# Student kills intruder with "Samurai Sword"



## shesulsa (Sep 21, 2009)

This story seeded some ongoing, serious conversation in my home today.

FULL ARTICLE (excerpts below)



> The student told police he found a man hiding under a counter in the garage, and when he yelled for his housemates to call 911, the man lunged toward him.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


The news broadcast today stated that the burglar had recently been released after having served time for Grand Theft Auto.

From this article:



> At approximately 1:20 a.m., officers responded to a report of a suspicious person at a home in the 300 block of E. University Parkway.
> 
> Neighbors reported to the police that a heavyset black male wearing a black T-shirt was on the porch around the house, detective Dony Moses, information officer for the Baltimore Police Department, said. At that time, they did a preliminary investigation on the matter.
> 
> ...


From another article:




> Police responding to neighbors calls said they found the intruder with a nearly severed hand and cuts to his upper body. The man died shortly after police arrived, and the student remains in custody while police verify his story. A police rep said that it legal to own a sword in Baltimore, adding that "individuals have a right to defend their person and their property," but would not comment on the legality of this specific case.



Let the countdown begin towards the day "Samurai Swords" will be declared illegal to own in the United States.

Some varying accounts in the articles as to some details, but I'm quite curious how this will play out.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 21, 2009)

My iaido instructor once used his to get a dog to let go of a kid it was biting. He only gave it a minor injury, but could have cleaved it in half.


----------



## blindsage (Sep 21, 2009)

The article I saw this morning on the news had some 'official'  saying that the kid cut the guy once, and that cut went across his chest and down to his wrist.   The report also noted that the police had been going door to door through the neighborhood earlier letting people know of a string of burglaries in the area, and that the kid and his roommates had been burglarized recently (I think earlier that day) and had their Xbox stolen out of their living room.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 21, 2009)

blindsage said:


> The article I saw this morning on the news had some 'official'  saying that the kid cut the guy once, and that cut went across his chest and down to his wrist.   The report also noted that the police had been going door to door through the neighborhood earlier letting people know of a string of burglaries in the area, and that the kid and his roommates had been burglarized recently (I think earlier that day) and had their Xbox stolen out of their living room.



That was on the TV broadcast here; that and the police had already come and looked around and left.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Let the countdown begin towards the day "Samurai Swords" will be declared illegal to own in the United States.
> 
> Some varying accounts in the articles as to some details, but I'm quite curious how this will play out.



Not the same story, but related to knives and illegality...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/14/content_12049302.htm


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

Swords banned in UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7139724.stm

Swords banned in Ireland:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0901/samurai.html


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2009)

Righteous use of force.  Cleared a bunch of open cases no doubt.


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 21, 2009)

Strange dude hiding in a garage cabinet at 1am .... once he is found he decides to lunge at someone with a sword...   come to find out he was recently released from an "institution" and has a history of "priors"... 
he should have been following proper parolee procedures and not lying in wait in the cabinets of a house that is not his...    

I would have used # 7 shot instead of a sword but to each his own...As far as I am concerned he was planning on knifing me in my sleep and doing strange things with my corpse...   


Sorry if that seems cold but if I find someone hiding in my cabinets and they decide to lunge at me I am not going to get out my pen and pad and attempt to evaluate thier intentions... I am going to let the 12guage decide...


----------



## Nomad (Sep 21, 2009)

To me, the interesting part of the story is the difference made by the choice of weapon.  If the intruder/burglar had been shot instead, this never would have made the national news... maybe not even the local if it was a busy night in Baltimore.

If he'd taken the bad guy out with a knife, it wouldn't have attracted nearly as much attention.

Change the tool to a more exotic weapon, and suddenly this makes national headlines.


----------



## grydth (Sep 21, 2009)

There is another recent thread here much like this.... is this a duplicate or has there been a new and very similar incident?


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 21, 2009)

It's the same incident, from a different angle.

I haven't been able to get more than the useless blurb, but it seems that there may be more to the story...  Something about calls the defender made.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 22, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Strange dude hiding in a garage cabinet at 1am .... once he is found he decides to lunge at someone with a sword...   come to find out he was recently released from an "institution" and has a history of "priors"...
> he should have been following proper parolee procedures and not lying in wait in the cabinets of a house that is not his...
> 
> I would have used # 7 shot instead of a sword but to each his own...As far as I am concerned he was planning on knifing me in my sleep and doing strange things with my corpse...
> ...



Nothing cold about it.........a prime example of a complete failure of the victim selection process.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Swords banned in UK:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7139724.stm
> 
> ...


 
Please note the first words in the BBC article...*IMITATION* samurai swords are being banned. Perfectly legal to own swords that aren't the cheap ten pound ones, I have six swords and various other edged weapons, all owned perfectly legally. My son has even more. Martial artists can own swords legally as can collectors.


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 22, 2009)

I was just in an "Asian Souvenier store" two days ago that had a wall full of swords.  According to the shopkeeper, they are all sharp and can cut things, but that is the extent of her knowledge.  They ranges in price from 50-150 dollars.....Who knows where they were forged, the quality of the blade, quality of the handle, quality of construction.  In my opinion, those types of swords are nothing but trouble.  Anyone can buy them and they are potentially dangerous.  To me - it is no different than selling a gun to anyone that walks in off the street without ID, background checks, waiting period, etc.  At the minimum (while I think that it is AWESOME that this guy was able to successfully defend himself and his home), some type of control should be placed on serious weapons like that - although I'm sure that if anyone even proposes that, people will be up in arms with predictions that they will be taking away everything next if we allow it.


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 22, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Nothing cold about it.........a prime example of a complete failure of the victim selection process.


 

Wholeheartedly agree..


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 22, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> I was just in an "Asian Souvenier store" two days ago that had a wall full of swords. According to the shopkeeper, they are all sharp and can cut things, but that is the extent of her knowledge. They ranges in price from 50-150 dollars.....Who knows where they were forged, the quality of the blade, quality of the handle, quality of construction. In my opinion, those types of swords are nothing but trouble. Anyone can buy them and they are potentially dangerous. To me - it is no different than selling a gun to anyone that walks in off the street without ID, background checks, waiting period, etc. At the minimum (while I think that it is AWESOME that this guy was able to successfully defend himself and his home), some type of control should be placed on serious weapons like that - although I'm sure that if anyone even proposes that, people will be up in arms with predictions that they will be taking away everything next if we allow it.


