What are armed citizens in Balitmore doing?

[Sam1911]

It seems Maryland does allow the use of deadly force to protect property:

The crimes in prevention of which life may be taken are such and only such as are committed by forcible means, violence, and surprise, such as murder, robbery, burglary, rape, or arson.

Note that it doesn't say "theft" though.

Theft is purely a property crime. Robbery is theft by use of force or threat of force against a person.

Burglary is breaking and entering a building to commit a theft, and would tend to land in the "Castle Doctrine" category where a person who's home is being broken and entered is granted the assumption of a direct threat against their person.

So it isn't really correct to say those are property crimes. The use of force accepted in those cases is for defense of life.

 

[HankB]

There's been some reasonable discussion here about the legal implications of using force - including deadly force - to protect self and property. Police, courts, the DA, etc., will all become involved if someone is killed by their victim, even if in the final analysis the killing is deemed to be legally justified.

Well and good - lethal force is never to be used lightly.

But it seems that a few people are falling over themselves to assert the right of thieves, looters, and just plain thugs to be safe when they're stealing or burning someone else's property - it's almost as if they've been taught to sympathize with the criminal - and make no attempt to defend what's theirs against a violent, unprovoked, assault. And the attitude seems to extend well beyond the legalities.

And that's sad.

 

[Plinkin' Logs]

I currently live in the greater Baltimore (Baltimore county not City) area, and I am far from disarmed. While I strongly disagree with many many many of the laws enforced by the so called Freestate, I am certainly not "unarmed" by far, and have my share of "evil black guns". Just because some of us live in Maryland does not mean that we care less about the second amendment then anyone else. Maryland certainly has made it difficult and frustrating for gun owners but that doesn't mean we are not here.

I grew up in Western Maryland (Garrett County, the end of that long stick part sticking off the end of the state to the west), which as far as the rest of Maryland is concerned, might as well be another state (or part of West Virginia ). To give you a frame of reference the MOST populated "city" in Garrett is Oakland with a population of a little under 1900.

I grew up in the mountains (Yes the Appalachian mountains are in MD too) here and was raised with fishing, hunting, camping and more importantly guns. My grandfather was the biggest Gun nut in all of Deep Creek. He had a collection of over 250-300 guns and was a dedicated hunter. There is a strong political disconnect between us and the rest of Maryland.

Many of the people in Garrett to this day exist off a subsistence living style and I admire them deeply for it.

Now onto what I did. I closed the blinds turned on WBAL and made sure all my HD guns were loaded and had a round in the chamber, but rioting never reached outside the city.

EDIT: Also to clarify MD does have a Castle doctrine, and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self, the defense of one's loved ones or innocent bystanders. I'm not a lawyer but I am pretty well aware of the laws in my home state as well as activism in the state to try and change things. From my skimming through of the posts there seems to be a few questions and erroneous statements about Maryland law. I would be happy to inform anyone interested in Maryland law if you are so interested, as it is a big part of the activism some of us are heavily invested in to try and change things in the state.

EDIT EDIT: Some of you might find this bit interesting. Not sure if the news in your parts of the country happened to show some the scenes on Monday where a group attempted to raid a 7-11. You can see from the helicopter, a group of maybe 7-10 people barge through the front door, only to seconds later be seen stumbling over each other hastily retreating at full speed. Obviously someone was armed behind the counter. I am still waiting for CNN to interview the individual behind the desk...

 

[Sam1911]

But it seems that a few people are falling over themselves to assert the right of thieves, looters, and just plain thugs to be safe when they're stealing or burning someone else's property - it's almost as if they've been taught to sympathize with the criminal - and make no attempt to defend what's theirs against a violent, unprovoked, assault. And the attitude seems to extend well beyond the legalities.

And that's sad.

Ok. Point that out. Show where someone is asserting the right of theives and looters to do their deeds. If you're going to claim something like that, you'd better back it up. (Or shut it up.)

 

[Officers'Wife]

I currently live in the greater Baltimore (Baltimore county not City) area, and I am far from disarmed. While I strongly disagree with many many many of the laws enforced by the so called Freestate, I am certainly not "unarmed" by far, and have my share of "evil black guns". Just because some of us live in Maryland does not mean that we care less about the second amendment then anyone else. Maryland certainly has made it difficult and frustrating for gun owners but that doesn't mean we are not here.



