murder?

[redeemed.man]

It really doesn't matter if the wife led this guy on or did anything else beyond that. It seems pretty clear that this man is being wrongfully prosecuted. He can deal with his wife and what may or may not have lead up to this if he needs to once he is acquitted. I wish him the best.

 

[amoebicmagician]

Uh... Castle Doctrine?

What the hell is wrong with MD?

This guy is a veteran and a stand up guy, he should never have been arrested, let alone charged.

 

[amoebicmagician]

and since when is it 'bizarre' to be armed in your own home?

What the heck is wrong with MDs attorneys?

 

[Immersion]

and since when is it 'bizarre' to be armed in your own home?

What the heck is wrong with MDs attorneys?

*cough*theyrelibtards*cough*

 

[Phillipw39]

What would the states attorney do, call 911 and have a cup of coffee with the guy while they wait.

 

[outlaw613]

what happened to protecting your family.
the world is a scary place to live right now

 

[BeoBill]

Jury nullification if it ever gets to trial?

 

[Lashek]

Long time reader, first time poster (this thread encouraged me to finally do so), and first time firearm owner (made sure to get an AR15 prior to Oct 1).


I don't think there is too much to worry about outside of the legal expense.

See "State v. Faulkner" where the Maryland court of appeals summarized what needed to be proven. So long as each one is valid, I don't see much of anything that would prevent it from being thrown out.

(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;

(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;

(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict;

(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.

The only thing I think would be an issue would be regarding #4, but there just isn't enough to go on from the articles posted about this incident.

However, there is an alternative in "Crawford v. State" where it defines the legal use of deadly force:

One may use deadly force against an attacker if deadly force is necessary to prevent the attacker from committing a felony that involves the use of force, violence, or surprise (such as murder, robbery, burglary, rape, or arson)

Based on my understanding, it seems justified that Mr. Green had a huge infatuation with Matt's wife. Enough to justify murder and/or possible rape if he's busting into the house at 2AM.

I also don't specifically see "you must call 911" anywhere in this stuff, but I admit that I haven't dove too heavily into it beyond basic research.

At face value, it sounds like an open and shut case, with it being tossed out. However, we don't know all the facts, and probably won't.

I know most of you probably know the above info already, so I thought I'd post it for those that didn't.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I also don't specifically see "you must call 911" anywhere in this stuff, but I admit that I haven't dove too heavily into it beyond basic research.

.

Can someone point to the specific statute that REQUIRES a citizen to call 911 to request assistance? If there is such a requirement, then where are the functional and performance requirements for the state to provide timely, apt response to the request?

Here's what I know: the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no duty to protect and serve the citizens, only to protect and serve the "State". Too bad these are no longer considered one in the same.

Interesting article... http://www.psacake.com/dial_911.asp

 

[Jim12]

I don't think there is too much to worry about outside of the legal expense.

I wonder how many innocent people wrongly facing 2nd degree murder charges
wake up every morning, go through every day, and go to bed every night for days, weeks, and months on end, trying to convince themselves, their friends, and families of that. Oh, and then there's that legal expense thing.

 

[Uncle Duke]

I wonder how many innocent people wrongly facing 2nd degree murder charges
wake up every morning, go through every day, and go to bed every night for days, weeks, and months on end, trying to convince themselves, their friends, and families of that. Oh, and then there's that legal expense thing.

You're 100% correct sir. There are no winners here.

 

[ducduk]

as americans we must stand up to the bullsh*t that our elected officials are doing to our country our constitution and our life. if you break into someones home ( castle ) bang your dead , end of story welcome to the land of the free . not the home of the oppressed ya bull it pisses me off when i hear about this kind of bull my wife says mds gets me fired up i would like thank everyone on this sight that cares about our country . wow i need another coffee

 

[Lashek]

I wonder how many innocent people wrongly facing 2nd degree murder charges
wake up every morning, go through every day, and go to bed every night for days, weeks, and months on end, trying to convince themselves, their friends, and families of that. Oh, and then there's that legal expense thing.

You are correct. I was referring entirely to the legal standing and nothing more.

The emotional turmoil and the scarring will be there for life.

 

[cgunnut]

Long time reader, first time poster (this thread encouraged me to finally do so), and first time firearm owner (made sure to get an AR15 prior to Oct 1).


I don't think there is too much to worry about outside of the legal expense.

See "State v. Faulkner" where the Maryland court of appeals summarized what needed to be proven. So long as each one is valid, I don't see much of anything that would prevent it from being thrown out.



The only thing I think would be an issue would be regarding #4, but there just isn't enough to go on from the articles posted about this incident.

However, there is an alternative in "Crawford v. State" where it defines the legal use of deadly force:



Based on my understanding, it seems justified that Mr. Green had a huge infatuation with Matt's wife. Enough to justify murder and/or possible rape if he's busting into the house at 2AM.

I also don't specifically see "you must call 911" anywhere in this stuff, but I admit that I haven't dove too heavily into it beyond basic research.

At face value, it sounds like an open and shut case, with it being tossed out. However, we don't know all the facts, and probably won't.

I know most of you probably know the above info already, so I thought I'd post it for those that didn't.

The law may well be in his favor but this is MD afterall. Black and white is not readable by the liberals that infest this state. I hope this guy gets off. Unfortunately there is a side the prosecution could take that the person breaking in thought the wife was in danger and was rescuing her from a dangerous situation. Afterall this isn't a stranger but someone the wife knew. I believe he was justified just stating how the prosecution could paint a new picture.

 

[paxfish]

It might have been more cut and dried had the bad guy been found inside the house rather than on the porch.

The state will hold this guy upside down to see if anything falls out of his pockets.

 

[redeye505]

It might have been more cut and dried had the bad guy been found inside the house rather than on the porch.

The state will hold this guy upside down to see if anything falls out of his pockets.

Yep cause they have to try and make back what they put into it as far as the investigation goes, and then some. MD is about making a profit any way they can. Even if it means destroying someones good name. I hope all goes well for him and his family.

 

[jmland]

There most certainly is. This is not a cut and dried case of self defense. The wife and the deceased were well acquainted with one another.

I think that the previous acts of violence (holes in the wall) would count as sufficient justification for fear PLUS.... he is breaking down the door.

Wonder why the judge didn't throw it out, if as the article states, that he had some problems with the charge.