Death beating last night at Elkton Acme

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • kwaters4

    Member
    Aug 14, 2012
    56
    Fallston
    i dont think acme could have done anything in this situation. the article said that the attack was so sudden and violent he landed several hits before witnesses could even react. besides that a security guard with a gun might have been "beneficial" to the situation but i dont really thing he could have stopped it. after working in retail ive seen that when an incident does occur it takes several minutes before the word gets spread. i dont really think they are liable nor would an armed security guard have really changed the outcome of this one unfortunately in my opnion.
     

    kwaters4

    Member
    Aug 14, 2012
    56
    Fallston
    if the question was more geared toward if the man was able to carry a concealed weapon would the circumstances be different? in this case i think fire arms would have only exacerbated the incident due to the man was blind sided and the attacker could have taken the weapon. with extensive self defense training the man might have stood a better chance but there is also the other side to this argument, if the attacker was able to carry a concealed weapon would he have used it?
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    if the question was more geared toward if the man was able to carry a concealed weapon would the circumstances be different? in this case i think fire arms would have only exacerbated the incident due to the man was blind sided and the attacker could have taken the weapon. with extensive self defense training the man might have stood a better chance but there is also the other side to this argument, if the attacker was able to carry a concealed weapon would he have used it?

    A bystander may have been able to help. I know you are not supposed to play vigilante, but i someone is in mortal danger and I can intervene with my gun, I would do so. I would rather do the right thing and deal with the consequences later.

    In this case, the attacker would have been a prohibited person. I would imagine that most people in their 40's committing this type of crime are prohibited. You don't get through that much of your adult life with such poor judgement and a bad temper and not get to meet the po-po on multiple occasions.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    A bystander may have been able to help. I know you are not supposed to play vigilante, but i someone is in mortal danger and I can intervene with my gun, I would do so. I would rather do the right thing and deal with the consequences later.

    In this case, the attacker would have been a prohibited person. I would imagine that most people in their 40's committing this type of crime are prohibited. You don't get through that much of your adult life with such poor judgement and a bad temper and not get to meet the po-po on multiple occasions.

    The law in MD permits you to use lethal force to defend the life of another if the person being aided could have used lethal force to defend his own life.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    The law in MD permits you to use lethal force to defend the life of another if the person being aided could have used lethal force to defend his own life.


    Good to know, Esq. I carry daily, and have wondered about that. I could never find much on it, but my google-fu is not strong. It wouldn't change what I would do, but it makes me more comfortable.
     

    marko12

    Senior Member
    Sep 28, 2009
    6,281
    Maryland, on the Chesapeake Bay
    Exactly what teratos picked up on, the situation could/would perhaps have had a more favorable outcome if another shopper was legally carrying and was quick enough to intervene.

    Note to self: Get some really dark sunglasses, quick, but not at ACME !
     

    Intercooler

    Active Member
    Jun 10, 2012
    779
    Getting more details from people at the scene. It was said he somehow told the Police got that he was just going down the aisle looking for someone. It could have been anyone, so the look or whatever that was supposedly given to the 14YO may have no weight.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    Yes , there have been retail establishment succuesfully sued over providing suitable security precautions to patrons. But it is usually for known hazzards , and judged for reasonableness , and compared to other similar establishments. Usually involving poor lighting , blind spots , disrepaired fencing , or improperly screened and supervised employees.

    The situation described here of a spontanious attack by one patron upon another patron would be unlikely to have any liability against the store.
     

    damionkarp

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 9, 2012
    99
    The law in MD permits you to use lethal force to defend the life of another if the person being aided could have used lethal force to defend his own life.

    Maybe it's just me, but it seems that if the person being aided could aid themselves then they wouldn't need me to aid them.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Maybe it's just me, but it seems that if the person being aided could aid themselves then they wouldn't need me to aid them.
    Although if you are leaning over the frozen foods looking for fish sticks and someone suddenly smashes your face into the freezer and starts beating the shit out of you, going for you IWB Glock may be a tad difficult......
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Maybe it's just me, but it seems that if the person being aided could aid themselves then they wouldn't need me to aid them.

    :lol: Of course. The point is whether the person could have legally used lethal force *if* he/she had been able to do so.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Good to know, Esq. I carry daily, and have wondered about that. I could never find much on it, but my google-fu is not strong. It wouldn't change what I would do, but it makes me more comfortable.

    Here is the case. It is worth a read. Personally, I would regard coming to the aid of others as legally risky because one seldom has all the facts in that situation. For example, you would not want to unknowingly come to the aid of a criminal who is being arrested by a plains clothes LEO. OTH, sometimes it is obvious.

