Defensive gun use in Halethorpe

[Blaster229]

If I go outside with a firearm, it isn't to protect property, it's to protect my life when I go outside to see what's happening on my property. Now, if a stranger happens to attack me with a deadly weapon, it's game on. It isn't that he shot the guy because he was in the act of stealing property unarmed. He was shot because he attacked the homeowner with a weapon.

 

[GUNSnROTORS]

If I go outside with a firearm, it isn't to protect property, it's to protect my life when I go outside to see what's happening on my property. Now, if a stranger happens to attack me with a deadly weapon, it's game on. It isn't that he shot the guy because he was in the act of stealing property unarmed. He was shot because he attacked the homeowner with a weapon.

Very well said.

 

[protegeV]

If I go outside with a firearm, it isn't to protect property, it's to protect my life when I go outside to see what's happening on my property. Now, if a stranger happens to attack me with a deadly weapon, it's game on. It isn't that he shot the guy because he was in the act of stealing property unarmed. He was shot because he attacked the homeowner with a weapon.

That's exactly what I was trying to convey. You said it a little more succinctly

 

[Blaster229]

That's exactly what I was trying to convey. You said it a little more succinctly

That's because it's only 10 a.m. and I am not hammered yet.

 

[cryptoman]

If I go outside with a firearm, it isn't to protect property, it's to protect my life when I go outside to see what's happening on my property. Now, if a stranger happens to attack me with a deadly weapon, it's game on. It isn't that he shot the guy because he was in the act of stealing property unarmed. He was shot because he attacked the homeowner with a weapon.

I would never condemn anyone for protecting their property. In this case the homeowner did something I personally would not have done (that does not mean he was wrong). If I looked through my security camera and saw someone in my truck I would not have picked up my AR-15 and gone outside to investigate. To me that would be an unnecessary escalation. In principal, I get it; no one should have the right to invade my property and steal from me, and don't get me wrong, I would be angry about it. I might feel differently if my vehicle had all my work tools in it and not showing up to the job site on time might cost me my livelihood; I feel lucky that I don't have to worry about that - so I would never condemn anyone if they feel differently. I think this has been a great exchange of thoughts in this thread.

 

[swinokur]

I think Blaster's point is he didn't go outside to protect his property. he went outside to investigate and took the firearm in case he needed to defend himself.

He did, and it seems like a good shoot because the perp attacked him. Had he shot the perp without being attacked it would be different.

That isn't what happened.

 

[Blaster229]

I think Blaster's point is he didn't go outside to protect his property. he went outside to investigate and took the firearm in case he needed to defend himself.

He did, and it seems like a good shoot because the perp attacked him. Had he shot the perp without being attacked it would be different.

That isn't what happened.

That's exactly my point. Now, how the guy's emotion was and what he said afterwards should be reserved and "smart", as to not be construed that he went out to "get the guy".

 

[tmd99]

Just an FYI, their deputies don't generally engage in law enforcement duties. They're basically courthouse security and serve orders and warrants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

meant Deputy States Attorneys in this particular post. i should have been clearer.

 

[protegeV]

That's because it's only 10 a.m. and I am not hammered yet.

 

[cowboy321]

That's exactly my point. Now, how the guy's emotion was and what he said afterwards should be reserved and "smart", as to not be construed that he went out to "get the guy".

Lets see if he is charged. Lucky he did not kill the teenager...

 

[moojersey]

Long gun OC.

Epic solution !!!!

 

[71Chevelle427]

Just throwin' this out there...

Filed Wednesday, http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...l.jis?caseId=5C00439864&loc=32&detailLoc=DSCR

Filed Wednesday from 11/30/16 http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...l.jis?caseId=4C00439863&loc=32&detailLoc=DSCR


I'd say the homeowner got lucky.

Hopefully, he remains lucky. Being that there are two current sets of charges, charging the POS criminal as an adult (and who knows how many things we cannot see due to being a juvenile)...one of them being a felony use of a firearm, it's unlikely that there will not be some sort of retaliation IMO.

 

[BigSteve57]

I sure hope it goes OK for the homeowner.
But I'm left wondering just how stupid does one have to be to attack someone, who is armed with a rifle, WITH A SCREWDRIVER?
Maybe the thief was hopped up on some substance.
Geesh.

 

[daNattyFatty]

I sure hope it goes OK for the homeowner.
But I'm left wondering just how stupid does one have to be to attack someone, who is armed with a rifle, WITH A SCREWDRIVER?
Maybe the thief was hopped up on some substance.
Geesh.

Maybe because it was still dark out and the suspect could only see the light from the WML?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mopar92]

Maybe because it was still dark out and the suspect could only see the light from the WML?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

THIS. A quality WML/"tactical" flashlight only lets the person on the other end see light. You don't see where its emanating from (aside from over there).Who's controlling it or what its attached too.

