Is it true that there is no castle doctrine in our state?

[iH8DemLibz]

All I have to say is "STAY OFF MY GRASS". Want to contact me, send me a letter. You can see my address online, from the street, etc. Don't come up here selling steaks from the back of your truck. Do not come up here to preach religion to me. The world is not what it used to be. Once upon a time, we knew our neighbors in the community. The community was small and nobody was unknown.

Now, we have BS like the game "knockout". I just saw a news article on it, and it is disgusting.

Some idiot stole something off of my lawn tractor sweeper that I had underneath my deck and it was a PITA. My wife and I both felt violated because we thought we had moved into a place where that did not happen.

Just up the road from me off of Marriotsville Road, a buddy had his snow blower stolen and his neighbor had his splitter stolen. Now, I keep everything locked up in my garage with plans to build a huge stand alone garage/barn.

When somebody steals something I have earned, they have in essence stolen a part of my time on this world, which is limited. I had to spend my time earning the item, and that time CANNOT be replaced. Raising crops isn't easy either.

And I agree with this too.

I'm on a roll today.

And the only Girl Scouts allowed on my porch are the ones selling Mint Cookies. Those other nasty cookies sellers are not at all welcomed.

And don't get me started on the bible thumpers.

 

[Brooklyn]

I agree in principle and am going off of very limited facts. I don't approve of shooting anyone in cold blood but likewise I don't feel sorry for the thief or think the home owner should go to jail. I think most likely you're right the homeowner was reacting out of adrenaline and anger. IMO the thief created that response though through intentional action. If I steal from a store I know what I'm going to get. If I violate someone's home repeatedly, I expect anything can and will happen. I'm not saying it's legal I just think it carries with it a different impact on a persons mental state, and this I have a harder time condemning the home owner. The great and wonderful state of Maryland would probably disagree with me however

I feel bad for the homeowner and the suspects family. Not so much for the suspect.

FYI sorry for intentionally derailing I just wanted to clarify I DO NOT have an itchy trigger finger for the first Girl Scout or magazine salesman that steps onto my property. Lol

Just think before you shoot. Rage however valid must be contained. Frosh has made references to Tx and frontier justice, this is what makes such innane statements plausible..

I am not going to kill over a potted plant. Does that make me a liberal? Really? Bgos because I think killing is serious business?

OK. maybe in was wrong... maybe Md will never get shall issue becuse the state show that only liberals can be trusted but no liberal will apply for a permit.

Here's hoping the court does not buy that argument

But I am still not going to kill over a potted plant.

Edit to clarify I am refering to another post when talk about liberalism and bgos not you. I just don't think its worth a direct reply..

Discussions of when to take a life are not easy. Neither is the decision or the consequences...

 

[MikeCee]

And don't get me started on the bible thumpers.

You need to have some pamphlets of your own to hand to them.

Even if they are NRA or Second Amendment Foundation Pamphlets.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

You need to have some pamphlets of your own to hand to them.

Even if they are NRA or Second Amendment Foundation Pamphlets.

BRILLIANT!!!

Time to call the NRA.

 

[JettaRed]

And don't get me started on the bible thumpers.

Not sure what you mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Not sure what you mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The holy rollers that come around on Sunday morning beating on doors trying to shove Jesus down your throat.

They think they're going to heaven when they interupt my Krispy Kreams and Coffee, but I beg to differ.

They're getting pro-gun literature from now on or my old copys of American Rifleman.

 

[thomfantomas]

This is an article about the guy in Glen Burnie who defended his home against an intruder and has now been charged with second-degree murder:

http://gunsnfreedom.com/air-force-sgt-charged-with-murder-after-shooting-crazed-intruder-in-his-home/

(The event is discussed at length in other threads, including this one.)

The article states "Because the state [Maryland] has no Castle Doctrine in place, a US Air Force Sgt. has been charged with murder for simply protecting his family from a crazed intruder." Is this true? Is there not a provision in Maryland law permitting me to use deadly force against someone threatening me or my family in my home?

wow I cannot comprehend this garbage state anymore.......I'm 100% that everyone here would of done the same action including myself....this is pure self defense.........we need to do something Marylanders or I'm definitely moving out of this God forsaken state

 

[iH8DemLibz]

This Glen Burnie story can't be true.

Everyone knows Maryland has a Castle Doctrine.

Everyone knows Maryland is Anti-Crime.

Everyone knows Maryland believes in Self Defense.

 

[thomfantomas]

This Glen Burnie story can't be true.

Everyone knows Maryland has a Castle Doctrine.

Everyone knows Maryland is Anti-Crime.

Everyone knows Maryland believes in Self Defense.

is this kicks and giggles?