    Here is the jury instruction (from Lee, attached):

    Defense of another person is a complete defense,
    and you are required to find the defendant
    not guilty, if all of the following four factors are
    present:
    (1) the defendant actually believed that the person
    defended was in immediate and imminent
    danger of death or serious bodily harm;
    (2) the defendant's belief was reasonable;
    (3) the defendant used no more force than was
    reasonably necessary to defend the person defended
    in light of the threatened or actual
    force; and
    (4) the defendant's purpose in using force was
    to aid the person defended.

    The tricky part is 3, of course. Use of deadly force against an unarmed person is fraught with legal peril. See Cobin attached. A good casei is also Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93, 519 A.2d 1340, cert. denied, 309 Md. 605, 525 A.2d 1075 (1987) (while general self-defense rule precludes use of deadly weapon against unarmed assailant, account must be taken, among other things, of respective size of defendant and assailant and violent nature of unarmed attack);Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 562, 232 A.2d 289 (1967) (where defender uses deadly force against nondeadly attacker, original attacker becomes defender).
    You would have to apply these factors very quickly at this sort of Acme situation. Risky.
     

    Attachments

    • opinion.Lee.defenseofothers996_A_2D_425_5-5-12_1220.pdf
      104.6 KB · Views: 67
    • opinion.Corbin614_A_2D_1329_8-20-12_0937SelfDefenseUnarmed.pdf
      39.7 KB · Views: 73

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Yes , there have been retail establishment succuesfully sued over providing suitable security precautions to patrons. But it is usually for known hazzards , and judged for reasonableness , and compared to other similar establishments. Usually involving poor lighting , blind spots , disrepaired fencing , or improperly screened and supervised employees.

    The situation described here of a spontanious attack by one patron upon another patron would be unlikely to have any liability against the store.

    Agreed. Here is the test:

    In cases involving intervening crimes or intentional torts, we have applied a two part standard under which the intervening act is not a superseding cause if 1) it was a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence and 2) a reasonable person would have recognized the enhanced risk created by the defendant's negligence. Scott, 278 Md. at 172-73, 359 A.2d 548.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Here is the case. It is worth a read. Personally, I would regard coming to the aid of others as legally risky because one seldom has all the facts in that situation. For example, you would not want to unknowingly come to the aid of a criminal who is being arrested by a plains clothes LEO. OTH, sometimes it is obvious.

    Here is the jury instruction (from Lee, attached):

    Defense of another person is a complete defense,
    and you are required to find the defendant
    not guilty, if all of the following four factors are
    present:
    (1) the defendant actually believed that the person
    defended was in immediate and imminent
    danger of death or serious bodily harm;
    (2) the defendant's belief was reasonable;
    (3) the defendant used no more force than was
    reasonably necessary to defend the person defended
    in light of the threatened or actual
    force; and
    (4) the defendant's purpose in using force was
    to aid the person defended.

    The tricky part is 3, of course. Use of deadly force against an unarmed person is fraught with legal peril. See Cobin attached. A good casei is also Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93, 519 A.2d 1340, cert. denied, 309 Md. 605, 525 A.2d 1075 (1987) (while general self-defense rule precludes use of deadly weapon against unarmed assailant, account must be taken, among other things, of respective size of defendant and assailant and violent nature of unarmed attack);Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 562, 232 A.2d 289 (1967) (where defender uses deadly force against nondeadly attacker, original attacker becomes defender).
    You would have to apply these factors very quickly at this sort of Acme situation. Risky.

    Thank you for the references. I think this is a topic that you need to discuss on a case by case basis, but I'm certain that there are certain circumstances which would make it clear that someone is in danger. When we get CCW in MD, it will be something that anyone who chooses to carry may be faced with and should consider. We train and think about defending ourselves, but need to consider what we would do if others are in danger as well.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Thank you for the references. I think this is a topic that you need to discuss on a case by case basis, but I'm certain that there are certain circumstances which would make it clear that someone is in danger. When we get CCW in MD, it will be something that anyone who chooses to carry may be faced with and should consider. We train and think about defending ourselves, but need to consider what we would do if others are in danger as well.

    Exactly right. And this is tricky. You really, really have to think various scenarios through ahead of time. I know this area of law well, but I still find myself doing research on it. Woe to the lay person who guesses wrong.
     

    JustCuz

    Non-Expendable Citizen
    Aug 25, 2012
    403
    Hanover, MD
    To the initial question of Acme's liability, did they do something a reasonable person wouldn't have done, or did they fail to do something a reasonable person would have done? I don't see it.

    There is no other truth to this issue than what I am about to say: It doesn't matter if ACME did anything wrong or failed to do something that they should have. The truth is that they are the ones with a big insurance policy, and lawyers will sue them for wrongful death because they stand to get more out of the insurance company from a nuisance settlement than they would by suing the idiot who actually committed the crime. This is a really horrible reality in our civil system, and it's something I would love to see change.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,312
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom