What are armed citizens in Balitmore doing?
- Thread starter Redstate
- Start date
- Status
danez71
Member
The entire concealed carry revolution wasn't started from people wanting to protect their house. It's to protect themselves.
I'd guess there is 100+ threads started right here about CC.... and I'd bet some bucks that no one ever said "I want to CC so I can protect my house".
Find 1 thread that gives that reason. Then I'll give a little bit of credibility to that comment.
Can you even name 5 states that the "Castle Doctrine" extends to businesses For the purpose of defending property? That's less then 10% of our states.
Wikipedia has a good rundown of which states extend castle doctrine to business'.
Hint: it isn't just Texas.
Oh, and my line about why concealed carry took off was in reference to "protecting" not in reference to castle doctrine. I was obviously not clear.
Hint: it isn't just Texas.
Oh, and my line about why concealed carry took off was in reference to "protecting" not in reference to castle doctrine. I was obviously not clear.
Last edited:
Extremely poor analogy.
In this scenario the business and homeowners didn't jump into a 'Lions Den', the 'Lions' came into their place of business or home and then proceeded to steal, vandalize and burn through the threat of force and trying to intimidate others by being in a violent mob. The homeowner and business owner didn't go anywhere to put themselves into harms way, the mob came to them in order to prey on them.
Pretty sick of this entitlement culture. They aren't owed anything.
Red Wind
Member
Marylander's are resilient people. My much older USMC brother lived there from 1952 until he died in 1987 of a massive heart attack. Even though a 6 year veteran of the USMC (1940-1946) and Guadalcanal Purple Heart recipient he was almost a paranoid anti gunner. So, who can tell?
But they tend to be passive. As in New Jersey, our birth state, centuries of anti gun anti weapon laws permeated the popular minds. As a result, so many, do so little to protect their lives and property, particularly in the metro area of Baltimore, the only mega population part of the state,
I love Maryland, my brother is buried there. I've lived there, but I grieve for the state.
Look at its present condition. The Mayor of the City of Baltimore should have been removed from office Saturday, after stating the "protesters should have the space to destroy".The Governor waited way too long to deploy the National Guard.
This is Anarchy, pure and simple ,from the 1890's playbook.
But they tend to be passive. As in New Jersey, our birth state, centuries of anti gun anti weapon laws permeated the popular minds. As a result, so many, do so little to protect their lives and property, particularly in the metro area of Baltimore, the only mega population part of the state,
I love Maryland, my brother is buried there. I've lived there, but I grieve for the state.
Look at its present condition. The Mayor of the City of Baltimore should have been removed from office Saturday, after stating the "protesters should have the space to destroy".The Governor waited way too long to deploy the National Guard.
This is Anarchy, pure and simple ,from the 1890's playbook.
I responded to one post, not the general thread, so the reply is pertinent.
You may have the luxury of choice after choosing the submit yourself to the mercy of an armed robber (subject of your post), but submitting is also likely to leave you with no further choices.
I have no business in a vulnerable location. If I did, I'd familiarize myself with the applicable laws regarding protecting it in such circumstances, and make decisions accordingly.
Agree.
Snejdarek
Member
You wouldn't believe the puzzled faces of Czechs to whom I say that there are places in US where it is much more difficult to legally concealed carry than it is in the Czech Republic... like Baltimore.
Something tells me this thread has drifted waaaaayyyyy off the original topic of "how are the armed citizens of Baltimore dealign with temporary unrest," and into the morality of killing to defend one's property... I was actually interested in the OP, and in discussing how people in other towns where there has been upheaval deal with such things.
Any thoughts going back to the OP?
As for me, when we have high-risk times, we just kind of go on alert. I carry a sidearm around the house, as does my wife. Long guns are within arms reach, and we keep the news on and check on it every half hour or so. We don't make ourselves nuts, and go about our regular chores. If we have warning that some bad stuff is on the way, we would hop in the car and evac the area before it hit. Fortunately, we've never made it past step one. It's a safe area.
Any thoughts going back to the OP?
As for me, when we have high-risk times, we just kind of go on alert. I carry a sidearm around the house, as does my wife. Long guns are within arms reach, and we keep the news on and check on it every half hour or so. We don't make ourselves nuts, and go about our regular chores. If we have warning that some bad stuff is on the way, we would hop in the car and evac the area before it hit. Fortunately, we've never made it past step one. It's a safe area.
Aragon
member
Same to you...
One man was definitely killed by Korean grocers (friendly fire), could've been a couple of others in there as well. No arrests.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...s-riots-remember-the-63-people-who-died-.html
http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/la-riots-deaths/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/for-22-murder-victims-la-riots-leave-legacy-justice-eluded/
Also doesn't take into account the 2,300 people injured in the riots who didn't die, some of which who could've been shot by the Koreans. Trauma centers (even back then) are pretty good.
Red Wind
Member
This is Anarchy. It cannot work. You live with it and die with it,
TimSr
Member
You forgot the other COMMON scenario. You give him your wallet, and your cell phone, and blows you away anyways, and if you survive, you're forever saying to yourself, "I can't a believe a criminal would lie to me".