EDIT EDIT: Some of you might find this bit interesting. Not sure if the news in your parts of the country happened to show some the scenes on Monday where a group attempted to raid a 7-11. You can see from the helicopter, a group of maybe 7-10 people barge through the front door, only to seconds later be seen stumbling over each other hastily retreating at full speed. Obviously someone was armed behind the counter. I am still waiting for CNN to interview the individual behind the desk...

Hi Plinkin'

Just for the record, private conversations with a number of posters show they ( at least) are aware that most of the gun law idiocy comes from a relative small portion of any particular state. I see no reason to believe Maryland is any different.

As for your afterthought, prepare for a long wait. I suspect you will see the interview shortly after I get a reply from my weekly letter to the Washington Post asking why they haven't reported the shootings and "blood in the streets" they warned of after the Heller decision.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

There's been some reasonable discussion here about the legal implications of using force - including deadly force - to protect self and property. Police, courts, the DA, etc., will all become involved if someone is killed by their victim, even if in the final analysis the killing is deemed to be legally justified.

Well and good - lethal force is never to be used lightly.

But it seems that a few people are falling over themselves to assert the right of thieves, looters, and just plain thugs to be safe when they're stealing or burning someone else's property - it's almost as if they've been taught to sympathize with the criminal - and make no attempt to defend what's theirs against a violent, unprovoked, assault. And the attitude seems to extend well beyond the legalities.

And that's sad.

It is sad to see. It amazes me how folks can turn the criminal into a saint. My opinion is if you are breaking into anything of mine and I am inside, you can get ready to see multiple muzzle flashes. I don't sympathize with thugs who have entitlement issues and think they can steal things that other people worked hard to get and call it "protesting".

 

[Cee Zee]

it's almost as if they've been taught to sympathize with the criminal

It isn't the criminals I sympathize with. It's me. I don't want to spend years in prison for shooting a thug no matter how rotten the thug is. It isn't exactly going to make my life better to protect something I own if I go to prison and don't have access to what I protected. My car might still be sitting in the garage when I get out but I don't like the trade off.

It's the gubmit that has made things easy for the thugs. They gave the thugs "room' to destroy and loot. When the people in charge think like the thugs that's what happens.

I do not want to shoot some kid who might be about to burn my car up (if I'm not in it) but I dang sure thing the law should punish that kid severely. Instead the results of these riots are that the government throws money at the people who caused the trouble. I saw that in the Cincinnati area a decade ago. They went into the neighborhood where there had been lots of riots and they built parts, created do nothing jobs, etc. etc.. I'd riot too if I thought the gubmit would throw money at me. It's a sick system. I don't support it. I just don't want to get caught in the switches. They WILL punish YOU if you shoot some looter who is just stealing something. And shooting is a tremendous punishment for stealing a Twinkie or two.

They have the means to control this stuff. It's time they do it But you can bet if they come at my house when I'm there (or my car when I'm in it) I'm going to protect myself and the house or car I'm in. The castle doctrine allows for that thank goodness. It wasn't so long ago I couldn't have done that either without going to jail. Seriously. That's what they taught us in my CCW class in Ohio. At the time I had the "duty to retreat" which means if they come at the front door and I could get out the back door then I had to do it instead of defending my house. Sad but true. And it's still that way in some states.

 

[Aragon]

It is sad to see. It amazes me how folks can turn the criminal into a saint. My opinion is if you are breaking into anything of mine and I am inside, you can get ready to see multiple muzzle flashes. I don't sympathize with thugs who have entitlement issues and think they can steal things that other people worked hard to get and call it "protesting".

Did it make you feel like a man to post that? Did it make you feel kinda tough?

Why are you "inside" if you had the ability to go someplace safe?

I haven't seen a single posting that sympathized with thugs. Not one. What I have read are reasoned responses by people who value life (their own, loved ones, associates and yes, even criminals' lives) over material goods in response to people like you.

In the case of criminals they realize just how dangerous/obtuse it is to "stick around" if they have the heads-up and means to go someplace safer. They also have some insight into just how horribly their lives will be turned upside down if they shoot and kill someone, no matter the circumstances. Finally, they realize that if they shoot and kill someone over materials goods that they're going to have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

You clearly lack these insights and that's on you.