 
Tell me about it... you can go in the mall here, buy a sword and come out pretending to be a ninja, samurai and even "Blade" for crying out loud... Its actually rediculous how many dangerously cheap imitation blades get circulated around here... 
You should see the look on the guys faces when you take one of thier "immitation" swords out of the scabbard to check it out and they say things like "that one very nice" or "that one used for"... then you politely smack the blade and thier mouth drops to the floor... "dont do that" ...   I always laugh say things like "becuase its not real huh" ...they notmally shake thier head in disgruntled accordance...    

Thats not to say that there are no good swords for 200.00 becuase there are...  Paul Chens are awesome...Hanweii has a good line of quality blades...  so does Cold Steel

They can all go to the scrap yard for all I care... If its not quality "battle ready" metal then to hell with it...


----------



## James Kovacich (Sep 22, 2009)

I think the fact that he cut him once saved him from a future case. The size of his chosen weapon could of been a serious factor against him especially since the burglar died and they were outside the house.


----------



## still learning (Sep 22, 2009)

Hello, Another case of early release of dangerous crimnals with history of past crimes....

...and the good guys..may get punishment for protecting themselves..

Laws are made by man...man is NOT perfect...the laws made by man may find the Student guilty?    ..because he could of use a safer instrutments?

DA laws..is what we go by...not MORALS ...or common sense...

   Glad the bad guy die and not the good people here...

Aloha,     

PS:  The bad guy could have surrender...decide to charge and loss..
on the other hand ....sword could have being taken away..kill the student instead?    ...other hand?


----------



## kaizasosei (Sep 23, 2009)

Katana are very dangerous.  One good cut can pack so much power.  If swung hard enough and hits a vital target, the katana can easily deliver killing blows more often than not.  Ippatsu-one hit and it's game over.  
The construction of the katana is quite genious.  Being light, with a light wooden handle and many small parts working to hold the sword together so that it is like one solid object.  Whoever invented the katana, must have had very much experience with swords.

Any object can be dangerous in a given situation, but few objects can be used to cut with such precision and power. 

j





j


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> I was just in an "Asian Souvenier store" two days ago that had a wall full of swords. According to the shopkeeper, they are all sharp and can cut things, but that is the extent of her knowledge. They ranges in price from 50-150 dollars.....Who knows where they were forged, the quality of the blade, quality of the handle, quality of construction. In my opinion, those types of swords are nothing but trouble. Anyone can buy them and they are potentially dangerous. To me - it is no different than selling a gun to anyone that walks in off the street without ID, background checks, waiting period, etc. At the minimum (while I think that it is AWESOME that this guy was able to successfully defend himself and his home), some type of control should be placed on serious weapons like that - although I'm sure that if anyone even proposes that, people will be up in arms with predictions that they will be taking away everything next if we allow it.


 
That's the ones that are banned here, they are sold as ornaments, usually in sets of three with a cheap wooden stand. They aren't sharpened along the edge but have a sharp tip, they could be bought by anyone including children. As shopkeepers sold them as ornaments you could buy them in all sorts of shops and market stalls.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 23, 2009)

kaizasosei said:


> few objects can be used to cut with such precision and power.


 
Ahhhh yes the mystic power of a Japanese sword.  Poor guy was committed the second he pulled it out, because they must taste blood when they are pulled out of the sayaI think it has something to do with the quenching process whereby the sword is quenched in blood
Any sharp piece of metal will cut you from stem to stern. I can sharpen a piece of ¼ x 2 mild steel that will go through a target like it was a hot knife through butter. Go grab a $10 machete, itll do the job; go ask the people of Rwanda.
Any sword or sharp piece of metal will slice very well thank you. A shinken is just a tool not an idol.


----------



## kaizasosei (Sep 23, 2009)

> A shinken is just a tool not an idol.




OK, i hear you and i can agree to that.  But even with a sharp piece of metal there are many factors that amount to slicing ability.
For one, the comfortable double-handed handle of the katana which allows for good grip.  The slight curvature in the blade which facilitates cutting.  There have been many swords made with wooden handles.  I believe, mostly in the middle east but also in other places such as china.  If you take a look at many of those swords you would see that they are usually quite crude compared to the katana.  The mekugi hold the blade in the handle, the rayskin keeps the handle cord from slipping and the cord again reinforces the entire handle.  It's a perfect circle actually.  Each part of the katana can be replaced and the fit of the blade into the handle is very exact.  Whoever came up with the construction method of the katana, must have had immense experience in making, testing and using swords.  

The modern machete will not, imo, be able to cut as well as a katana.  I guess, it depends on the sharpness, size and weight of the machete or katana-i've seen katana with double the blade width than the usual katana.  The modern grip of  machetes ive seen is not completely unlike that of a traditional katana.

A tool must be respected and cared for indefinately.  Because if evil were to somehow get ahold of the blade, bloodshed is sure to follow.  That is not just a culture or a custom.  It's a lesson learned from the past.  It's like someone selling guns that doesn't even think of the dangers and reprocussions involved.  Hell the things can even cut their maker.

j

j


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 23, 2009)

While the digression into the making and utility of the katana is interesting...  I don't quite see what it has to do with the kid using one to defend himself and his friends from a burglar.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 23, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Righteous use of force.  Cleared a bunch of open cases no doubt.



You might want to wait until you have every detail on the case before declaring this.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 23, 2009)

As I mentioned on the other thread, I've been brought in to comment on the case by the local media, and let me assure you that this is not as clear cut as some posters would like to righteously declare.

There is absolutely zero proof of crime taking place at this point other than trespassing.  There are several possible scenarios that may explain the deceased's wound patterns, and they may likely be defensive.

The subject did not discover the deceased inside his house, but outside of it, meaning the subject had left a position of safety in order to seek confrontation.

This is not a clear cut case, and the DA has yet to decide whether or not to file charges.


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 23, 2009)

The most innovative thing about the Katana, since its inception is the shape of the cutting edge.  A European blade has a concave or straight angled cutting edge.  This means that when you stab or cut, the material (skin, flesh, straw, etc) folds back into the cut.  The Convex edge of a katana forces the material away from the cut, therefore it is able to cut more precisely and to cut a wider variety of materials with accuracy.  It generally leads to cleaner cuts.  The blade also is less likely to get "stuck" in the target.

There are of course other innovations (folding different types of metal together, the quenching process, which gives the blade its curve, handle construction, etc), but it is like any other technology, it is simply a step along the path of innovation.  There have been plenty of other swords in history that have been just as innovative for their time.

This may actually be an interesting topic in one of the sword forums, but unfortunately, the discussion probably doesn't belong in this news article.  

