Deadly Force Provision in MD: Another poll


PDA






Bacchus
March 27, 2004, 07:47 AM
There's a poll on this page about whether homeowners should be able to defend themselves with deadly force:




http://www.nbc4.com/news/2947451/detail.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Deadly Force Provision in MD: Another poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bigjoegood1
March 27, 2004, 09:06 AM
Where crooks grow b*lls the size of church bells! When it comes down to my family's safety or some dishonest clown who wants to come in to my domicile uninvited, it'll be the same outcome every time. May God have mercy on his (and my) soul. I have no pity for burgulars.

greyhound
March 27, 2004, 09:13 AM
84 to 16 in our favor. (and note the wording says "to defend property")

Look for another MD poll to be swept under the rug, just like the 90/10 in favor of CCW.

(I know internet polls are sketchy at best; but methinks it might be different if people "voted for the right choice":rolleyes: )

Standing Wolf
March 27, 2004, 05:47 PM
Not only was the page horrendously slow and ugly, the poll wouldn't let me vote yes.

DorGunR
March 27, 2004, 06:23 PM
Do you think people should be allowed to use deadly force to protect their property?

YES.......84%
NO.......16%

strambo
March 27, 2004, 07:15 PM
It was interesting that the article text said "defend themselves against intruders" and the poll question used the word "property". Thats OK I knew what they really meant ;) and voted yes!

TimH
March 27, 2004, 07:39 PM
I can't believe some people voted no :rolleyes:

echo3mike
March 27, 2004, 07:40 PM
HB 1462 (pdf) (http://mlis.state.md.us/2004rs/bills/hb/hb1462f.rtf) introduced by Del Carmen Amadori.




FOR the purpose of establishing that a certain person who uses deadly force or force likely to cause death in the person's business establishment is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical injury to the person or an employee of the person's business establishment, if force is used against another who enters or has entered the person's business establishment unlawfully and forcibly; providing that a person is not civilly liable for any act arising from the use of deadly force or force likely to cause death in protecting or attempting to protect the person or an employee of the person's business establishment; providing that certain provisions of this Act apply to an owner, lessor, or supervisory employee of a business establishment; establishing that a person who uses deadly force or force likely to cause death in the person's residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical injury to the person or a member of the person's family or household, if the force is used against another who enters or has entered the person's residence unlawfully and forcibly; providing that a person is not civilly liable for any act arising from the use of deadly force or force likely to cause death in protecting or attempting to protect the person or a member of the person's family or household; defining a certain term; providing for the application of this Act; and generally relating to the use of deadly force in a business establishment or residence.


'Bout time. Part of me really wants to hear the BS arguments against this bill.

S.

4v50 Gary
March 28, 2004, 02:23 PM
84% yes to deadly force to protect property.

Highland Ranger
March 28, 2004, 05:07 PM
Person or property, what's the difference?

Property represents money and money represents time - my time, of which I have a limited amount.

So if someone steals something of mine they may not be taking my whole life but they are taking some part of it.

Having said that, I am sure they purposely phrased it that way to skew the vote because there are many who believe in the right of personal self defense but killing someone over a car, or a watch is horrific.

chaim
March 28, 2004, 06:06 PM
First the good new (poll results as of 6:10 PM EST), we are way ahead:
84%: Yes (you should be able to defend your home)
16%: no
Also there were 7801 yes votes.

The problem (bad news) is that 1459 people have so far voted against your right to defend your property, and that isn't just anti-gun since there is no mention of guns it is anti-any use of self-defense. Man, MD is such a sheeple state:banghead:


Now this bill, in conjunction with some other MD developments (some likely to be fairly long-term before they pan out) gives me some hope for MD. I think this should be on the list of bills we look out for. Something just galling about the prospect of defending yourself from an intruder or attacker and then spending your nest egg to defend yourself in court- add civil court and possible financial judgement as well and:barf: . First, lets defend MDers against civil judgements and lawyer fees even if you win in civil courts, then lets work on getting rid of some of the prosecutors in certain jurisdictions who will charge you with a crime even in cases that are cut and dry justified (like the Baltimore business owners mentioned in the article) and get rid of the "you have to run first" if you aren't in your home laws.

Jim K
March 28, 2004, 06:30 PM
In the civil arena, barring a statute to the contrary, anyone can sue anyone for anything. In the criminal area, Maryland common law prevails in the case of killing in self defense. Generally, a homeowner may use deadly force against anyone who unlawfully enters his home, and may assume, by the nature of that action that the intruder has the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The homeowner (or any legal resident) does not have to leave, retreat, give warning or make any attempt to evict the intruder.

But property outside the home is in a different category. The homeowner may not kill a trespasser simply for being on the property, and may not kill to protect property alone (e.g., kill a person stealing a vehicle from the driveway). If the trespasser or the car thief presents a weapon, then the homeowner is justified in using deadly force to protect himself, but that is not protection of property.

I might add that those rules apply in most other states. In Massachusetts, at least at one time, the homeowner had to retreat as far as possible, and even leave the home rather than using any force against an intruder. I believe the legislature, over the objections of rapists, killers, burglars and liberals changed the law.

Jim

chaim
March 28, 2004, 10:17 PM
. The homeowner may not kill a trespasser simply for being on the property, and may not kill to protect property alone (e.g., kill a person stealing a vehicle from the driveway).
I can't speak for everyone else, but for me that isn't what I advocate.


If the trespasser or the car thief presents a weapon, then the homeowner is justified in using deadly force to protect himself, but that is not protection of property.

In your home that is true, MD does have the "Castle Doctrine", however outside of your home in MD you are obligated to try to run or otherwise escape before meeting deadly force with deadly force. That escape attempt, or time lost looking for an out, can be the difference between life and death. That is one of many laws that I was talking about needing changed here.

Spot77
March 29, 2004, 05:12 PM
A scumbag is a scumbag.....but I'm not going to take his/her life for breaking into my car.




Now when a window gets shattered on my house, any body part that comes through it is going to get lead poisoning.:mad:

auldpharght
March 30, 2004, 11:49 PM
I'm a little surprised that my fellow Okies haven't touted our "Make My Day Law" that legitimizes and liberalizes the use of deadly force in the protection of one's life or the life of someone else in imminent danger while in one's home.

OTOH, our "Concealed Weapon License," provisions in the law attaches responsibility equal to authority. That means that if you pop the cap, you damn well better be able to convince the District Attorney or 12 jurors that you were justified in using deadly force.

FYI, in the tenets of criminal law, the taking of property never justifies the taking of life.

Auldpharght

yayarx7
March 31, 2004, 08:45 AM
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

If you enjoyed reading about "Deadly Force Provision in MD: Another poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!