the person to die, that would be attempted homicide or murder......can you understand the nuances and distinction please?

My intent is neither to incapicitate NOR kill. My intent is ONLY to stop the attack and save my own life of the life and well being of others (or my dwelling). If they die OR are incapacitated as a result, that is not the issue at this point of the act.
When I am shooting center mass, it is not to kill, rather it is to most likely stop the attack using the best method possible to save my life. We are justified in using deadly force to save our life even if it will result in their death, but we are not justified in using deadly force to intentionally kill....got it?

For instance, if you are mountain climbing and the guy you are tethered to falls off the wall and is hanging off of you, you are not committing murder if you cut the rope to save your own life. Your action was justified even though you knew it could result in the other person's death. However, if you cut the rope because you hated the guy and you wanted him dead, then that is murder.

By the way, one quarter to one fifth of all people shot live so shooting them does not mean they are guaranteed to die.

There is no vigilante justice in defending your home. Vigilante justice is when you go out and hunt someone down that you believe committed a crime; take the law into your own hands.

Yes, vigilante justice is when you take the law into your own hands outside of the law......like killing someone when you were not saving yourself, others or defending your dwelling or when conducting a lawful arrest they resisted.
......it all has to do with "good faith" intent. If you are shooting to execute, then that is vigilantism and illegal, but if you are shooting them to save yourself and they die, then that is justifiable homicide.

Smcop has said a lot of things on both sides of the argument because he’s getting cornered and trying to be safe.

No, it is just you missing the nuances and not knowing the parts he cannot discuss, nor the case law which guides what position he has to take.

He stated early in this thread he believed burglary is a non-violent crime is not deserving of being killed over

Yes, and he is correct, there is a Supreme Court case on just this, they said unarmed burglary is not a "violent crime" and police cannot shoot (use deadly force) an unarmed fleeing burglarly suspect in the back.

(i.e. the death penalty) but covers himself by stating that if you decide to use lethal force he is okay with that,

Yes, for self defense against a percieved threat or from an attack upon your dwelling. He is very consistent with this.

but he would vote against a law that allow you to use lethal force.

Nope, I do not see where he said that the way you did.

So, he’s making it easy to read too much into his words because he is all over the place on this.

If, as a police officer, he is restricted from saying certain things, then perhaps it’s best to just stay away from these conversations. It’s a little disconcerting to have cop tell me so many contradicting opnions.

As a police officer he has a duty to represent the law as how it currently is interpreted and he is free to express how he feels it should or should not be with future legislation. I do not see where this man has stepped over the line professionally, ethically or morally. I do not see anywhere he has contradicted himself. He is just going by current law interpretations......and THAT is the part that seems contradictory. Do not blame the man for how the legal system is in MD. It is not his fault this is how the courts have made things over the past few hundred years.

 

[PsyOps]

No, it is you who is incorrect. MD is a castle doctrine state where you have no duty to retreat in your own home and you may face the threat and use deadly force if necessary to stop the attack upon your dwelling.

Well, I do stand corrected (MD Senate Bill 518). Of course this law didn't pass until a year ago. So I guess I fell asleep for a year.

The problem I have with the law is it does not offer a means as to how a homeowner differentiates between what justifies the use of deadly force and non-deadly force. You have to make a split decision in order to act accordingly. I don’t believe there should be a clause in there demanding you to decide whether to use deadly or non-deadly force.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Well, I do stand corrected (MD Senate Bill 518). Of course this law didn't pass until a year ago. So I guess I fell asleep for a year.

That bill did not pass.
That bill dealt with other aspects of stand your ground and civil protection for castle doctrine.
MD has been a castle doctrine state since the early 1960s.

The problem I have with the law is it does not offer a means as to how a homeowner differentiates between what justifies the use of deadly force and non-deadly force. You have to make a split decision in order to act accordingly. I don’t believe there should be a clause in there demanding you to decide whether to use deadly or non-deadly force.

Maryland law is clear on 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).​

As far as when you can use the deadly force, that is basically common sense. If they are in your house by breaking in you are justified in thinking they are a valid and imminent threat so unless there is evidence otherwise, a reasonable person would assume they are a threat that has to be defended against and the castle doctrine means you can use deadly force to repel the attack upon your dwelling if you validly percieve it as so.

 

[PsyOps]

Damn, you are so off base, it is ridiculous.