Although I have to wonder - did the guy have training?  Was it a real blade?  Did he get lucky?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 23, 2009)

I dont remember the exact length, but a Japanese 8th dan once told us that a cut 1/8 deep and 18(?) long is enough to kill an individual just from shock. This guy knows for reasons I will not get into.
Ive used all sorts of blades, test cutting to prove the theory that any sharp piece of metal will cut well. Its not rocket science. Look at YouTube, every 15 year old with $100 is out test cutting pop bottles with everything sharp.
Im aware of how a sword is made and the makeup of them. A western sword can be taken apart too, and itll cut you in half as well. Im always amazed at how people think the Japanese sword is some mystical killing machine. Its a weapon, a tool made for a particular job.
As I said in an earlier post, the wounds so described dont make sense to me. Obviously Im speaking out of my *** as I dont have even 10% of the information needed to make a judgment statement, but to me the wounds do not make sense to what the guy with the sword said. How do you cut a mans hand off and give him upper body wounds at the same time? IMHO it cant happen with one or even two cuts. The angles dont make sense. Again speaking out of my ***


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 23, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> I dont remember the exact length, but a Japanese 8th dan once told us that a cut 1/8 deep and 18(?) long is enough to kill an individual just from shock. This guy knows for reasons I will not get into.
> Ive used all sorts of blades, test cutting to prove the theory that any sharp piece of metal will cut well. Its not rocket science. Look at YouTube, every 15 year old with $100 is out test cutting pop bottles with everything sharp.
> Im aware of how a sword is made and the makeup of them. A western sword can be taken apart too, and itll cut you in half as well. Im always amazed at how people think the Japanese sword is some mystical killing machine. Its a weapon, a tool made for a particular job.
> As I said in an earlier post, the wounds so described dont make sense to me. Obviously Im speaking out of my *** as I dont have even 10% of the information needed to make a judgment statement, but to me the wounds do not make sense to what the guy with the sword said. How do you cut a mans hand off and give him upper body wounds at the same time? IMHO it cant happen with one or even two cuts. The angles dont make sense. Again speaking out of my ***



I didn't see the other thread or I wouldn't have posted this one. I sure wish someone would post a link to it so I can compare fruit; then I'd like to consider commenting on the cuts if there's enough information to base a comment on.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 23, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Although I have to wonder - did the guy have training?  Was it a real blade?  Did he get lucky?



His training background has not been discussed beyond the BPD's spokesman saying that he had "intermediate to moderate training".  In what, is unknown.  While I have yet to see the coroner's report, given the partial severing of the hand, it's likely it was a quality blade and he had some amount of training.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 23, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Obviously Im speaking out of my *** as I dont have even 10% of the information needed to make a judgment statement, but to me the wounds do not make sense to what the guy with the sword said. How do you cut a mans hand off and give him upper body wounds at the same time? IMHO it cant happen with one or even two cuts. The angles dont make sense. Again speaking out of my ***



Think defensive wounds.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 23, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I didn't see the other thread or I wouldn't have posted this one. I sure wish someone would post a link to it so I can compare fruit; then I'd like to consider commenting on the cuts if there's enough information to base a comment on.



http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80221

There's the other thread.

There is some commentary on the wounds, but again, I have yet to see the coronor's report, so I'm hesitant to speculate.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 23, 2009)

Thank you.  One's imagination can lead one to think of the plausibilty of one slice causing the wounds we've read about ... but you're right, the coroner's report may reveal some things.  I wonder, though, how many coroners have had sword training? It is, after all, unique from other weaponry.


----------



## Langenschwert (Sep 23, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> The most innovative thing about the Katana, since its inception is the shape of the cutting edge. A European blade has a concave or straight angled cutting edge.


 
European blades have all manner of edge geometries from convex to concave to straight to curved. A katana is not unique in its cutting ability. It's just a two-handed saber... nothing magical. For that matter, in test cutting, a kukri will cut one-handed as well as a katana does two-handed. The advantage of the katana over the kukri is range and better protection for the hand.

But this is OT. 

With regards to the "defensive wounds" they could also be a result of someone trying to cover up as he charges the sword weilder. A stupid thing to do, but entirely possible. People really have no idea how much damage a sword does to an unarmoured person. They also have no idea just how screwed someone unarmed is facing a swordsman.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 23, 2009)

Curved blades came about for Calvary usage.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2009)

Langenschwert said:


> European blades have all manner of edge geometries from convex to concave to straight to curved. A katana is not unique in its cutting ability. It's just a two-handed saber... nothing magical. For that matter, in test cutting, a kukri will cut one-handed as well as a katana does two-handed. The advantage of the katana over the kukri is range and better protection for the hand.
> 
> But this is OT.
> 
> ...


 
The advantage of a Kukri tends to be the Gurkha on the end of it lol!





AYO GURKALI!


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 23, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Curved blades came about for Calvary usage.



No, that was a hammer & nail.


----------



## Knives (Sep 23, 2009)

I've read this about 4 times now and get a good laugh every time.  Nice work sword wielder!


----------



## James Kovacich (Sep 23, 2009)

I love blades but in that situation, being outside I would of been carrying one of my Kamagongs. I generally carry my CRKT M1 in my pocket along with steel toes. So using my Kamagong would be in a sense more humane.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 27, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Think defensive wounds.



EXACTLY!  If he sees it coming, you'll have EXACTLY hand and arm wounds AND upper body wounds, as the hands automatically come up to defend the blow......is sliced through, and the blade continues on to the body.

In fact, in most knife attacks the initial cuts are to the hands and forearms........heck, it's often the same in shootings.......someone sees the gun pointed in their direction, and puts their hands/arms up, thereby taking a round through the forearm.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 27, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> EXACTLY!  If he sees it coming, you'll have EXACTLY hand and arm wounds AND upper body wounds, as the hands automatically come up to defend the blow......is sliced through, and the blade continues on to the body.
> 
> In fact, in most knife attacks the initial cuts are to the hands and forearms........heck, it's often the same in shootings.......someone sees the gun pointed in their direction, and puts their hands/arms up, thereby taking a round through the forearm.


And -- the mere fact that the intruder ended up with defensive wounds doesn't automatically mean he wasn't attacking at the time the cut started...

It's not uncommon for a police shooting to appear questionable on the surface because the crook's movements between taking a shot at the cop and the cop reaction is just enough time for a hand to come up or the bad guy to turn...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> And -- the mere fact that the intruder ended up with defensive wounds doesn't automatically mean he wasn't attacking at the time the cut started...
> 
> It's not uncommon for a police shooting to appear questionable on the surface because the crook's movements between taking a shot at the cop and the cop reaction is just enough time for a hand to come up or the bad guy to turn...