 

[Toad69]

Long time Lurker here and I was compelled to register today to provide some input into this very interesting thread. I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night but I am a retired lawyer and a state district judge and and both tried and presided over numerous murder trials, many of them involving claims of self-defense.

I am responding because I am concerned that apparently some of you believe that it is permissible to use lethal force to prevent the theft or destruction of property. This is untrue and those of you who do so risk prosecution for murder or some degree of manslaughter. The law allows lethal force only in defense of self or another and/or defense of one's "castle". A business and the assets therein are not your castle. Of course, self-defense laws vary by state, but not greatly. Common Law historically did not allow lethal force in defense of property and despite protests to the contrary, we really haven't moved much beyond that tenant. A few states, such as Texas, have "liberalized" self-defense laws, but with exceptions and caveats that practically neutralize the supposed liberalization.

Bottom line, acting with lethal force to defend property is fraught with peril and if you do so you have a very good chance of being charged. And, the law does not recognize a sentimental attachment to property as an exception. Unless you can somehow convince a jury that you were in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm when you acted to shoot a looter, thief, or vandal, you run a great risk of being convicted. Is it worth the risk?

 

[notaglockfanboy]

Did it make you feel like a man to post that? Did it make you feel kinda tough?

Why are you "inside" if you had the ability to go someplace safe?

I haven't seen a single posting that sympathized with thugs. Not one. What I have read are reasoned responses by people who value life (their own, loved ones, associates and yes, even criminals' lives) over material goods in response to people like you.

In the case of criminals they realize just how dangerous/obtuse it is to "stick around" if they have the heads-up and means to go someplace safer. They also have some insight into just how horribly their lives will be turned upside down if they shoot and kill someone, no matter the circumstances. Finally, they realize that if they shoot and kill someone over materials goods that they're going to have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

You clearly lack these insights and that's on you.

Did it make you feel like a man to post that in response to my comment?? First off if I am inside my residence or vehicle and someone is breaking into it, I have every right to defend myself and property. Do you think I should ask them to wait until the cops get there?? I am on/in my property, so why do you feel I should be somewhere else?? In which post did I say anything about shooting someone over stealing property?? Seems you are lacking insight along with reading skills. Now that you got your chest thumping fit out of the way, go back and read what I posted.

 

[bikerdoc]

I think we should all read post 134 several times and heed the Judges advice.

 

[Red Wind]

Yes, the Judge has many profound thoughts. We should analyze his wisdom.

 

[Cee Zee]

The judge sounds like a very solid source of information but I think most of us here already knew these things. None of us bought guns hoping to get a chance to pop a punk or two. I have known a person or two like that. One was a state policeman and he set himself up inside of a country store that had been broken into repeatedly and he shot the two jerks doing it. And he got by with it because he was inside at the time they broke in. I've always thought that guy was a total scuz bucket and pretty much told him so going back to when I was 6 years old. I knew what he talked about and did was wrong at that age. When people are breaking in to get money for food and to get food, which the two he shot were doing, he violated every tenet of civilization dating back several thousand years. It predates common law. Common law got the precept from the Bible which talked about "gleaning the fields" which was what poor people did to get food to survive. They would take food leftover from the harvest and eat it. The Bible also talks about stealing bread for food. Jesus Himself ate bread from the temple even though it was considered holy. He said hunger trumped any guilt for taking that bread. Well that's my paraphrasing of what He said anyway.

If you're here to get advice on how to shoot people for stealing things please let us know so I can avoid giving you any advice. I want no part of it.

if I am inside my residence or vehicle and someone is breaking into it, I have every right to defend myself and property.

You sure do. At least you have the right to defend your property from being attacked while you're in it. If you have a bicycle in the yard and some kid steals it you absolute can NOT shoot that kid.

The distinction we have been making is between defending your self and family as opposed to defending your business from looters. Big difference. If you set yourself up on top of your business with an AR and shoot every approaching potential looter you are asking for big trouble. If you set yourself up on the roof of your house with your family inside and you have that same AR and you see a brigade of butt heads heading your way with torches and molotov cocktails you absolutely can shoot those people in most states.