I am not pulling my gun or firing it with intent to kill, but I AM using deadly force in the eyes of the law. What my intent is, is a different situation from what I realize my actions can cause by using it. My intent is to use the force which can be deadly to save my life, but if I intended for the person to die, that would be attempted homicide or murder......can you understand the nuances and distinction please?

My intent is neither to incapicitate NOR kill. My intent is ONLY to stop the attack and save my own life of the life and well being of others (or my dwelling). If they die OR are incapacitated as a result, that is not the issue at this point of the act.
When I am shooting center mass, it is not to kill, rather it is to most likely stop the attack using the best method possible to save my life. We are justified in using deadly force to save our life even if it will result in their death, but we are not justified in using deadly force to intentionally kill....got it?

Are you kidding me? You own a gun and don’t realize it can kill? You don’t know what the end result will be by firing? I’m off base? You shouldn’t own a gun if you don’t understand what the intent of that weapon is. If your intent is something other than deadly, use a pillow or a whiffleball bat. A gun has one intent and one only: to kill when fired. Expecting any other result is a complete ignorance of what firearms are for.

For instance, if you are mountain climbing and the guy you are tethered to falls off the wall and is hanging off of you, you are not committing murder if you cut the rope to save your own life. Your action was justified even though you knew it could result in the other person's death. However, if you cut the rope because you hated the guy and you wanted him dead, then that is murder.

What the heck does murder have to do with this? I thought we were talking about self-defense? Your analogy is correct though, you are killing someone to save your life.

By the way, one quarter to one fifth of all people shot live so shooting them does not mean they are guaranteed to die.

That doesn’t remove what a firearm is for. You fire that weapon with the expectation that you are going to kill the person. I’m not talking about guarantees, or percentages or statistics. You fire that weapon and you have to assume the result will be death. If you’re firing that weapon for any other reason, or with percentages in your head “It’s okay, I can shoot. Only 75% die anyway”… that’s just a blatant misunderstanding of what a firearm is for.

 

[smcop]

You're really all over the place and don't even realize it. Your own words:

Nope, I am on point throughout. I have hesitated to engage in hypotheticals, because people give you one then throw a twist in there to make it something else. My position is this and has been. I am opposed to killing someone for a burglary. I believe you have a right to defend yourself.

Where have I changed. Read my words literally, and don't add anything to them and you will see I haven't changed.

I'm not talking about the death penalty as instituted by our legal system, and either were you in this quote of yours that I just posted.

But if you believe someone should die for a burglary, then what is the difference if it is done contemporaniously with the crime or at the punishment phase? If you believe someone should die because you are eliminating an imenent threat from your home, then the crime is no longer simply burglary. As I have stated, if a person is acting in an aggressive manner, than take action and defend yourself. My point is this. If the person is running away, then I don't believe you should kill them. Where have I ever said anything different?

Not true. If you have a means of egress you have to abandon your own home instead of "eliminating the threat". If the intruder if fleeing, you cannot "eliminate the threat". MD has created laws that make it nearly impossible to defend your own property and family; given all the rights to the criminal and taken away the right of the innocent citizen to be secure in their person.

You have a right to defend yourself and no obligation to retreat in the State Of Maryland, as it stands.

How in the world do you define what an intruder's intent is?

In viewing the totality of the circumstance.

How do you devise a law that forces a citizen to establish an intruder's intent first before acting?

Like all laws, what is reasonable at the time, based on what a reasonable person would have thought.

How much time do you give someone to surrender or flee? Suppose they want to flee but there only way out was through you?

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a party we'd have.

You're asking the citizen to make all the determinations of a crime with absolutely no training or information to go on. You demand nothing from the legal system to protect the citizen and give all the advantages to the criminal; which explains why crime is consistently on the rise; particularly in MD, VA and DC.

No, I am not asking citizens to do anything. I have stated you should defend yourself. You want a cookie cutter answer to a question with too many variables. Do what you feel you should do. That doesn't always mean kill someone. I demand the legal system be fair. Crime is on the rise due to the economy. Tell me what advantage the criminal gets? Presumption of innocence. While I agree this isn't a perfect system, it is the best one we have for someone who might be innocent but accused falsely.

 

[This_person]

Again, this is what I said;



If they are turning around, then there is no intent to surrender or flee is there? You really can't get that can you?

I meant turning as if they were turning away from you.

 

[This_person]

Nope, I am on point throughout. I have hesitated to engage in hypotheticals, because people give you one then throw a twist in there to make it something else. My position is this and has been. I am opposed to killing someone for a burglary. I believe you have a right to defend yourself.