 
Absolutely.....the only issue was the comment about how many slashes, since someone thought since the had a hand cut off AND a torso slash, it must have been more than one slash.

What's furthermore, many suspects have been shot in the BACK who were facing the officer at the time of the shooting, but were in the process of turning as the rounds were being fired......as an example.  Chaotic incidents have some interesting chaotic outcomes.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Sep 27, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Absolutely.....the only issue was the comment about how many slashes, since someone thought since the had a hand cut off AND a torso slash, it must have been more than one slash.
> 
> What's furthermore, many suspects have been shot in the BACK who were facing the officer at the time of the shooting, but were in the process of turning as the rounds were being fired......as an example. Chaotic incidents have some interesting chaotic outcomes.


 
Big problem with our laws is things like you mention.

people do all kinds of weird movment in combat and I feel we have a lot of hairsplitting by lawyers that misses the bigger issue of why something went down.

 To me it does not mater if he slashed the guy once or a hundred times, whatever it takes is whatever it takes.

 If you trained the way lawyers would want you to train, you will gurante defeat in combat.

 My God, chokeing someone out in a fight can be considered attempted murder, when most of us who train know it is one of the most painless and humane ways to take a threat down.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 27, 2009)

Keep in mind, while you're speculating, that the young man left the safety of his house, armed himself, and went looking for a confrontation.

Again, this case is not clear cut.  The deceased never entered the house, and is guilty likely only of trespassing.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 27, 2009)

under the law here, thats enough. Tresspass here you get lit up, and it's legal


No sympathy for the skel from me, plus, his past indicates what his intentions were quite well.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 27, 2009)

Under the law here, it's not.

The young man did not know the identity of the man he killed and we only have his word that the man "lunged" at him.

I am glad that you are completely comfortable with a man's death, especially since you didn't have to do the killing.  I'm glad that you're condoning an act as you sit comfortably in front of a computer screen.

Meanwhile, a young man has to deal with the conclusions of his action.  A young man, a college student, not a soldier, not a police officer, but a young man has to accept the fact that he killed a man, an action that may have been avoidable.  That's not even saying if he is charged.

I've never seen internet bravado in those who've actually had to make the decision to take a life, and see the immediate results of their actions, at close quarters.

I'm glad you're comfortable.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 28, 2009)

i got over it in 91, little something called the gulf war

dont assume things about people you dont know errant.

for example, we KNOW the scumbags intentions from his CRIMINAL past.

no big loss, and the dude with the sword? he ought to feel pretty good, he took a bad guy all the way out, and made the world a better place.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 28, 2009)

I have nothing more to say to you.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 28, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> The young man did not know the identity of the man he killed and we only have his word that the man "lunged" at him.



That is true. However, all things being equal, his story is more probable because the other guy was a convicted criminal and wasn't supposed to be there.



Errant108 said:


> Meanwhile, a young man has to deal with the conclusions of his action.  A young man, a college student, not a soldier, not a police officer, but a young man has to accept the fact that he killed a man, an action that may have been avoidable.  That's not even saying if he is charged.



That is also true. However, assuming he didn't lie to the cops, I think he made the right call. _When it doubt, choose to live_. Perhaps the man lunged at him just to shove him out of the way. Or maybe he did so in order to attack. The other person was there with malicious intentions and initiated the confrontation. It would have been irresponsible not to defend his life in the hope that it would turn out ok.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 28, 2009)

I see that some of the posts in the thread have made reference to the wounds taken by the slain. 

The answers given by both LEO members and those who practise in the sword arts have covered it well I reckon but I thought I'd just add another confirmatory data-point from someone experienced in using the weapon in question.

If you put your arm in the way of a katana 'in flight', even if tenouchi has not been applied, then that arm is getting cut through. Most strikes within iai, as an example, take as a given that you are aiming to cut through everything that is in the path of the blade.

So if the wielder had training then it is only a surprise that he didn't make a better cut than he did and if he didn't have training, well, he was using the right tool for the job.


----------



## Langenschwert (Sep 28, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i got over it in 91, little something called the gulf war
> 
> dont assume things about people you dont know errant.
> 
> ...


 
Hi TwinFist,

While I agree with your basic sentiment, not everyone who does kill is mentally strong enough to deal with the aftereffects.

Perhaps he "ought" to feel pretty good, but I doubt he actually does. Most civillians today are simply not prepared for the reality of violence and collapse as a result.

However, I hope that he indeed acted appropriately and that he has a clean conscience. From what I can see, he was defending his property, and good for him. In some respects, he's fortunate that he killed the guy. If someone breaks into a house and gets mauled by a guard dog, he can sue the homeowner. At least he won't have to deal with that. One small thing, at least.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 28, 2009)

Langenschwert said:


> Hi TwinFist,
> 
> While I agree with your basic sentiment, not everyone who does kill is mentally strong enough to deal with the aftereffects.
> 
> Perhaps he "ought" to feel pretty good, but I doubt he actually does. Most civillians today are simply not prepared for the reality of violence and collapse as a result.



Bingo.



Langenschwert said:


> However, I hope that he indeed acted appropriately and that he has a clean conscience. From what I can see, he was defending his property, and good for him. In some respects, he's fortunate that he killed the guy. If someone breaks into a house and gets mauled by a guard dog, he can sue the homeowner. At least he won't have to deal with that. One small thing, at least.



The family of the deceased have already announced their intent to take him to civil court regardless of whether or not he is charged criminally.  Again, this is not a simple issue, and Monday morning quarterbacking, attaboys, and internet bravado is pretty sickening when you take into account how much this young man's life may be affected by these actions.

We'd like things to be simple, but they rarely are.

His actions will have affects on his life that he was not trained for, not prepared for, and had not planned for.

So, I'm glad there are people comfortable with slaying anyone who walks across their lawn.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 28, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> So, I'm glad there are people comfortable with slaying anyone who walks across their lawn.



I worry for the students of anyone with such conscience.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 28, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i got over it in 91, little something called the gulf war



Was this during your time in the Navy?

What actions did you take part in?


----------



## James Kovacich (Sep 28, 2009)

If the attacker did lunge at him his sword could of been taken away and used against him. I think the implications would be worse if he stabbed him in the stomach with the sword or attempted to cut his head off or something more deadly. Slashing techniques are sometimes more hunmane but can also be deadly to. 

I prefer defanging the snake types of bladed techniques over stabbing. Defanging can be both deadly or life saving while injuring the attacker. The smallest of blades are potentially deadly and care is needed to be taught along with the blade usage. 

