Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2009/09/15 22:22:24
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Hence why more and more states are enacting Castle Laws
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2009/09/15 22:23:43
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Son, don't practice law Its called self defense and defined via statute or common law depending on state. .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:I dunno, Fraz - we could just send the Hanson brothers up there and show 'em how it's done...
No they'd get eaten alive. Half the guys I work with are former Hockey players. Now in a gunfight its a different story of course...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/09/15 22:28:08
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2009/09/15 22:30:01
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
{highlander}
"..A body that, at this time, has no name."
{/highlander}
The state of maryland has a castle law meaning that the fool that enters your home without invitation or warrant does so at their own risk.
I respect that some might think its 'unfair' to have the authority in ones' one home to defend their home to the death. I personally think its unfair that one could encounter a burglar in their home and be required to retreat rather than to defend their home and property.
I wish having that right wasn't necessary, but Baltimore is a rough town.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
2009/09/15 22:32:54
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Son, don't practice law
Its called self defense and defined via statute or common law depending on state.
.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:I dunno, Fraz - we could just send the Hanson brothers up there and show 'em how it's done...
No they'd get eaten alive. Half the guys I work with are former Hockey players. Now in a gunfight its a different story of course...
Can you quote the Texas self defense law for me and reference?
I'm fairly sure its the same there as what I qouted
The Self Defense Laws Of Texas
frgsinwntr wrote:
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."
Defense of Another Person
"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."
Deadly Force to Protect Property
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"
Protection of the Property of Others
"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."
"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."
Reasonable Belief
"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."
"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."
Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost
"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."
"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."
Self Defense Definitions
"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."
"Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."
"Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."
"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."
Yup says the same thing....
in fact I am pretty sure each state is unified in this fact.... unless someone can show me the laws otherwise?
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2009/09/15 22:36:43
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
No the states are not unified. Please do a better search on that one. As an aside the states are pretty much not unified on anything.
You stated murder. Thats not correct on the limited facts of the matter.
Under statute exterminating an intruder in your home is considered self defense if conditions are met, mostly that of the intruder being in your home. Some states, via statute or case law will presume the defendant did indeed act in self defense, others will require sufficient evidence that the terms are met.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2009/09/15 22:37:17
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
frgsinwntr wrote:unless your life is threatened, it is murder.
yep, it is murder I said it.
1: the attorney referenced is from PA, and not recognized by the BAR in MD.
2:there's a disclaimer you seemed to miss: "...It is not intended for public consumption, and should not be relied upon..."
3: See my other post on MD's Castle Laws.
4: The way I see it it was Karma catching up with him (29 convictions in 49 years!) at the kindest. Social triage seems more like it.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
2009/09/15 22:38:22
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2009/09/15 22:40:06
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Frazzled wrote:No the states are not unified. Please do a better search on that one. As an aside the states are pretty much not unified on anything.
You stated murder. Thats not correct on the limited facts of the matter.
Under statute exterminating an intruder in your home is considered self defense if conditions are met, mostly that of the intruder being in your home. Some states, via statute or case law will presume the defendant did indeed act in self defense, others will require sufficient evidence that the terms are met.
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
Appears to me in Tx he would have been justified. The guy was trying to burglarize his residence and then when the kid confronted him he lunged at the kid requiring him to use deadly force. It says further down the danger need not even be real, just feeling as if he was in immediate danger allowed him the use of deadly force according to that above article.
I'm sure using a sword in defense would result in death but maybe the kid was only trying to wound the guy to scare him off. If someone is lunging at you and you swipe with sword or knife or machete you may not necessarily be able to check your swing, and if someone came after me because I caught them in the act you damn right it gives me the right to use deadly force. I'm sure in this case the intruder was not coming after the kid to talk to him or ask him if he could please put the sword away. The guy was caught, if he valued his safety and life he should have ran away, not toward the guy with the sword.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/15 22:46:22
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
2009/09/15 22:41:26
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Self-defense is a common law doctrine that has been addressed by Maryland courts on
numerous occasions. Included in the doctrine of self-defense is a duty to retreat, that is, a
duty by the individual claiming self-defense to retreat and escape the danger if it was in
his power to do so and was consistent with maintaining his safety. See Sydnor, 365 Md.
at 216, 776 A.2d at 675. In order to succeed on a claim of self-defense, the accused must
have: (1) not been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; (2) had reasonable grounds to
believe that he/she was in apparent imminent or immediate danger of losing his/her own
life or incurring serious bodily harm from his/her assailant or potential assailant;
(3) actually believed at the time that he/she faced this type of danger; and (4) not used
more force than the situation demanded. See Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 140
(2005). See also Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205, 216, A.2d 669, 675 (2001).