Again I AM NOT A LAWYER AND LAWS VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. Make yourself aware of your state laws. If you don't you're really pushing your luck when you even point a gun at someone. Heck you don't even have to do that much. Just show them you have a gun and watch the cops take you to jail for brandishing.

PLEASE do not shoot people who might be stealing from you. You give gun owners a bad name by doing that. There are certainly times when shooting is appropriate. If your life is being threatened then fire away. But don't try to stop a Twinkie thief with an AK-47.

 

[Browning]

I don't see anyone condoning what the rioters, looters and arsonists are doing, however I see plenty of fear at getting sacrificed at the alter of political correctness if the defense situation isn't absolutely perfect. Some of that fear is legitimate and some of it isn't. No one wants to be Zimmerman, Joe Horn or Officer Wilson and have their face plastered all over the media. In my mind much of that fear is just going to make you hesitate if/when the time comes.

The thing is you don't get to choose what circumstances you get thrust into, you just end up having to react to whatever is thrown at you because you're not the aggressor.

 

[danez71]

Long time Lurker here and I was compelled to register today to provide some input into this very interesting thread. I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night but I am a retired lawyer and a state district judge and and both tried and presided over numerous murder trials, many of them involving claims of self-defense.

I am responding because I am concerned that apparently some of you believe that it is permissible to use lethal force to prevent the theft or destruction of property. This is untrue and those of you who do so risk prosecution for murder or some degree of manslaughter. The law allows lethal force only in defense of self or another and/or defense of one's "castle". A business and the assets therein are not your castle. Of course, self-defense laws vary by state, but not greatly. Common Law historically did not allow lethal force in defense of property and despite protests to the contrary, we really haven't moved much beyond that tenant. A few states, such as Texas, have "liberalized" self-defense laws, but with exceptions and caveats that practically neutralize the supposed liberalization.

Bottom line, acting with lethal force to defend property is fraught with peril and if you do so you have a very good chance of being charged. And, the law does not recognize a sentimental attachment to property as an exception. Unless you can somehow convince a jury that you were in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm when you acted to shoot a looter, thief, or vandal, you run a great risk of being convicted. Is it worth the risk?

Thank you for posting and Welcome to THR.

I hope that you stay around.

 

[HankB]

Ok. Point that out. Show where someone is asserting the right of theives and looters to do their deeds. If you're going to claim something like that, you'd better back it up. (Or shut it up.)

There HAVE been several folks who have indicated that they entirely disapprove of the use of potentially lethal force against thieves and looters apart from any legal problems that might result. It's not the arrest, investigation, and possible prosecution that would result, it's clear that they think it would be immoral for someone else to defend their "stuff" with potentially lethal force and put the bad guys in danger of being shot; that HAS to be concern for the bad guy's continued health and well being - they don't like the bad guy's actions, but they sure don't want him hurt by his intended victim.

. . . thats what insurance is for....im pretty sure nothing in my shop would be worth killing over . . .

. . . The notion of defending 'mere' property unto death is only justified when it is irreparably linked with self defense . . .

. . . As sickening as rioting thugs can be, taking human life (and risking one's own lives and those of other friendlies) to protect material goods is pretty sicko and illogical when it comes down to it. I think some do it in a sordid attempt to burnish their manhood . . . (usually the anti-gunners use a variation of this "manhood" argument to disparage firearm ownership)

. . . you are honestly telling me you would willingly kill another person, to protect a material object...you would kill another person over a play station....over a cell phone.....over a couch........what the hell is the matter with you? . . . (Ah, yes, disagreement with this poster means you're a bad person.)

Note that nobody suggested something ridiculous like walking up and down the street shooting at a mob or killing someone running down the street with an armload of stuff, just some guy staying at his small business and defending it if attacked. And a number of posters obviously think that would be very wrong if it resulted in harm to the thieves and looters. And this attitude seems to be independent of the legal problems that might result. If you have some other interpretation, please share it - as you said, "back it up. (Or shut it up.)"

 

[hso]

Can we stop using the term "protesters" when it has pretty clearly been shown that the criminal gangs weren't amongst the protesters and were using them for cover. The facts that groups used social media to plan and coordinate criminal activity are already been out for a couple of days now.