I do think that when the young man gets older he may feel regret.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 28, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I worry for the students of anyone with such conscience.



since no one here has said that, i wouldnt worry too much about it.

You know, there is a simple solution, dont try to rob people, and you wont get your hand cut off and bleed out.

As Ted Nugent said:

I dont like repeat offenders. I like DECEASED offenders.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Sep 28, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Under the law here, it's not.
> 
> The young man did not know the identity of the man he killed and we only have his word that the man "lunged" at him.
> 
> ...


 
So what legit reason did the perp have for being inside the ma'ns house?

Why would the perp go towards the man to get away?

 The perp was a career criminal, sure there is a possability that he might have had a legit reason for being there but that is boubtfull next to his history.

 I have known many who have taken life and some have regrets and remorse but a few have told me they have zero.

 My step grandfather said he actually got a rush from killing German troops in WW2. The first man he knowingly killed, he took his helmet. He said throughout North Africa and Italy he had no problems but by the time he was in Germany and had to kill German civillians and reserve troops it did start to bother him and as the war became distant he did have regrets.
 He told me that he hoped I never had to do what he did but if I was in the same situation that I should stow my emotions and pull the trigger and cry about it when I was an old man. He told me part of being a man was there is a possability that you might have to one day kill for your country or family and a man will rise to it and do just that. He saw plenty of guys in WW2 who could not do it and came home in boxes.


Another, a recent Iraq vet said " I think most guys who have problems over killing someone is that deep down, it feels good to kill someone who was out to kill you, your buddies and the people around them. You dont know how many children I saw killed and maimed by these animals wantingly. One little boy died in my arms."

 So good riddence to a scumbag, we would have less crime if it was a little easier to legally kill or maim criminals who assult you, steal from you or enter your home without permission, its called personal responsability.

 It was big when America was truly great, now that it's in decline, so is America.

 Killing is not a good thing, but getting rid of a victimizer is and killing is but one method.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 28, 2009)

Clarity time:

I'm going to say I'm in favor of the death penalty - in certain cases.

I find it hard to be cozy with the death of a career robber.  A career rapist, murder, child molester ... sure.  Robber?  Not quite so much.

IN THIS CASE ... The lunge would either be for the young man or the door behind him - doesn't really matter which, because it was seen as a lunged attack which to me justifies the defensive use of whatever one can get their hands on.  If you have the time to grab a bona-fide weapon (i.e. gun, knife, sword, stick) that's preferable over an improvised weapon (usually) such as a baseball bat, tire iron, etcetera.  I really have no problem with the actions of this young man with the information we currently have. I reserve the right to change that position should new facts be revealed.

And if a person dies because they were stupid enough to lunge at someone with a really big blade ... it is an unfortunate consequence of his bad decision.

That said ... it is the cavalier attitude I will never cozy up to and I really don't care what anyone has to say about it.  Being cavalier about taking life *is* and *should be* worrisome. That doesn't mean one has to kill oneself for the necessary taking of life, especially in times of war.

Bloodlust is powerful, I'm sure and I hope to never experience it.

Cheers.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 28, 2009)

that speaks well of you georgia.

no one should ever be cavalier about the TAKING of a life, but the loss of a career criminal?

no sleep lost here


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 29, 2009)

Several of you are confused about the facts of this case in your rush to judge it a righteous kill, and are thus missing why this could go very badly for the young man involved.  It is very likely, given the facts, that he will be charged.  Whether or not he is found guilty, remains to be seen.

*1.  The deceased was never inside the house.*

The original story given that Pontillo heard a noise coming from the garage, grabbed his sword, and went to see what the noise was turned out to be completely fabricated, as it did not hold up to evidence and testimony.  After hearing reports of a suspicious person in the area, police contacted Pontillo and his room mates.  The officers allowed Pontillo & his fellow students to accompany them as they searched the area around their house, and found nothing.  Afterward, Pontillo and his friends decided to check the area again.  Pontillo decides to arm himself with the sword, and leave the safety of the house.

*2.  Maryland is a "Duty to Retreat" state.*

This is extremely important.  Pontillo left the safety of his house, armed himself, and sought confrontation.  Seeing Rice in his backyard, Pontillo drew the sword, and demanded Rice stay in the yard, while yelling at his room mates to call the police.  Neighbors report hearing Pontillo shouting for Rice to get on the ground.  It is at this point that Rice allegedly lunged at Pontillo, and Pontillo struck once, nearly severing Rice's hand, and striking him in the neck.

Under Maryland law, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself.  However, if you have the opportunity to retreat, you must do so.  If the jury accepts the case that Pontillo had the chance to retreat and that his actions escalated the confrontation, it could go very badly for him.

* So horray that there's one less "scumbag" around.  Is sacrificing a young man's freedom and future worth the death of one "scumbag"?*  A man who had never killed anyone?

One of the primary issues in self-defense is being aware of the legality of your actions, your rights, and your responsibilities.

Pontillo did not check his house.  He didn't make sure all of the windows were locked and the doors were bolted.  He armed himself and left the house.  It is for that reason that this may end very badly for him.

But hey, at least you can go to sleep in your nice comfortable bed, far away from Baltimore, glad for the fact that there's another dead scumbag.

Meanwhile, a young man may go to prison for killing a man, something that he may well have been able to avoid.

But you won't lose any sleep.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 29, 2009)

I can appreciate the foundation upon which you are building your position, *Errant* but I don't share the same view. I do comprehend that an overly lax approach to the welfare of those engaged in criminal actions can lead you down a bad road but when the criminals welfare outweighs or overshadows that of the victim then something is wrong.

Faced with someone creeping about your property at night, who is perceptably larger than yourself (as the news story suggests), I don't think that it speaks of premeditation as much as it does preperation to arm yourself. 

Also, against someone in their right mind, the presence of a weapon will normally work to deter attack and thus obviate the need for actual violence.

Of course, the circumstances described in the story do indicate that the householder went out looking again after a search had already been made. That might sound foolish but I can well understand the feelings that would cause such action. I too would be unable to sleep peacefully knowing that there had been someone around who might well come back (having had practical experience of this having interrupted someone breaking into my house in the early hours).

Nonetheless, the law sounds as if it marches in step with *Errant* on this issue (i.e. the need to retreat) and this is something I disagree with. My safety on my property should be paramount - anyone entering said property with nefarious intent should forfeit their right to the normal everyday protections of the law (or at least my actions should be given due latitude under such conditions).


----------



## d1jinx (Sep 29, 2009)

What does this say to the world....

