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.

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.

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.



===

That, and apparently he forgets that he likes in Maryland, which as I
understand it, is not a Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine state.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:07:14 -0500,
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.



===

That, and apparently he forgets that he likes in Maryland, which as I
understand it, is not a Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine state.

There is no stand your ground there and the castle doctrine only
applies if you are in imminent danger and you have no safe way to
retreat. Basically if you are trapped in the bedroom you might be able
to use deadly force but if there is a door behind you, you are obliged
to run out. There also needs to be a credible threat, like a weapon
and an overt act. Blowing a guy away who is just snooping around in
the living room will usually get you charged.
I am sure Harry knows a cop who says he can blow the guy away but the
cops let Zimmermann go too. That doesn't mean the prosecutor will let
it go, particularly if it is put on the news in a bad light.
The interpretation I cited was presented in court when my former
roomie was being convicted of murder. The question from the prosecutor
that sunk him was "could have escaped if you tried"? "Yes", "Then
deadly force was not your only option was it".
Certainly an out of shape septuagenarian may present as a more
sympathetic defendant that a 23 year old Force Recon Marine but that
is how the law gets read. I am sure that if anything, they are more
strict about it. As I said Harry better hope the guy he shoots is not
an "honor student who just went astray" like Trayvonn and he better
have more competent council than my friend. (who should have never
been on the stand in the first place)

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.

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)

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.

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."