Then, again, I will ask you - what, specifically, do you feel you can do to defend against an intruder?

You never answered, would you pull the trigger on someone who is in your home, but not actively charging you but also not saying "uncle"? They're talking, you're talking, you're both just staring, whatever..... They haven't gone prone on the floor, they haven't sprinted for the door away from you, but they also are not charging you or shouting how they'll get you. They're in your home, stealing your stuff. Can you pull your trigger or not, in your opinion. Please answer with "yes you can" or "no you can't", not your hypothetical changes to the question.

 

[PsyOps]

That bill did not pass.
That bill dealt with other aspects of stand your ground and civil protection for castle doctrine.
MD has been a castle doctrine state since the early 1960s.

Maryland law is clear on 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).​

Actually what the entire summary of of that part of SB-761 states is:

Other 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 SB 761 / Page 3 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). Courts are split as to whether a duty to retreat exists under the castle doctrine in situations involving cohabitants, guests, and invitees.

What is this exception? I haven't been unable to find it.

But I found this, where it seems like it states that MD does not have a castle doctrine.

And...

Case-law, not statute, incorporates the commonlaw castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.

According to this site, MD has not adopted the Castle Doctrine. I assume this is regarding actual statute as apposed to case law.

I would have to say since the bill did not pass, case law makes for a weak argument for stating we have an established castle law, since future cases can overturn older case law.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Are you kidding me? You own a gun and don’t realize it can kill? You don’t know what the end result will be by firing? I’m off base? You shouldn’t own a gun if you don’t understand what the intent of that weapon is. If your intent is something other than deadly, use a pillow or a whiffleball bat.

My fists can kill too, but if I punch someone in self defense I am not trying to kill them, nor is it my intent for them to die.

A gun has one intent and one only: to kill when fired. Expecting any other result is a complete ignorance of what firearms are for.

You sound like an anti.
My non-hunting guns are not meant for killing, I intend to use them for self defense, target shooting, starter pistols, signalling devices, but not killing.

What the heck does murder have to do with this?

Once again, you are failing to make the distinction. Killing with the intent for a person to die is murder or intentional homicide.

I thought we were talking about self-defense? Your analogy is correct though, you are killing someone to save your life.

Yes, I am killing to save a life, not killing to take a life......see the difference yet?

That doesn’t remove what a firearm is for.

My firearm is not meant to be to kill by me.

You fire that weapon with the expectation that you are going to kill the person.

No, I do not. I have no expectation of such. I am aware they are likely to die by me shooting them, but I am not expecting it, not am I intending it to occur.
If I am shooting with the expectation they will die instead of just the understanding they might, then that can be premeditation......you following me yet?

I’m not talking about guarantees, or percentages or statistics. You fire that weapon and you have to assume the result will be death.

No, I have to assume like a reasonable person that it can result in death and is therefore deadly force, but once again I am not shooting to kill, I am shooting with the intent to stop the attack.

If you’re firing that weapon for any other reason, or with percentages in your head “It’s okay, I can shoot. Only 75% die anyway”… that’s just a blatant misunderstanding of what a firearm is for.

No, it goes to show I do not have the expectation they are going to die, nor does it show it is part of my intent. My ONLY intent is to stop the attack, nothing more.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Actually what the entire summary of of that part of SB-761 states is:



What is this exception? I haven't been unable to find it.

But I found this, where it seems like it states that MD does not have a castle doctrine.

And...



According to this site, MD has not adopted the Castle Doctrine. I assume this is regarding actual statute as apposed to case law.

I would have to say since the bill did not pass, case law makes for a weak argument for stating we have an established castle law, since future cases can overturn older case law.

Can you not read? The highest court in MD has repeatedly (many more times than was mentioned in the bill) recognized the common law right of castle doctrine for the past 45 years. MD is as much a castle doctrine state as any other castle doctrine state as far as using deadly force to repel an attack upon one's dwelling. MD did not need a law on this because it was ALREADY law.
If you think they will completely reverse four decades of repeated stare decisis with one case, then you are thinking wrong. If you don't believe me, then ask a criminal defense lawyer or a prosecuting attorney (I did).

We do however need to strengthen the castle doctrine law to prevent the attacker from suing, and to allow other stand your ground.