"Send your kid to the *Great State of Maryland* to the most prestigious School of medicine, *Johns Hopkins*, where he can be robbed, defend his property, and go to jail for life...."

Great message.


I was born and raised in MD.  But I LOVE Texas Law. 


Damn Liberals... always protecting the criminal...


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 29, 2009)

d1jinx said:


> What does this say to the world....
> 
> "Send your kid to the *Great State of Maryland* to the most prestigious School of medicine, *Johns Hopkins*, where he can be robbed, defend his property, and go to jail for life...."
> 
> ...



I sure wish Texas would seceed.  You see, I'm a liberal and I'm fine with the outcome of this case.  Damn Texans always jumping to conclusions. 

Errant ... let me get this straight.  The young man ordered the intruder to the ground.  THE INTRUDER DECIDED TO LUNGE AT HIM ... HE WAS SUPPOSED TO RETREAT???

I have led police around my home to be sure that when they say the home is "secure" that it is, indeed SECURE.  They never want to check the garage, the backyard, the bathrooms, closets - rare is the officer I've seen be *thorough* about checking for an intruder.

Intruders like to hide where they know the cops don't go.  If this young man has training - and it sounds like he likely does - he may know this and want to ensure as well.  He left his roommates behind to secure the home.

I disagree with the application of his duty to retreat in this case.  He has a right to secure his property which clearly the police failed at doing.  He ordered the perp to the ground and gave him the opportunity to end things well.  The perp took action which required defensive action on the part of the student.

On the handful of occasions we thought an intruder was in the home, I have always accompanied police on securing the home unless they had firearms drawn, which they did in one case.  They miss things. Sorry, LEOs - most of the ones I've seen just do. :idunno:

They certainly missed this perp, now didn't they? In a backyard, not in the house or garage.


----------



## Stac3y (Sep 29, 2009)

IMO, the garage is PART of the house. Once someone is inside a garage, they are in the house--especially because the door between garage and whatever other room it connects to is usually an interior-type door and not made for security like exterior doors are.

I am a liberal (bleeding heart, even), and I think the kid was within his rights. He was searching his home to make sure no one was in there. It's not like he ran down the street waving a weapon. It's unfortunate that the robber was killed--it will no doubt lead to unpleasant psychological and other consequences for the young man--but better the home invader than the resident.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 29, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> IMO, the garage is PART of the house. Once someone is inside a garage, they are in the house--especially because the door between garage and whatever other room it connects to is usually an interior-type door and not made for security like exterior doors are.



Errant pointed out to us the intruder was not found in the garage, he was found in the backyard.  Still, a part of the property, I'm gleaning.



> I am a liberal (bleeding heart, even), and I think the kid was within his rights. He was searching his home to make sure no one was in there. It's not like he ran down the street waving a weapon. It's unfortunate that the robber was killed--it will no doubt lead to unpleasant psychological and other consequences for the young man--but better the home invader than the resident.



Agreed.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 29, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I can appreciate the foundation upon which you are building your position, *Errant* but I don't share the same view.



I don't think you appreciate my position, because you're still attached to the idea that you have to justify the killing.  Further, it doesn't matter whether or not you share the same view...because it doesn't affect you!  Nor any of you Texas.

It's not about whether or not Rice should have died, should not have died, deserved to die, etc.

It's about an integral part of self-defense, a more intellectual part of it, that the majority of you seem to want to ignore in favor of your feelings about action and you own justification for it.

We've already had words like "liberal" and "bleeding heart" tossed around.  "Concern for the criminal", etc.

Still missing the point.

An integral part of any self-defense training is understanding the "legalities of your locality".

Part of self-defense is making sure I don't end up in jail.  Part of self-defense is that I don't have relatives of the deceased bankrupting me with lawsuits.

This is not Texas, and you cannot act like it is Texas, no matter how much you want it to be Texas, and please spare us the pontifications of how much you love Texas cuz you can just kill willy nilly in Texas.


----------



## Errant108 (Sep 29, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Errant ... let me get this straight.  The young man ordered the intruder to the ground.  THE INTRUDER DECIDED TO LUNGE AT HIM ... HE WAS SUPPOSED TO RETREAT???



No, depending on the factors involved, the point of retreat would have been when he realized that Rice was in the backyard.  It will likely be suggested by prosecution that Rice should have retreated to the house at that point and called the police.  Having retreated inside the house, it would have been much easier for him to then build a case for self-defense.  If Rice had actually attempted to break into the house, a jury would likely be swayed very much in Pontillo's direction.

If this goes to trial, one of the the issues Pontillo's defense will have to deal with is proving that the young man had no opportunity to retreat.  This will be built on position in the yard, who was cornered, etc.  Pontillo claims his back was against the garage door.  That could likely work in his favor.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 29, 2009)

a "duty to retreat"?

thats the dumbest thing I have heard of since New Coke and Micheal Moore.....

imagine, cowardice being official government policy


ok, Maryland's dumb.

let me offer up another classic bit of wisdom:

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

With any luck at all, there will be ONE non-coward on the jury.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 29, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> I am a liberal (bleeding heart, even), and I think the kid was within his rights. He was searching his home to make sure no one was in there. It's not like he ran down the street waving a weapon. It's unfortunate that the robber was killed--it will no doubt lead to unpleasant psychological and other consequences for the young man--but better the home invader than the resident.




agreed


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 29, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> No, depending on the factors involved, the point of retreat would have been when he realized that Rice was in the backyard.  It will likely be suggested by prosecution that Rice should have retreated to the house at that point and called the police.  Having retreated inside the house, it would have been much easier for him to then build a case for self-defense.  If Rice had actually attempted to break into the house, a jury would likely be swayed very much in Pontillo's direction.
> 
> If this goes to trial, one of the the issues Pontillo's defense will have to deal with is proving that the young man had no opportunity to retreat.  This will be built on position in the yard, who was cornered, etc.  Pontillo claims his back was against the garage door.  That could likely work in his favor.



Thanks.  I understand you have to operate within the law ... but I hope if the young man is charged his defense attorney will point out the failure of the police to adequately secure the property.



Twin Fist said:


> Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.



Mr. Parker's (and others) vision was quite short-sighted.  I'm sure O.J. Simpson was glad he was judged by 12.  There are a slew of women who killed their sig other in self-defense who are in prison for life or on death row.  

And Errant is right - this *is* the tantamount element to self-defense (understanding and operating within the legalities in your area).


----------



## d1jinx (Sep 29, 2009)

ok... I get it now...
I am supposed to tell the man in the dark to stop charging at me so i can think about the consequnces of my actions.  Then proceed to restart his attack so I can somehow defend myself without injuring him.