As to these arguments about use of lethal force only to protect property, we have them ad nauseum in S&T and they always fall the way this has gone. It is usually pointless to continue the rehash the same positions over and over, but having one new member with an informed opinion is a nice addition.

 

[Aragon]

Did it make you feel like a man to post that in response to my comment?? First off if I am inside my residence or vehicle and someone is breaking into it, I have every right to defend myself and property. Do you think I should ask them to wait until the cops get there?? I am on/in my property, so why do you feel I should be somewhere else?? In which post did I say anything about shooting someone over stealing property?? Seems you are lacking insight along with reading skills. Now that you got your chest thumping fit out of the way, go back and read what I posted.

You simply don't get it...

You're precisely the sort of individual that ultimately threatens my RKBA.

 

[danez71]

There HAVE been several folks who have indicated that they entirely disapprove of the use of potentially lethal force against thieves and looters apart from any legal problems that might result. It's not the arrest, investigation, and possible prosecution that would result, it's clear that they think it would be immoral for someone else to defend their "stuff" with potentially lethal force and put the bad guys in danger of being shot; that HAS to be concern for the bad guy's continued health and well being - they don't like the bad guy's actions, but they sure don't want him hurt by his intended victim.



Note that nobody suggested something ridiculous like walking up and down the street shooting at a mob or killing someone running down the street with an armload of stuff, just some guy staying at his small business and defending it if attacked. And a number of posters obviously think that would be very wrong if it resulted in harm to the thieves and looters. And this attitude seems to be independent of the legal problems that might result. If you have some other interpretation, please share it - as you said, "back it up. (Or shut it up.)"

You cited 4 quotes that ALL say death or killing etc.

Big difference than how you phrased it.


But it seems that most of those that are on the 'shoot them' side of the fence forget that its roughly a 50/50 chance as to who gets killed.

Would I defend me, inside my house, that also contained my business that's been in my family for forty-eleven generations? (hypothetical - covering all bases)

Absolutely.

Am I going to intentionally get my self into a situation that I have a 50/50 chance of dying, or having to kill someone, in the process? Nope.


Aside from that, its pretty clear. killing someone over property is going to get you in jail. Killing someone because you were going to be killed if you didn't lends itself to being able to defend yourself a lot better in court.

That's how America works. That's how our laws work because that's what our country has decided to be morally acceptable.

Coincidentally, That's where my morals are too. Others may be different.

 

[Red Wind]

It is usually pointless to continue the rehash the same positions over and over, but having one new member with an informed opinion is a nice addition.

It certainly is. A breath of Fresh Air. I certainly hope, His Honor, Toad69, stays around and continues to impart his experience and wisdom.

We need all that we can get in troubled times.

 

[Sam1911]

it's clear that they think it would be immoral for someone else to defend their "stuff" with potentially lethal force and put the bad guys in danger of being shot; that HAS to be concern for the bad guy's continued health and well being - they don't like the bad guy's actions, but they sure don't want him hurt by his intended victim.

Hank,

It isn't a matter of preserving "the bad guy's continued health and well being." It is a matter of not killing someone over purely material objects.

This is a legal (and moral) principle going back millennia. Use of lethal force against a human being is acceptable to protect LIFE (or prevent grievous personal injury), but is not acceptable to kill a thief or vandal over property. You can "defend your home" in that it is reasonable to expect that house-breaking and arson is a lethal threat against you, who is inside. But that's as far as the moral and legal use of lethal force goes.

If you are defending LIFE and the invader/attacker/arsonist is hurt or killed, that's a sad but accepted possibility of having to act with violence to save your life. If you are defending your "stuff," your cool car parked outside, your cash register, etc., and you kill someone over it -- that's NOT an acceptable possible outcome. That's a criminal act.

 

[TimSr]

I haven't seen a single posting that sympathized with thugs.

I have not seen a single post in this thread advocating shooting somebody for looting or stealing. It's a straw man argument.

The question is whether you have a right to intervene when somebody is taking your poperty. Nobody is advocating deadly force to stop a theft.

It is a matter of not killing someone over purely material objects.

Again, who is advocating killing someone over material objects?

 

[Sam1911]

It's a straw man argument.
...
Nobody is advocating deadly force to stop a theft.
...
Again, who is advocating killing someone over material objects?