Suspect prolly got scared lunged with the screwdriver and got lucky. Homeowner prolly tried to subconsciously to parry the attack and let off a round. A justified round. You see it a lot in force on force. You concentrate on the threat and its immediate area (screwdriver and hand) and get hits there. You'll see a lot of people walking around with red fingers and backsides of hands after a FOF class before they break the habit.

 

[Dave Greenberg]

Mee thinks the property owner guy will lose all his gun ownership privileges for the rest of his life...

We aren't talking about driving nor are we talking about children owning cell phones. Gun ownership is a RIGHT not a privelege.

 

[cryptoman]

I think Blaster's point is he didn't go outside to protect his property. he went outside to investigate and took the firearm in case he needed to defend himself.

He did, and it seems like a good shoot because the perp attacked him. Had he shot the perp without being attacked it would be different.

That isn't what happened.

Investigation to me would be going outside when you hear a strange noise or something similar without knowing what is out there. In this case, the homeowner knew what was outside, because he saw the person in his truck through the security camera. He took his AR-15 outside and confronted the person; he would have never been attacked if he would have simply stayed inside. If you know someone is outside in your truck and you grab your rifle, then there has to be some sort of sense that you might have to shoot them, which I personally would not be willing to do over a truck. Legal - that will be for the district attorney to decide, Moral - that would have to depend on a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

 

[redeemed.man]

Investigation to me would be going outside when you hear a strange noise or something similar without knowing what is out there. In this case, the homeowner knew what was outside, because he saw the person in his truck through the security camera. He took his AR-15 outside and confronted the person; he would have never been attacked if he would have simply stayed inside. If you know someone is outside in your truck and you grab your rifle, then there has to be some sort of sense that you might have to shoot them, which I personally would not be willing to do over a truck. Legal - that will be for the district attorney to decide, Moral - that would have to depend on a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

The states attorney doesn't decide legality. The judge or jury does. I can't imagine a jury of peers nor a judge convicting in this case. Of course no one would want the legal expense of facing charges. I think it is safe to say that you have a right to alert a thief to your presence in the hopes that they discontinue the crime. Doing so unarmed would be foolish. I seriously doubt anyone believes this citizen grabbed the gun hoping he was going to shoot someone. I guess some folks would just rather the vehicle be stolen. I don't fall into that category. I need to work so I can't afford to have my vehicle missing, not even for a few days.

 

[cryptoman]

The states attorney doesn't decide legality. The judge or jury does. I can't imagine a jury of peers nor a judge convicting in this case. Of course no one would want the legal expense of facing charges. I think it is safe to say that you have a right to alert a thief to your presence in the hopes that they discontinue the crime. Doing so unarmed would be foolish. I seriously doubt anyone believes this citizen grabbed the gun hoping he was going to shoot someone. I guess some folks would just rather the vehicle be stolen. I don't fall into that category. I need to work so I can't afford to have my vehicle missing, not even for a few days.

I don't believe that he grabbed his gun in the hopes of shooting someone either, his behavior did not indicate that because he ordered the person out his truck. My personal feeling is that if I am going to bring a rifle and confront someone, then I would have to be willing to shoot them with it. At that time it would not be a legal decision, to me it would be a moral decision. I also understand that everyone is different and would never criticize anyone for making a decision I did not necessarily agree with.
I agree that the state's attorney does not decide legality, he presents his case based on a legal framework, the jury makes a finding based on that legal framework and the judge does the sentencing. The judge also decides legality when going over sentencing. I am glad no one was killed and hopefully everything will work out for the best.

 

[GUNSnROTORS]

Investigation to me would be going outside when you hear a strange noise or something similar without knowing what is out there. In this case, the homeowner knew what was outside, because he saw the person in his truck through the security camera. He took his AR-15 outside and confronted the person; he would have never been attacked if he would have simply stayed inside. If you know someone is outside in your truck and you grab your rifle, then there has to be some sort of sense that you might have to shoot them, which I personally would not be willing to do over a truck. Legal - that will be for the district attorney to decide, Moral - that would have to depend on a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

I think I get where you're coming from: In this scenario, there's no risk of me going to jail if I stay in my house. And there's no risk of the perp being injured or dying if I allow him to steal my property.

Maybe it's a stretch, but this philosophy reminds me of arguments made against LEOs initiating arrests when the use of deadly force is not warranted. When it goes bad there are cries of, "He was killed for speeding." No, he was killed because he resisted arrest and threatened an officer's life. If the perp decides to escalate the situation, it's not the officer's fault when he has to use deadly force against an elevated deadly threat. Similarly, if a thief chooses to attack me on my property, rather than stop or run away, what happens next is not my fault.