The only thing the kid did wrong was forget to put a screwdriver in the *******s hand after he chopped him down.

I sincerely hope that MD's DA does not press charges on this kid.  But then again... It is Maryland.  The same state where a burgular can break into your home, cut himself on glass and sue you.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 29, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Errant ... let me get this straight. The young man ordered the intruder to the ground. THE INTRUDER DECIDED TO LUNGE AT HIM ... HE WAS SUPPOSED TO RETREAT???


 
"G" while in discussion years ago (* As the laws have changed for Michigan *) with some local detectives an ADA, I asked about something similar. If in the house and you hear someone, get to a phone if you can and call 911. If they come closer to you, you were required to leave even if it menat going out the window. I then asked what if it was a second story window. They said yes, as the fall would most likely not kill you. I said what it I had constuction in the back yard down to bottom of basement so three stories and are was not dirt but cemet rebar coming out of it. They tried to explain to me it was my "Duty" to leave the house by sliding down the side of the house. But I was never to confront the bad guy in the house. That was against the law and made me the bad guy now. 

I tried to argue but if the Bad guy was in my house against the law, why is it me breaking the law by asking them to leave or forcing them to leave. They just said it was. I walked away in disgust and frustration. 

Which is why when I heard about the proposed changes, I called and wrote letters and got the word out so others could as well.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 29, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> "G" while in discussion years ago (* As the laws have changed for Michigan *) with some local detectives an ADA, I asked about something similar. If in the house and you hear someone, get to a phone if you can and call 911. If they come closer to you, you were required to leave even if it menat going out the window. I then asked what if it was a second story window. They said yes, as the fall would most likely not kill you. I said what it I had constuction in the back yard down to bottom of basement so three stories and are was not dirt but cemet rebar coming out of it. They tried to explain to me it was my "Duty" to leave the house by sliding down the side of the house. But I was never to confront the bad guy in the house. That was against the law and made me the bad guy now.
> 
> I tired to argue but if the Bad guy was in my house against the law, why is it me breaking the law by asking them to leave or forcing them to leave. They just said it was. I walked away in disgust and frustration.
> 
> Which is why when I heard about the proposed changes, I called and wrote letters and got the word out so others could as well.



Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 29, 2009)

England, *Errant*, not Texas, is the place I call home.

You most evidently have a very clear handle on your views on situations such as this and I am more than happy not to argue with you about them. That is mainly because I can't see the point you're trying to make being one that is going to be disagreed with by anyone here. 

So, yes, I agree, follow the laws of the locality in which you live. 

What I think others are trying to say is just don't throw away your common sense if you are ever faced with an extreme situation. It's an old, worn out truth, I know but you have to be alive or at least ambulatory to go to court.

Noone is trying to justify killing someone in terms of it being a good thing - at least I don't read most of the posts above in that way. If you do read them that way, *Errant* then that is your judgement to make; after all, I don't live in your head and you don't live in mine. 

This is merely a discussion forum at the end of the day and I've put my views on the page, 'had my say' so to speak. I make no pretence that I have the definitive right of things and I certainly don't know a jot about the law in the area where this unfortunate event took place (nor even that I know how the sad events came to take place).


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 29, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> And Errant is right - this *is* the tantamount element to self-defense (understanding and operating within the legalities in your area).



i would say that the most important single element in self defense is "are you still alive at the end of the confrontation?"

but thats just me....


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 29, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i would say that the most important single element in self defense is "are you still alive at the end of the confrontation?"
> 
> but thats just me....



If you get the chair ... you won't be.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 29, 2009)

we use injection here. and in no way would someone defending themselves get the chair. 

worst case is manslaughter, MAYBE negligent homicide.

if thier record is clean?

minimal time, if any.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 29, 2009)

Well--I'll not call anyone "coward" just for not wanting to kill.

And I'll also shed no tears for the late gentleman who was anything but. 

And to those wishing Texas would secede I would beg you to ask them to wait 2 years till i get settled.

Philosophically I would tend to agree with John as concerns the rights, or rather forfeiture of same, of any such person who would commit such actions upon the innocent.

But as a practical matter I must also concede Errant's and Geo's points concerning knowing the laws where one lives, and if they are unacceptable as written, to get them changed if one can, or move if the first option is just not politically possible (as in my case--that's why I'm saving so hard to leave--for Texas  ).

I do not see this as a "compromise" or as "backing down" from "righteous beliefs" it's simple good sense; any military officer worth his bars/leaves/birds/stars does his reconaissance before committing his troops on the field, and so should you do yours before committing YOUR resources to a course of action not suited for your particular "terrain".

But once the plan is sound and called for--lower the boom.

I suppose I must be either unique, or in the minority, in that i don't consider an act of lethal force in self defense to be either a "horrible sin", or a "righteous punishment", but rather as simply a mission requirement to be met, a job to be done. That's all. My mission is to not go to, or remain in, places where individuals are likely to cause a threat. If this primary mission fails, my secondary mission is to take *T*hose *C*ausing *A* *P*roblem to a position where they can no longer cause the threat . If in order to accomplish that mission, I must use lethal force, I will, if the mission does not require it, I will not. _That's All._ You cannot allow it to become any more personal than by its nature it must be---as we have seen in _this very case_, *as soon as you allow the exercise to become personal, you stop thinking and start making mistakes and your tactics will suffer.*

We're watching such a planning failure manifest right now, in light of the facts Errant brought up of which I was unaware before, under MD law as currently written, it does unfortunately look like if it goes to trial, the poor kid's cooked.


----------



## David43515 (Sep 29, 2009)

Has anyone heard anymore about whether or not he`ll be charged?


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 30, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> we use injection here. and in no way would someone defending themselves get the chair.
> 
> worst case is manslaughter, MAYBE negligent homicide.
> 
> ...



Heh. I asked a state trooper here if we had Castle Doctrine - he didn't know what I was talking about. But he did state we can go to the point of killing for self-defense but not necessarily *property* defense.

Oh, and I'm *fairly* certain that we still have hanging as an option to lethal injection.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Keep in mind, while you're speculating, that the young man left the safety of his house, armed himself, and went looking for a confrontation.
> 
> Again, this case is not clear cut.  The deceased never entered the house, and is guilty likely only of trespassing.



It's clear cut.  The deceased was found in his garage according to the article.  He's a career criminal with a long list of contact with the police.  Bury him and get on with business.

