On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:55:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The responsibility to terminate SS payments for my dad, mother and my
wife's dad and mother fell on me for some reason. No problem or issues
and no requirement to appear in person. Just filled out the required
paperwork and submitted with a copy of the death certificates. Payments
stopped immediately.


When I asked about they told me not to bother, SSA was the first
people the funeral home contacts. Just don't try to spend the money.
The claw back was about 2 months later.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:11:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/19/2018 6:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 4:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:35 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I’m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see
him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


But you would execute a Feral dog for being aggressive.


No different than I would treat a violent home invader... .357
Magnum in
the center of body mass.


So you are really for executions.

Only if he gets to do it I guess.
In Maryland, I hope he has a good lawyer, the intruder has a gun,
actually gets off a round and the intruder is white.


Absurd. You boys need to learn how to read.
There's no requirement I let a "violent home invader" do whatever he
wants to the people who live here after he breaks into the house. I'm a
male in my 70s...no prosecutor is going to come after me for defending
myself or my wife in the circumstances I described. Someone breaks in
while we are at home and is threatening our lives, and the last thing he
will hear is the report of a .357 Magnum self-defense round coming out
of my S&W revolver.

When one is in one's home, 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). Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963)




You may not be charged with anything for defending yourself but you
might be subject to a civil lawsuit for wrongful death by the relatives
of the perp. That said though, if it comes down to him or you (or your
wife) there's no question what the decision should be.

The presence of a 3d party goes a long way toward the defense if you
shoot someone but the operative word in Harry's citation is
"attacker". You have to demonstrate "forcible felony" AND "imminent
threat" not just that your "personal space" was invaded.

On 1/19/2018 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:11:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/19/2018 6:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 4:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:35 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I’m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see
him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


But you would execute a Feral dog for being aggressive.


No different than I would treat a violent home invader... .357
Magnum in
the center of body mass.


So you are really for executions.

Only if he gets to do it I guess.
In Maryland, I hope he has a good lawyer, the intruder has a gun,
actually gets off a round and the intruder is white.


Absurd. You boys need to learn how to read.
There's no requirement I let a "violent home invader" do whatever he
wants to the people who live here after he breaks into the house. I'm a
male in my 70s...no prosecutor is going to come after me for defending
myself or my wife in the circumstances I described. Someone breaks in
while we are at home and is threatening our lives, and the last thing he
will hear is the report of a .357 Magnum self-defense round coming out
of my S&W revolver.

When one is in one's home, 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). Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963)




You may not be charged with anything for defending yourself but you
might be subject to a civil lawsuit for wrongful death by the relatives
of the perp. That said though, if it comes down to him or you (or your
wife) there's no question what the decision should be.

The presence of a 3d party goes a long way toward the defense if you
shoot someone but the operative word in Harry's citation is
"attacker". You have to demonstrate "forcible felony" AND "imminent
threat" not just that your "personal space" was invaded.



Don't know about Maryland laws but in some states, including mine, an
attack on a senior (I think it's someone 60 or older) is a much more
serious crime. Hitting someone under 60 is most often a misdemeanor.
In Massachusetts, hitting or assaulting someone over 60 is a felony.

On 1/19/18 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:11:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/19/2018 6:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 4:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:35 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I’m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see
him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


But you would execute a Feral dog for being aggressive.


No different than I would treat a violent home invader... .357
Magnum in
the center of body mass.


So you are really for executions.

Only if he gets to do it I guess.
In Maryland, I hope he has a good lawyer, the intruder has a gun,
actually gets off a round and the intruder is white.


Absurd. You boys need to learn how to read.
There's no requirement I let a "violent home invader" do whatever he
wants to the people who live here after he breaks into the house. I'm a
male in my 70s...no prosecutor is going to come after me for defending
myself or my wife in the circumstances I described. Someone breaks in
while we are at home and is threatening our lives, and the last thing he
will hear is the report of a .357 Magnum self-defense round coming out
of my S&W revolver.

When one is in one's home, 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). Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963)




You may not be charged with anything for defending yourself but you
might be subject to a civil lawsuit for wrongful death by the relatives
of the perp. That said though, if it comes down to him or you (or your
wife) there's no question what the decision should be.

The presence of a 3d party goes a long way toward the defense if you
shoot someone but the operative word in Harry's citation is
"attacker". You have to demonstrate "forcible felony" AND "imminent
threat" not just that your "personal space" was invaded.


It would be helpful to read my post (I don't mean you, Greg) before
commenting about the legal penalties I might face. As in "violent home
invader," "threatening" "prevent from committing a felony...force,
violence, surprise, et cetera."

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 01:05:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I?m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


Then you need to stop wishing for the death of Hearing and others
you don't like or disagree with.

He is for executions.

He only seems to wish the death of people who make him look silly on
the internet. Illegal alien murders and cop killers deserve a pass.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:56:36 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/19/18 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:11:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/19/2018 6:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 4:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:35 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I’m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see
him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


But you would execute a Feral dog for being aggressive.


No different than I would treat a violent home invader... .357
Magnum in
the center of body mass.


So you are really for executions.

Only if he gets to do it I guess.
In Maryland, I hope he has a good lawyer, the intruder has a gun,
actually gets off a round and the intruder is white.


Absurd. You boys need to learn how to read.
There's no requirement I let a "violent home invader" do whatever he
wants to the people who live here after he breaks into the house. I'm a
male in my 70s...no prosecutor is going to come after me for defending
myself or my wife in the circumstances I described. Someone breaks in
while we are at home and is threatening our lives, and the last thing he
will hear is the report of a .357 Magnum self-defense round coming out
of my S&W revolver.