 

[Novus Collectus]

According to the highest court, MD is a castle doctrine state and here is the "exception" you refer to:

One of the elements of the defense of self-defense is "the duty of the defendant to retreat or avoid danger if such means were within his power and consistent with his safety." Bruce v. State,218 Md. 87, 97, 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958); see also DeVaughn v.State, 232 Md. 447, 194 A.2d 109 (1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S.927, 84 S. Ct. 693, 11 L. Ed. 2d 623 (1964); Corbin, supra, 94 Md.App. 21, 614 A.2d 1329. There is an exception to that requirement,which we enunciated in Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190A.2d 538, 541 (1963), that "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 also Gainer v.State, 40 Md. App. 382, 391 A.2d 856, cert. denied, 284 Md. 743(1978); Barton v. State, 46 Md. App. 616, 420 A.2d 1009 (1980).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 38 September Term, 1996 __________________________________ HEATH WILLIAM BURCH <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">v</b>.

 

[smcop]

Then, again, I will ask you - what, specifically, do you feel you can do to defend against an intruder?

Use the necessary amount of force to stop the threat.

You never answered, would you pull the trigger on someone who is in your home, but not actively charging you but also not saying "uncle"? They're talking, you're talking, you're both just staring, whatever.....
They haven't gone prone on the floor, they haven't sprinted for the door away from you, but they also are not charging you or shouting how they'll get you. They're in your home, stealing your stuff. Can you pull your trigger or not, in your opinion. Please answer with "yes you can" or "no you can't", not your hypothetical changes to the question.

That is an unrealistic scenario. A person is faced with an armed homeowner and they are continuing to steal? In your scenario, in case what you mean is the person is no longer actively stealing, but now just staring at you, well my answer is I would do what I needed to do to control the situation.

 

[PsyOps]

Can you not read? The highest court in MD has repeatedly (many more times than was mentioned in the bill) recognized the common law right of castle doctrine for the past 45 years. MD is as much a castle doctrine state as any other castle doctrine state as far as using deadly force to repel an attack upon one's dwelling. MD did not need a law on this because it was ALREADY law.
If you think they will completely reverse four decades of repeated stare decisis with one case, then you are thinking wrong. If you don't believe me, then ask a criminal defense lawyer or a prosecuting attorney (I did).

We do however need to strengthen the castle doctrine law to prevent the attacker from suing, and to allow other stand your ground.

No need to get ugly.

I recognize MD has a loose form of the castle doctrine. Problem is, it's only based in case law and not statute. This means if a citizen kills an intruder the citizen is charged with a crime and has to stand trial. If a statute was in place this wouldn't be necessary. But even in your other post providing info on the exception the law appears to still cite that a citizen must retreat (or find a means of egress) if it’s within their power to do so. I would interpret that exception to be IF they can prove they couldn’t retreat, they can use deadly force.

You have to prove this in a court of law. I should never have to prove that I had to escape from my own home from an intruder. I should never be charged with a crime for defending my family and property.

 

[smcop]

No need to get ugly.

I recognize MD has a loose form of the castle doctrine. Problem is, it's only based in case law and not statute. This means if a citizen kills an intruder the citizen is charged with a crime and has to stand trial. If a statute was in place this wouldn't be necessary. But even in your other post providing info on the exception the law appears to still cite that a citizen must retreat (or find a means of egress) if it’s within their power to do so. I would interpret that exception to be IF they can prove they couldn’t retreat, they can use deadly force.

You have to prove this in a court of law. I should never have to prove that I had to escape from my own home from an intruder. I should never be charged with a crime for defending my family and property.

What you fail to write in here, is the crime will not be indicted under any of the previous cases where case law dictates no crime occurred. The only way the case can go forward is if a prosecutor files a criminal information, or a criminal indictment, which has to be presented by witnesses and a prosecuting attorney.

 

[This_person]

Use the necessary amount of force to stop the threat.





That is an unrealistic scenario. A person is faced with an armed homeowner and they are continuing to steal? In your scenario, in case what you mean is the person is no longer actively stealing, but now just staring at you, well my answer is I would do what I needed to do to control the situation.

I suppose it's true that not answering is easier than admitting either the hypocritical nature of your answers or admitting you're just wrong.


"The necessary amount of force to stop the threat". "Non-violent crimes do not justify lethal force."


Yep, just continue to not answer...........

 

[Novus Collectus]

No need to get ugly.

Sorry, I get frustrated whenever this subject comes up.

