Defensive gun use in Halethorpe

[daNattyFatty]

http://wbaltv.com/article/halethorp...break-into-his-car-police-say/8502996?src=app

Resident notices his car being broken into. Owner grabs a rifle, leaves his house and confronts the 17 year old subject. Subject swings a screwdriver at resident. Resident shoots the suspect with the rifle. No mention on what kind of rifle, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[pbharvey]

Article says the kid was trying to break into his house then is says he was breaking into his car.
I hope this guy has a good lawyer. My guess is that if you leave your house to go hunt someone down who is stealing property and not physically harming someone you are going to have a tough road ahead of you.

 

[DC-W]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. This is one to keep eyes on.

 

[daNattyFatty]

Article says the kid was trying to break into his house then is says he was breaking into his car.
I hope this guy has a good lawyer. My guess is that if you leave your house to go hunt someone down who is stealing property and not physically harming someone you are going to have a tough road ahead of you.

Dang, I scanned right past that part of trying to break into the home. That being said, I agree it'll be a tough road ahead if he gets charged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DC-W]

Sun has a blurb about it too
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-co-shooting-20161215-story.html

Fox:
http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/police-halethorpe-man-shoots-teen-trying-to-break-into-his-car

All saying the same at this point.

 

[Engine4]

Well, hopefully it'll be deemed ok since he was threatened on his property. Still very iffy though.

 

[Don H]

If the vehicle was parked on his property (and not on the public street) and the individual came at the owner with a weapon (screwdriver) would he be justified in using deadly force?

 

[DC-W]

Found this in Balt. County Code. Interesting stuff:

https://www.municode.com/library/md...deId=ART17MIPROF_TIT2FIWE_S17-2-101DIFIWEMEDI

§ 17-2-101. - DISCHARGING FIREARM OR WEAPON IN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT.







(a)
Prohibition. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person may not fire or discharge a crossbow, pistol, air pistol, gas-propelled pistol, rifle, air rifle, gas-propelled rifle, or shotgun within:
(1)
The limits of the metropolitan district of the county;
(2)
A nondistrict enclave within the metropolitan district; or
(3)
An appendage attached to the metropolitan district.
(b)
Duty to post metropolitan district. The Police Department shall post in the county courthouse and in every police station and substation throughout the county, accurate maps designating the locations of the boundary lines of the metropolitan district established according to the Code.
(c)
Exception. This section does not prohibit:
(1)
A licensed hunter from discharging a shotgun, properly hunting in season using a shotgun that contains no heavier than No. 2 shot; or
(2)
A person from discharging or firing a crossbow, pistol, air pistol, gas-propelled pistol, rifle, air rifle, gas-propelled rifle, or shotgun:
(i)
On a permanently located, properly posted, and bona fide target range, the location of which has been filed with the Police Department;
(ii)
When reasonably necessary for the defense of life or property;
(iii)
As part of a military occasion when the discharge is done under the orders of a commanding officer; or
(iv)
As part of a deer cooperator program under the authority granted to the Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with the county, to reduce the wildlife population of protected wildlife determined to be overpopulated.
(d)
Automatic weapons.
(1)
In this subsection "automatic weapon" means any weapon capable of firing multiple shots with one depression of the trigger.
(2)
Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a person may not fire or discharge an automatic weapon in the county.
(1988 Code, § 20-41) (Bill No. 169-93, § 1, 1-27-1994; Bill No. 114-99, § 3, 7-1-2004; Bill No. 13-00, § 1, 3-10-2000; Bill No. 73-03, § 22, 7-1-2004; Bill No. 21-11, § 1, 6-20-2011)

 

[daNattyFatty]

If the vehicle was parked on his property (and not on the public street) and the individual came at the owner with a weapon (screwdriver) would he be justified in using deadly force?

If you're confronted with deadly force and then defend yourself with deadly force, a case can be made that you acted legally.

What we're concerned with is that (based only on news reports, mind you) it seems that the owner may have inserted themselves into the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[clandestine]

Good shoot in my eyes. Defense of self and property does not begin and end at a dwellings doorway.

People have been brainwashed into thinking one should run away and avoid protecting what you have.

When the public and politicians say your life and property is not sacred then you have no rights.

 

[daNattyFatty]

Good shoot in my eyes. Defense of self and property does not begin and end at a dwellings doorway.

People have been brainwashed into thinking one should run away and avoid protecting what you have.

When the public and politicians say your life and property is not sacred then you have no rights.

I think we all wholeheartedly agree with that. But this is Maryland, and we have that debacle that the AA County State's attorney proceeded on a couple years ago....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[swinokur]

The guy left his house to defend his property with deadly force?

In MD he's toast.

 

[clandestine]

I think we all wholeheartedly agree with that. But this is Maryland, and we have that debacle that the AA County State's attorney proceeded on a couple years ago....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Understood my friend.

The guy left his house to defend his property with deadly force?

In MD he's toast.

This is what I mean regarding the brainwashing.

I see it completely different. Why does one have to cower and let someone take your property? Why do you have to wait for L.E. to act in your own interests?

Think about that. Do you REALLY own ANYTHING when others get to determine how you get to maintain and defend what you have worked for?

It is your property, and if it is really your property, then why do others get to determine its "value" in regards to protecting said property?


Im done. Here is how I would have phrased your summary.


"The law abiding homeowner legally armed himself for his own self defense when he heard noises outside his home. The homeowner went outside because someone was attempting to take or destroy his property.

The homeowner discovered a criminal attempting to take his property and gain unlawful enrty into an occupied dwelling. The homeowner was attacked by the criminal with a screwdriver and the homeowner defended himself.

The homeowner was on his OWN property when the shooting occurred.

In America, this is how free men live and bad men die."

 

[Mr H]

Well said, Lord Chad

To take the 'in the home' thought a little further...

I carry more often than not on my little quarter-acre of freedom. If I'm in the back yard, hear a commotion in the front, there is no reason under law for me not to go around the house to see what's up. If I'm confronted or threatened on my property outside the house, it's still a threat.

I shouldn't be forced to go THROUGH the house, wait in the doorway, and only react once the threat comes indoors.

 

[zoostation]

In my personal and totally worthless opinion, the homeowner will be okay legally. Some people will question whether he should have gone outside with a rifle but it isn't illegal to carry a rifle around on your own property. And if the baddie came at him with a screwdriver it is in my eyes then a deadly force situation. A screwdriver can kill you just as dead with a hole or two as a knife can. And prosecutors absolutely hate to prosecute use of force by homeowner situations, if there is even anything to make a case on. Which I am not seeing with what I have read so far.

 

[Stoveman]

Long gun OC.

 

[swinokur]

It's MD Jury instructions from a judge. I'm not saying the guy wasn't legally entitled to do what he did. We don't know if a jury will consider a screw driver a use of deadly force. It's MD and the SA might focus on disparity of force.Simply that sometimesMD law and juries don't look at our rights the way we do.

I want to repeat I think the guy was legally entitled to do what he did.

Only MD is full of people who serve on juries and don't look at our rights as we do.
.

 

[Fox123]

What I don't know is did he have a "duty to retreat" before using deadly force?

 

[swinokur]

I'm sure if he's prosecuted the SA will focus on the fact that he was not in his house. I don't know if Castle Doctrine extends to your property as well as your actual house.

 

[BeoBill]

My personal opinion:

Everything now depends on two decisions - does the SA think he "was in fear for his life"; and if that doesn't go his way, does the jury think he "was in fear for his life".

Remember your training. The location matters, but not as much as the answer to that question.