I am. Who'da'thunk'it about Mairyland? They have been in the news for pulling over people from out of state because they check to see if they have a CCW or not and they pull them over to see if they're carrying. That's the kind of thing I've come to expect from Muscle Mary Land.
Baltimore Channel 11 had a clip early on in the disturbance, where a group of individuals rushed into a Seven-Eleven: once they entered, they immediately came running back out, almost knocking each other over to get away from there. Individual walked up, stuck his head in the door and immediately took off running also.
No commentary connected with the clip, so what you saw was about it: But, I suspect the proprietor met them with a weapon.
Reminded me of the Los Angles Koreans defending there stores.
Sorry I don't have any additional info.
No commentary connected with the clip, so what you saw was about it: But, I suspect the proprietor met them with a weapon.
Reminded me of the Los Angles Koreans defending there stores.
Sorry I don't have any additional info.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
...and the much more pertinent fifth scenario: "I heard a guy and his buddies were going to forcibly rob me in the coming hours, so me/mine packed up & got the hell out of Dodge until it was over or we could mount a successful offensive without getting shot at"
TCB
danez71
Member
Ahhh... I understand about the CC now. But I still find it very hard to believe that the CC push is because people are looking to protect their property. That may be part of it. But not the overwhelming reason by any stretch.
I looked at the wiki page. Yes, several states extend it to place of business but 'property' wasn't listed as a justifiable reason. I even clicked on the links to the state statutes when provided.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
My homeland was stolen in Ireland and Prussia by governments working at the behest of landed gentry. The homestead my ancestors tilled in Texas lies beneath Lake Buchanan courtesy of the Lower Colorado River Authority working to build reservoirs at the pleasure of --you guessed it-- more wealthy landed gentry who wished to irrigate arid land they had bought cheap years before. We got a fabulously wealthy state and enormous cities out of it, so I suppose it was for the best (granted, it may well be re-exposed by this point). Land is no more or less transitory than mere currency when looking through the lens of generations; may your holdings last a thousand years. My ancestors' land in Prussia probably stayed in family (or clan, or whatever) about that long...until one day it didn't.
The notion of defending 'mere' property unto death is only justified when it is irreparably linked with self defense. It all comes back to self defense. This is why Texas has its "outdated" laws about lethal defense of critical property. A man stealing your horse in Big Bend is a murderer; a man stealing your tent in winter has brought possibly lethal force down upon you; a man stealing your insulin might as well be putting a bullet in your ear if you can't get a replacement in time. It isn't outdated, as so many like to say, just rarely applicable in our helpfully triple-redundant society, where any given loss of property is unlikely to bring death as a matter of course. There are still times where it can be, though, and the law respects that.
If your homestead is so isolated and your holdings so fragile that its loss would cast your very existence into uncertainty, you can be justified before your Maker in defending it unto death. That's what your ancestors had to do. Nowadays, we have insurance companies to keep us alive long enough to start over, or recover as best as possible. It used to be life insurance was the only kind available, and was intended to pay for funeral expenses, which is why defense of your livelihood was akin to defense of your life (there was also a lot less wealth to be found and exploited back then, so "starting over" wasn't always a practical alternative like it is now). With modern protections, the only real justification would be if you were caught unawares, and were unable to escape an assault on your property; in that case you bet you better fight tooth and claw, and hope you/yours can hold out long enough to prevail or for help to arrive. But the rioters about which this thread was started, rarely 'sneak up' on anywhere after the first few hours --especially if they have to hoof it miles out of town just to get to you.
My ancestors in Prussia were subsistence dairy farmers. One day, Bismarck's men arrived and took all the food, some property, and slaughtered one of the cattle in front of the family before consuming it in their home --all without compensation. The head of the family was smart enough to realize the extent of the lawlessness that would surely follow ahead of time, and left their considerable possessions (land, home, dairy, farms, property) behind before Bismarck's insane march to unify the Germans could rain down violence upon them a second time. Armed resistance would have been utterly insane and unproductive, compared with the decision that was ultimately made.
Uh huh. Is that semantics or just a tax dodge? Because your description sure sounds a lot more like a beloved ancestral home than a place of work (not that it can't be both, obviously, but few would 'defend to the death' their corporate drudgetoriums). Thanks again for your "sympathies," I'm sure I can endure it. I pray your pride is similarly thin if you ever have to make the unfortunate choice between standing or running when given sufficient warning.
TCB
TimSr
Member
Its funny how positions get twisted to extremes, and then people argue with the extreme that nobody has suggested. The strawman techinque was perfected by our current POTUS. I guess I could say that I cannot believe people would allow somebidy to back into their drivway and start unloading their garage, while holding the door for them and serving them lemonade.
I have no doubts that there are probably some states that make it illegal to interfere with criminal activity in process on your own property. Mine isn't one of them.