I recognize MD has a loose form of the castle doctrine. Problem is, it's only based in case law and not statute. This means if a citizen kills an intruder the citizen is charged with a crime and has to stand trial. If a statute was in place this wouldn't be necessary.

I do believe this is true. However it now seems rare that someone is ever charged. The only times you hear of someone being charged is when the circumstances are very suspect like that guy who it turned out invited his neighbor over and then shot him claiming he did not know who he was when he shot him and that he was trying to "get in his window".

But even in your other post providing info on the exception the law appears to still cite that a citizen must retreat (or find a means of egress) if it’s within their power to do so. I would interpret that exception to be IF they can prove they couldn’t retreat, they can use deadly force.

Read it again. It is saying you have a duty to seek retreat except for when in your dwelling.
In other words, you are not in your dwelling, you generally have a duty to seek a retreat.

You have to prove this in a court of law. I should never have to prove that I had to escape from my own home from an intruder. I should never be charged with a crime for defending my family and property.

Not only is it court precedence and the prosecutor knows they will lose on appeal if it came to it, but the jury instruction that one has no duty to retreat in your own home so a prosecutor would know it would likely not even get past a jury if it was obvious the home was invaded and therefore not want to press charges.

Maryland Pattern Jury Instruction 5:07 on self-defense
2
provides:
[In addition, before using deadly-force, the
defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to
retreat.
The defendant does not have to retreat if
[the defendant was in [his] [her] home], [retreat was
unsafe], [the avenue of retreat was unknown to the
defendant], [the defendant was being robbed], [the
defendant was lawfully arresting the victim]. If you
find that the defendant did not use deadly-force, then
the defendant had no duty to retreat.]
In addition, before using deadly force,
the [appellant] is required to make all
reasonable
effort to retreat.
The
[appellant]
does not have to retreat if the
[appellant] was in his home or retreat was
unsafe or if the avenue of retreat was
unknown to the [appellant] or if at the
moment
that the shots were fired
the
[appellant]
was being robbed, or the
defendant was lawfully arresting the victim.
If you find the [appellant] did not use
deadly force, then the [appellant] had no
duty to retreat.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1217 September Term, 1999 ROOSEVELT PTRDYON SYDNOR v. STATE OF MARYLAN

 

[2ndAmendment]

You need to get out of Calvert County then and get in to a county which is a bit more progressive. There is at least one county in Southern Maryland which trains outside, with dynamic situations, and transitional drills. You don't know as much as you pretend to know. And where did I ever say that only cops should have guns. Just the opposite. In the post you are referring to, I said you shouldn't use a taser, mace, etc. to defend your home. I said I use a gun, perhaps I should have said everyone should use a gun. But defending your home with a gun, and shooting someone who is fleeing or surrendering is in my opinion wrong!

Now why would you think I'm in Calvert County, and how would you know what I know? You don't. And I know of what I speak. I have seen, shot with, St. Mary's, Calvert, and Charles' County cops and most of them are not very good.

There you go, your true feelings.

Yeah. Cops should obey the laws just like ordinary citizens.

A person's home is their castle. In any battle, honorable men do not kill a surrendering person. Shooting a guy in the back running away. Is that how you would handle yourself?

Honourable men used to fight standing in lines shooting at each other. Then the American Revolution came along and we started shooting from behind rocks.

If the guy is not armed, then no, I would not shoot him. If he is, then I am going to presume that it is his intent to do me or my family bodily harm and that if he turns his back, he is just repositioning himself for another attack which I will prevent.

Look at it from another perspective. I would estimate that greater than 80% of crime is done by repeat offenders. Knock one off and the crime rate goes down significantly.

The courts can't or won't control criminals. Can you say revolving door? Cops can't be everywhere even if they are honest and well meaning like I presume you are. So it is left to the citizens to defend themselves and their property.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That is an unrealistic scenario. A person is faced with an armed homeowner and they are continuing to steal? In your scenario, in case what you mean is the person is no longer actively stealing, but now just staring at you, well my answer is I would do what I needed to do to control the situation.

Not so unrealistic. The laws in Italy are so one sided in the criminals favour that a home owner can only ask the robber to leave. The home owner can't even take his stuff from the robber by force or the robber can charge the home owner. And I know that for FACT. I was there. It happened to a co-worker. The same robber came back three times. Somehow, the third time the robber wound up in the electric lines below my co-workers apartment window. He must of fell climbing over the balcony.

If Frosh continues in office and has his way, Maryland laws will be as bad as Italy's.