 

[fred2207]

In TX you can use deadly force to defend property.. so it was not in fact a self defense claim at all as I understand it.

Now if you consider that property on the high plains is a matter of life and death you can see that it might make sense once.

I were in the back country someplace and you took my transport or my water or my rations --- that is a threat to life..

TX law still recognizes that I guess.. Now a potted plant --- lets just say cases like this can make a good argument for NEVER allowing defense of property with lethal force..

I expect more good sense from the public I hope he is at peace with his killing over a plant ...

Absolutely, it was not a self defense shooting...I also agree that under a life or death property protection shooting, self defense may be used... However, in this day and age that defense may be a difficult case to defend, other than in Texas...The Texas law may protect this individual from being charged, but in my opinion, the law is out of touch with the times, especially in how it appears to be applied in this case...

 

[JettaRed]

And it makes our argument of responsible gun ownership and handling harder to win no matter what the justification is. To the broader world, shooting someone over a plant is incomprehensible. I may not have all the facts, but neither does the majority of people who will make a judgement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iH8DemLibz]

This begs the question:

At what point can you shoot to protect the hard earned personal property some people have worked very hard to obtain?

Property Value?

Dollar Figures?

Intrinsic Value?

Priceless Heirlooms?

Crops and Gardens?

Animals and Livestock?

 

[Name Taken]

This begs the question:

At what point can you shoot to protect the hard earned personal property SOME people have WORKED very hard to obtain?

In Maryland, never.

 

[Dal1as]

Absolutely, it was not a self defense shooting...I also agree that under a life or death property protection shooting, self defense may be used... However, in this day and age that defense may be a difficult case to defend, other than in Texas...The Texas law may protect this individual from being charged, but in my opinion, the law is out of touch with the times, especially in how it appears to be applied in this case...

I disagree completely. The "out of touch with the times" argument is what has brought us zero tolerance, revolving door prisons, and all that crap.

Property defense like in Texas has it's place. Last year with the taco stand owner shooting the guy in the back that stole his tip jar. Who's to say that the mans baby wouldn't have gone to bed hungry one day that week. Sorry but what's mine is mine. Thieves deserve whatever they get.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

In Maryland, never.

I already knew the answer.

I just wanted the Gun Owning/Closet Liberals to comment on it.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I disagree completely. The "out of touch with the times" argument is what has brought us zero tolerance, revolving door prisons, and all that crap.

Property defense like in Texas has it's place. Last year with the taco stand owner shooting the guy in the back that stole his tip jar. Who's to say that the mans baby wouldn't have gone to bed hungry one day that week. Sorry but what's mine is mine. Thieves deserve whatever they get.

Like I've said before, re-implement 19th Century law and all of our problems go away. Permanently.

Maybe we should just listen to the criminals. I heard that works.

 

[TheSubieNinja7]

This begs the question:

At what point can you shoot to protect the hard earned personal property some people have worked very hard to obtain?

Property Value?

Dollar Figures?

Intrinsic Value?

Priceless Heirlooms?

Crops and Gardens?

Animals and Livestock?

You can never use deadly force to defend property. It can only be used to defend against bodily harm. In the first semester of law school, we read a bunch of cases about fuds setting up shotguns wired to their doors to shoot robbers when the owners weren't home. In every case, they were prosecuted, sued, or both. It is a similar case if you were home; you can't kill to protect your stuff.

 

[fred2207]

I disagree completely. The "out of touch with the times" argument is what has brought us zero tolerance, revolving door prisons, and all that crap.

Property defense like in Texas has it's place. Last year with the taco stand owner shooting the guy in the back that stole his tip jar. Who's to say that the mans baby wouldn't have gone to bed hungry one day that week. Sorry but what's mine is mine. Thieves deserve whatever they get.

What is moral is not always legal and what is legal is not always moral...However the reality is, "we are forced by the society we live in to either follow what is legal or be prepared to defend our actions before society"... For me, shooting someone who is not providing a threat to me or others is not moral, regardless of the legality... I made that decision for myself many years ago and it has helped me live my life with less regret...

 

[Ragnar]

Taking someone's life over potted plants would be a hard sell if I was on a jury.

The Texas plant thief wasn't killed, just grazed in the head. He's fine, except that he was put up on charges.

 

[swinokur]

You can never use deadly force to defend property. It can only be used to defend against bodily harm. In the first semester of law school, we read a bunch of cases about fuds setting up shotguns wired to their doors to shoot robbers when the owners weren't home. In every case, they were prosecuted, sued, or both. It is a similar case if you were home; you can't kill to protect your stuff.

I find it ironic that MD requires you to carry large sums of cash to be granted a permit. If that's not property I don't know what is.