I doubt anybody posting would shoot somebody for stealing as the argument has been framed by those who would prefer to stand by and watch. In 25 years I've stopped two thieves and a vandal, and a peeping tom (next door) in the act. Once I apprehended a thief riding MY ATV a week after it was stolen, and held him for police. I never had to point even point my weapon at anyone. I did make it obvious I was carrying one. (and Once, I was foolishly unarmed.)
When you confront criminals on your property, the most common response is that they will run for it.
The second most common response it they will submit to waiting for the police to arrive.
The other near impossible scenario, that I've never heard of is that they will continue breaking into your garage or shed, and taking your stuff even though you are standing there watching and yelling at them. No, you cannot shoot them, (but they don't know you know that). In my state you can use the necessary physical force to prevent the theft. If that results in them pulling a deadly weapon, the circumstances change greatly.
It is the extremely rare occasion that the would be thief might attack you rather than flee, even if armed, especially when it is obvious you are armed. These are people who steal, vandalize, and loot because they have been allowed to by the local politicians, who give orders to the police. Why do they all pick the same night to loot and set fires? Because the plliticians have announced that the police have been ordered to stand by and watch.
But lets say a half dozen local gang bangers bust out the window enter my auto repair garage, which I am sitting in with my shotgun because I know this is "gang banger freedom day". I yell "get out, get out now, I have a gun", and 4 of them flee, but two of them don't believe me, and decide to come at me, and one pulls a weapon.
No, I'd never shoot somebody for stealing, but I would shoot somebody who was willing to take me out in order to do it, and I would CONSIDER putting myself in a position where that determination could be made, if it meant saving my property, and after considering the risks. If he is willing to kill me to steal my stuff and burn down my shop, when he has been given the opportunity to flee, then he has either hurt people before, or will almost certainly do so in the future, so I won't lose any sleep for what you might call "shooting somebody for taking or destroying material objects". If I watch them cart away my stuff, I can be assured they will be back with a bigger cart. I'm fine with explaining why I was in my own garage at night with a shotgun to a jury. Every important decision in life is a gamble, and I feel my odds are better with local courts than unfettered thugs.
I have no doubts that there are probably some states that make it illegal to interfere with criminal activity in process on your own property. Mine isn't one of them.
I doubt anybody posting would shoot somebody for stealing as the argument has been framed by those who would prefer to stand by and watch. In 25 years I've stopped two thieves and a vandal, and a peeping tom (next door) in the act. Once I apprehended a thief riding MY ATV a week after it was stolen, and held him for police. I never had to point even point my weapon at anyone. I did make it obvious I was carrying one. (and Once, I was foolishly unarmed.)
When you confront criminals on your property, the most common response is that they will run for it.
The second most common response it they will submit to waiting for the police to arrive.
The other near impossible scenario, that I've never heard of is that they will continue breaking into your garage or shed, and taking your stuff even though you are standing there watching and yelling at them. No, you cannot shoot them, (but they don't know you know that). In my state you can use the necessary physical force to prevent the theft. If that results in them pulling a deadly weapon, the circumstances change greatly.
It is the extremely rare occasion that the would be thief might attack you rather than flee, even if armed, especially when it is obvious you are armed. These are people who steal, vandalize, and loot because they have been allowed to by the local politicians, who give orders to the police. Why do they all pick the same night to loot and set fires? Because the plliticians have announced that the police have been ordered to stand by and watch.
But lets say a half dozen local gang bangers bust out the window enter my auto repair garage, which I am sitting in with my shotgun because I know this is "gang banger freedom day". I yell "get out, get out now, I have a gun", and 4 of them flee, but two of them don't believe me, and decide to come at me, and one pulls a weapon.
No, I'd never shoot somebody for stealing, but I would shoot somebody who was willing to take me out in order to do it, and I would CONSIDER putting myself in a position where that determination could be made, if it meant saving my property, and after considering the risks. If he is willing to kill me to steal my stuff and burn down my shop, when he has been given the opportunity to flee, then he has either hurt people before, or will almost certainly do so in the future, so I won't lose any sleep for what you might call "shooting somebody for taking or destroying material objects". If I watch them cart away my stuff, I can be assured they will be back with a bigger cart. I'm fine with explaining why I was in my own garage at night with a shotgun to a jury. Every important decision in life is a gamble, and I feel my odds are better with local courts than unfettered thugs.
xxleafybugxx
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2015
- Messages
- 41
For the record,
I was using this scenario like my house and family was in danger.. not my business. I'd be away from my business in this instance.
I was using this scenario like my house and family was in danger.. not my business. I'd be away from my business in this instance.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,132
I had a disturbing thought the other night. I read a news source that said the mayor was encouraging officers NOT to arrest black rioters, as that would make the issue worse. I am not sure how insurance law works in Maryland, but most places require a police report for damage done to businesses. How can the owners file for the insurance money to rebuild/repair/relocate if there won't be a police report to send to the insurance agency?
Or better yet, fanning the flames in hopes of federal "recovery money"Snyper
Member
It seems Maryland does allow the use of deadly force to protect property:
Snyper
Member
Making arrests and taking reports are totally different things.
You can have one without the other
DevsAdvocate
Member
...and cops. But they're just as bad.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