2009/09/15 22:41:44
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
not sure you read my post... but thats the EXACT thing I posted....
Actually its NOT. Your laws that are quoted date back to 1973, whereas the laws I posted are much more recent, 2007, and therefore more relevant to the debate at hand.
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2009/09/15 22:43:12
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Fateweaver wrote:
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
Appears to me in Tx he would have been justified. The guy was trying to burglarize his residence and the kid used deadly force. It says further down the danger need not even be real, just feeling as if he was in immediate danger allowed him the use of deadly force according to that above article.
Good catch! I didn't see this... of course... its up to the judge if he could have protected the property by other means or not...
2009/09/15 22:43:38
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Thats just the night time statute. I or JohnnyH, if I invited him over for some range time, could empty a clip into said intruder if they enter my residence at any time of day. THATS the Castle Doctrine and relevant to this.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2009/09/15 22:45:54
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
not sure you read my post... but thats the EXACT thing I posted....
Actually its NOT. Your laws that are quoted date back to 1973, whereas the laws I posted are much more recent, 2007, and therefore more relevant to the debate at hand.
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Thats just the night time statute. I or JohnnyH, if I invited him over for some range time, could empty a clip into said intruder if they enter my residence at any time of day. THATS the Castle Doctrine and relevant to this.
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/15 22:48:27
2009/09/15 22:49:28
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2009/09/15 22:53:44
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...
unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.
Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.
2009/09/15 22:55:26
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?
Wow...
just wow
Speaking as someone who has had people come at him with guns and knives for the purpose of robbery, I can tell you that there was no regret on my part what I did to them. If I had a weapon at the time, they would have been dead and I would have had no regrets. As it was I had to settle for crippling them up.
In that kind of situation, there is no time to think about observing the niceties and trying to reason with someone who may have had a messed up childhood.
2009/09/15 22:56:32
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
It's hard to say what most burglars attempt to do when caught. If someone breaks into your residence in the middle of night (or day as it is B&E no matter what time it is) and lets say they crawl into your bedroom window and end up within 10 feet of you. If they come at you you won't have time to retreat or think "Gee, he is lunging at me. Is he going to hurt me seriously or kill me or just try to scare me?" You don't have time to think about the consequences. Thinking about what MAY happen a week later in court will most likely end up with you dead or dying or hospitalized.
Intruders have 2 choices. Attack the defender or flee. If they flee and they HAVE NOT managed to take anything than to shoot them in the back of the head or cut them open could be construed as murder as than you became the aggressor and did not give the intruder ample time to escape. If he/she attacks the defender they have just given up all rights to be able to walk away from that confrontation as odds are they intend to seriously hurt or even kill the defender.
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
2009/09/15 22:56:51
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
M_Stress wrote:You people want the right to kill someone who tries to steal from you?
Wow...
just wow
Speaking as someone who has had people come at him with guns and knives for the purpose of robbery, I can tell you that there was no regret on my part what I did to them. If I had a weapon at the time, they would have been dead and I would have had no regrets. As it was I had to settle for crippling them up.
In that kind of situation, there is no time to think about observing the niceties and trying to reason with someone who may have had a messed up childhood.
if thats true... then in your case you WOULD have legal grounds for this.
2009/09/15 23:01:20
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...
unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.
Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.
You do realize that this law leaves it completely up to the defender to decide. There doesn't even have to be an example of deadly force, the defender just has to believe it. So yes, you can use deadly force on someone even if they haven't exampled deadly force or something of that nature, so long as you believe they could use it.
Also, here is another part of the same legal code that removes the above mentioned requirement: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/15 23:03:56
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2009/09/15 23:04:54
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Fateweaver wrote:
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
I think that's a bit extreme. There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you. That doesn't mean you were wrong to kill the person, only that you have a certain regard for life in general.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2009/09/15 23:05:07
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
The running theme is a perceived threat. In Baltimore there is *no reason* to expect someone breaking into your house isn't there to harm you.
There might be Hello Kitty burglars out by your exit in NJ, but Baltimore does not screw around. With a murder rate comfortably over 5.4 TIMES the US national average one can hardly expect the person coming in to take the Xbox isn't going to pose a threat to life and limb.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
2009/09/15 23:09:46
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
It's hard to say what most burglars attempt to do when caught. If someone breaks into your residence in the middle of night (or day as it is B&E no matter what time it is) and lets say they crawl into your bedroom window and end up within 10 feet of you. If they come at you you won't have time to retreat or think "Gee, he is lunging at me. Is he going to hurt me seriously or kill me or just try to scare me?" You don't have time to think about the consequences. Thinking about what MAY happen a week later in court will most likely end up with you dead or dying or hospitalized.
Intruders have 2 choices. Attack the defender or flee. If they flee and they HAVE NOT managed to take anything than to shoot them in the back of the head or cut them open could be construed as murder as than you became the aggressor and did not give the intruder ample time to escape. If he/she attacks the defender they have just given up all rights to be able to walk away from that confrontation as odds are they intend to seriously hurt or even kill the defender.
It's cut and dry. It's just so sad that some in society have to feel the need to feel sorry for people like the one that got cut up.
if the issue was cut and dry, there would be no reason to legislate it
I agree, it is a very Gray area... but if you can prove that you were threatened you can use deadly force... for example... the guy heard "cries of fear" coming from who? does this sound like someone jumping at you?
but yea, if they come at you... think southpark... they're coming right for us! OR... like ALL of these cases... they were threatened
dogma wrote:...There's noting necessarily wrong with feeling regret at the fact that you were forced to take someone's life, or even empathizing with the situation that brought any given individual to attack you....
What reason would a person have to empathize with their attacker? Good fortune for "Not so poor Joe" did not compel "Burglar(mugger) Steve" to do anything to him. People have a choice to resort to theft and violence or not.
Special unique snowflake of unique specialness (+1/+3versus werewolves)
Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy.
Pho indignation *IS* the tastiest form of angry!
2009/09/15 23:15:39
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
I'm just generalizing here but I'd be willing to bet most burglars are repeat offenders and so will not ever learn either way or stealing for later trade (or purchase if trying to steal cash) drugs and other harmful substances (spray paint, glues, etc..the poor mans drug) and most likely they are probably tripping on something at the time and need to steal so when they need the fix again they have something to buy/barter with.
I'm not psychotic but if someone broke into my home and I felt in danger of my life and I killed them I honestly don't think I'd regret it. That person violated my house, made me feel vulnerable and took away my right to have a peaceful, danger free existance, even if for just a few minutes.
Before I moved in with my bro into his house he had problems with his shop getting broken into several times in a span of the same amount of time. Had I been here when it happened those same idiots would either not be breathing or walking funny, just would have depended on how vindictive I felt. Blowing off ones kneecap I imagine would make it hard for that person to burglarize a house or garage or shop in the future.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
2009/09/15 23:15:42
Subject: Hopkins student practices sword cutting techniques on intruder
Maybe I'm not finding it... but what part of this says you can shoot someone that is not an aggressor but is stealing?
a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
you guys seem to be missing... the part I "bolded" in your quote...
unlawful force definition - legal definition Power or violence that is directed against a person without that personÂ’s consent . Such an act is punishable as an offense or actionable tort.
Like I've said from the start, unless you are threatened, even in texas and md law, it is ILLEGAL to use deadly force. This even includes the castle laws like I quoted above.
You do realize that this law leaves it completely up to the defender to decide. There doesn't even have to be an example of deadly force, the defender just has to believe it. So yes, you can use deadly force on someone even if they haven't exampled deadly force or something of that nature, so long as you believe they could use it.
Also, here is another part of the same legal code that removes the above mentioned requirement:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
no... it really doesn't. It leaves it up to the judge... and you need to be able to justify WHY you felt deadly force was necessary.
You're missing all the parts where the laws talk about aggressive criminals.
Tell you what... why don't you call your local police dept and check what they say. Ask them. Obviously we could both make things up on the internet.... but talking to several of my police officer friends... they all say the same thing I am...
AAAAND here is a lawyer (obiously from NJ)
Automatically Appended Next Post: another lawyer talks about the legality of self defense killing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/15 23:17:40
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