When one is in one's home, 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). Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963)




You may not be charged with anything for defending yourself but you
might be subject to a civil lawsuit for wrongful death by the relatives
of the perp. That said though, if it comes down to him or you (or your
wife) there's no question what the decision should be.

The presence of a 3d party goes a long way toward the defense if you
shoot someone but the operative word in Harry's citation is
"attacker". You have to demonstrate "forcible felony" AND "imminent
threat" not just that your "personal space" was invaded.


It would be helpful to read my post (I don't mean you, Greg) before
commenting about the legal penalties I might face. As in "violent home
invader," "threatening" "prevent from committing a felony...force,
violence, surprise, et cetera."

I am just pointing out you also need to demonstrate "imminent threat"
and they can hold the "obligation to retreat" over your head. This is
based in sitting in court and watching a friend being convicted (Upper
Marlboro) not some hypothetical conversation with a cop.
That is the difference between where you are and a "stand your ground"
state.
Certainly if a guy comes into your bedroom with a weapon you are
backed into the corner and you shoot him in the front, you probably
won't be charged but I would still want to call my lawyer before I
said **** to anyone. If he turns to run and you shoot him anyway plan
on big trouble.

wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 01:05:36 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I?m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


Then you need to stop wishing for the death of Hearing and others
you don't like or disagree with.

He is for executions.

He only seems to wish the death of people who make him look silly on
the internet. Illegal alien murders and cop killers deserve a pass.


Feral dogs also.

wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:56:36 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/19/18 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:11:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/19/2018 6:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 4:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:35 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I’m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see
him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


But you would execute a Feral dog for being aggressive.


No different than I would treat a violent home invader... .357
Magnum in
the center of body mass.


So you are really for executions.

Only if he gets to do it I guess.
In Maryland, I hope he has a good lawyer, the intruder has a gun,
actually gets off a round and the intruder is white.


Absurd. You boys need to learn how to read.
There's no requirement I let a "violent home invader" do whatever he
wants to the people who live here after he breaks into the house. I'm a
male in my 70s...no prosecutor is going to come after me for defending
myself or my wife in the circumstances I described. Someone breaks in
while we are at home and is threatening our lives, and the last thing he
will hear is the report of a .357 Magnum self-defense round coming out
of my S&W revolver.

When one is in one's home, 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). Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963)




You may not be charged with anything for defending yourself but you
might be subject to a civil lawsuit for wrongful death by the relatives
of the perp. That said though, if it comes down to him or you (or your
wife) there's no question what the decision should be.

The presence of a 3d party goes a long way toward the defense if you
shoot someone but the operative word in Harry's citation is
"attacker". You have to demonstrate "forcible felony" AND "imminent
threat" not just that your "personal space" was invaded.


It would be helpful to read my post (I don't mean you, Greg) before
commenting about the legal penalties I might face. As in "violent home
invader," "threatening" "prevent from committing a felony...force,
violence, surprise, et cetera."

I am just pointing out you also need to demonstrate "imminent threat"
and they can hold the "obligation to retreat" over your head. This is
based in sitting in court and watching a friend being convicted (Upper
Marlboro) not some hypothetical conversation with a cop.
That is the difference between where you are and a "stand your ground"
state.
Certainly if a guy comes into your bedroom with a weapon you are
backed into the corner and you shoot him in the front, you probably
won't be charged but I would still want to call my lawyer before I
said **** to anyone. If he turns to run and you shoot him anyway plan
on big trouble.


Better spin him around and shoot his front. I shot twice as he came
threatening me. First bullet must have spun him around.

On 1/19/2018 8:56 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:11:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/19/2018 6:30 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 4:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 20:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 12:35 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/19/18 11:21 AM, wrote:
On 19 Jan 2018 15:56:15 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:



Nope. I’m not a racist.

You like guys like this I guess. I bet you don't even want to see
him
executed,
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...194874024.html


I am opposed to the death penalty, even for scumbags like the one
described in the article you cited.


But you would execute a Feral dog for being aggressive.


No different than I would treat a violent home invader... .357
Magnum in
the center of body mass.


So you are really for executions.

Only if he gets to do it I guess.
In Maryland, I hope he has a good lawyer, the intruder has a gun,
actually gets off a round and the intruder is white.


Absurd. You boys need to learn how to read.
There's no requirement I let a "violent home invader" do whatever he
wants to the people who live here after he breaks into the house. I'm a
male in my 70s...no prosecutor is going to come after me for defending
myself or my wife in the circumstances I described. Someone breaks in
while we are at home and is threatening our lives, and the last
thing he
will hear is the report of a .357 Magnum self-defense round coming out
of my S&W revolver.

When one is in one's home, 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). Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 190 A.2d 538 (1963)




You may not be charged with anything for defending yourself but you
might be subject to a civil lawsuit for wrongful death by the relatives
of the perp.Â* That said though, if it comes down to him or you (or your
wife) there's no question what the decision should be.

The presence of a 3d party goes a long way toward the defense if you
shoot someone but the operative word in Harry's citation is
"attacker".Â* You have to demonstrate "forcible felony" AND "imminent
threat" not just that your "personal space" was invaded.


It would be helpful to read my post (I don't mean you, Greg) before
commenting about the legal penalties I might face. As in "violent home
invader," "threatening" "prevent from committing a felony...force,
violence, surprise, et cetera."


OJ was charged with the murder of two people and was found not guilty.
In a follow-up civil case he was charged with wrongful death (of the
same people) and found guilty.

Certainty qualifies as "threatening with force, violence .. etc."