Of course the folks stacking up on either "side" of this debate put things is somewhat black and white terms to make their points stand more firmly.

Yes, you have the right to intervene if someone is taking your property. You can use words. In some states and in some situations you can even use "force" (not lethal force, though). It might end well, it might end badly. It is a dangerous situation for all involved, and if you end up killing someone in an altercation that results from that intervention, that's going to be a very bad thing. (Of course, if they end up killing YOU in that altercation...that's a very bad thing, too.) Act with great prudence and don't put yourself in a vulnerable place while "intervening."

You do have the right to defend your life if someone's breaking down your door to get at you in your house, or trying to set fire to the building you're in. And you may defend your life with lethal force if necessary.

Does that mean it is wise, prudent, moral, or legal to put yourself in a place (like your place of business downtown) so that any attempt to loot or burn that place WILL threaten your life and you can then claim a legal justification for shooting someone? Well... that's a tough question.

Sure, you've got a right to be there. And no one has a "right" to burn your property down anyway (but that's not the issue). But is moving TO the point of trouble and then using lethal force against the bad actors the right path? Obviously if you end up dead, then no. If you end up killing someone? Almost all would still say NO.

The only real GOOD outcome is that you're able to essentially "call their bluff" and they decide to head off to bother somebody else's stuff. No sure thing, that.

Much like the question of where does self-defense end and "mutual combat" begin, this gets very grey, and quite likely to end up decided by a jury. Which is a bad place for you to end up.

 

[HankB]

Sam,

There's a big difference between shooting some guy outside who's stealing a hubcap off your car or making off with a lawn ornament, and shooting a guy who breaks into your home or business while you're there. In the first instance, you'd be protecting "stuff;" in the second instance, you'd be protecting yourself, since someone who forcibly breaks into an occupied building can legitimately and reasonably be regarded as a real and immediate threat to the occupant's personal safety - especially if they're part of a mob.

Are you morally wrong to stay at your endangered business - maybe even maybe even morally wrong to stay at your endangered home - not because of personal danger, but because it might put you in a position where you'd be justified in shooting someone who breaks in? That's a pretty convoluted question. I see no immorality to guarding your own business or home - although depending on the threat level, it might be so dangerous as to be unwise. So far, the law generally will come down on the side of the victim, (TX is better than many states here, but it's NOT a free-fire zone) but in some places, not so much. At one extreme, I remember reading that during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, in some places the police asked homeowners with shotgun licenses to temporarily turn their guns in to police so they wouldn't be tempted to use them in self defense if a bunch of thugs invaded their homes.

I hope we never reach that point here. (And that's all I have to say on this topic.)

 

[Cee Zee]

a number of posters obviously think that would be very wrong if it resulted in harm to the thieves and looters. And this attitude seems to be independent of the legal problems that might result.

What no one seems to be thinking about is what it does to the shooter if they shoot a person and kill them or put them in a wheelchair forever. If you think it's just click, bang, and skate you are very much different than the vast number of humans on the planet. Armies have a hard time getting soldiers to kill people. A friend of mine came back from Vietnam and my only question for him was did they make you kill people and how do you do that? I was scared I was going to have to do it. I thought at the time I would actually prefer being shot to going to someone's homeland and shooting them however evil they are.

There certainly is a percentage of people willing to kill. And once the first kill is made it is sometimes much easier to do it again and again. That's how the gangs operate.

Most policemen who shoot someone end up puking their guts out for days from what I hear. It's no small thing to take a life. Heck a lot of people won't kill a bug much less a human. I keep coming back to the fact that most of those people who are "looting" are seen carrying out a rack of Slim Jims and the like as they come out of a convenience store. Yes some buildings are burned and the owner loses everything. I'm sorry but all the stuff I own is not worth a single human life. I can always get more stuff. Yes I've accumulated a lot over the years but try moving a couple of times in 2 years and see how much of that stuff is really important to you. Insurance would cover most of my losses anyway.

I certainly do not want to be robbed. I will do everything I can to prevent it. And if someone breaks into my house when I'm home I am going to consider their presence a threat. But my primary goal will be to get them out of my house. I will only shoot if forced to shoot.