This whole 'leaving the safety of his house' business is bogus.  It was his property, he was confronted by a man who was obviously not there to sell Avon.  Case closed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Under the law here, it's not.
> 
> The young man did not know the identity of the man he killed and we only have his word that the man "lunged" at him.
> 
> ...



I'm completely comfortable......and i'm glad you're glad i'm complete comfortable.  One less criminal breaking in to houses. 

By the way, i'd condone it in person if I could.......i've seen a few cases like that.....clears up my workload.  My standard isn't 'Was it avoidable'.......my standard is 'Was it OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE'.......it was 'AVOIDABLE' by the DECEASED never having been there in the first place.

And i'm sure the young man would rather deal with THESE consequences, than the consequences of having not done what he did, and being on the RECEIVING end of his own blade. 


As for the 'internet bravdo' bit, the REALITY is just the opposite....I see a lot of the hang wringing and equivocating from those who's job has NEVER been to do this kind of thing.......the perception is that it is complicated, but the reality is that it is very simple.  When confronted by a threat, there is a response.  All this emotionalism applied to it mostly involves Hollywood movies with dramatic music playing in the background.  I've looked down my sights at men intent to do me harm.  I once stared down a man who charged across my own yard at me armed with a baseball bat.  And the only reason he isn't dead is that he didn't cross my imaginary line drawn on the ground.  And i'd have slept fine afterwards, because the decision was his not mine.  He created the situation, he chose the terms, and my response was entirely based on his.

Spare me the 'internet tough guy' argument that usually comes as a back-handed insult for those who disagree with the 'Maybe he didn't have to kill him' crowd of dealing with criminals.  It's cliched and old.  

There are plenty of cops who talk like you think they talk, which is the 'I hope I never have to shoot anyone and i'm not sure if I could' crowd.......but we have a word for any police officer who is so torn up by the idea of possibly shooting someone in the line of duty if it becomes necessary that they worry they won't be able to.........UNFIT FOR DUTY!

As for the argument that perhaps his actions weren't justified because he left his house.......by what right do we have to demand that someone not access their own property simply because someone is ILLEGALLY ON IT?  That is some backwards thinking.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Bingo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which is why we in Missouri grant citizens CIVIL immunity when there is not CRIMINAL liability........so that the family of parasites cannot profit from the death of said parasite.

Many of the issues your bring up you THINK are inherent issues, but they are really only issues BECAUSE of the way too many people view citizens response to these incidents, which is the REAL problem.  Don't break in to homes, don't steal and rob, and you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> I worry for the students of anyone with such conscience.



You mean the notion that when charged by a felon in your own yard that you should refrain from using force in self-defense?  That concerns me as well.

I'm more concerned with the mindset that says if we are forced to engage in violence by someone else, we should feel suitably guilty, even if we did the right, thing.  The mentality that says something is wrong with you if you aren't torn up and in therapy because you did what you had to do.

The reality is that the former is more a sign of mental instability than the later.  Those who do the right thing AND are confident enough not to feel guilty about it are really the poster children of mental stability, not those who suffer terrible mental anguish simply for doing what is necessary.  There is, however, a movement of people who wish to turn that upside down.....call it the Phil Donahue/Oprah phenomenon.

It's okay to feel guilty........but it's REALLY OKAY not to feel guilty as well!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Clarity time:
> 
> I'm going to say I'm in favor of the death penalty - in certain cases.
> 
> ...



Actually what you're looking for is 'Burglar'.......and many rapists and murderers have long histories of committing 'burglar'.  In fact the difference between a 'Burglary' and a 'Home Invasion Robbery MURDER' is the burglar ACCIDENTALLY finding someone home.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> Several of you are confused about the facts of this case in your rush to judge it a righteous kill, and are thus missing why this could go very badly for the young man involved.  It is very likely, given the facts, that he will be charged.  Whether or not he is found guilty, remains to be seen.
> 
> *1.  The deceased was never inside the house.*
> 
> ...



Had the suspect been trying to escape, instead of lunging at Pontillo, would the wounds be to the suspects BACK?!

You want to make an issue about the incident based on Maryland's laws.......but the REAL issue is Maryland's laws.  Sometimes there's a difference between what is LEGAL and what is RIGHT!  Many states have already addressed that in a more enlightened fashion.

How's this.......Pontillo walks, and if all that happens is one dead burglar, I WON'T LOSE ANY SLEEP!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> I don't think you appreciate my position, because you're still attached to the idea that you have to justify the killing.  Further, it doesn't matter whether or not you share the same view...because it doesn't affect you!  Nor any of you Texas.
> 
> It's not about whether or not Rice should have died, should not have died, deserved to die, etc.
> 
> ...



Nor can government simply decide arbitrarily what laws it requires it's citizens to operate under.  Because we are a NATION where government is based on the consent of the governed.

SO, in that sense saying that the Objective Reasonableness of one's actions is entirely irrelevant goes CONTRARY to our system of government.  We have a right to DEMAND that government passes laws that are reasonable.  Simply acquiescing to bad laws is Un-American.  So if Maryland's laws consider defending yourself in your own backyard against a violent felon ILLEGAL, it is Maryland that is wrong.


I've got a feeling that's not your issue, however.  If this had occurred in Texas you'd be making the same argument using a different pre-text.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

Errant108 said:


> No, depending on the factors involved, the point of retreat would have been when he realized that Rice was in the backyard.  It will likely be suggested by prosecution that Rice should have retreated to the house at that point and called the police.  Having retreated inside the house, it would have been much easier for him to then build a case for self-defense.  If Rice had actually attempted to break into the house, a jury would likely be swayed very much in Pontillo's direction.
> 
> If this goes to trial, one of the the issues Pontillo's defense will have to deal with is proving that the young man had no opportunity to retreat.  This will be built on position in the yard, who was cornered, etc.  Pontillo claims his back was against the garage door.  That could likely work in his favor.



Actually you've got it wrong......it is the Prosecutor's duty to PROVE that Pontillo had the REASONABLE ability to retreat.  The burden of proof is on the state, and prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the end of the day, state laws that require such splitting of hairs are unfair to their citizens, and only serve a misguided attempt to defend felons in the commission of a felony.  Fortunately other states are more enlightened that Maryland.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> If you get the chair ... you won't be.



You ever heard of anyone getting the chair for self-defense?  Legitimate, honest to god Self-Defense.  I know Hollywood makes movies about it, but real, no Joke, there's a bad guy attacking me self-defense?  If so then it is the system that is broken........and you have to be alive for the state to kill you anyway.  I'll take my chances.....don't know that it's better to be dead so the state can't kill you.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 30, 2009)

Bottom line this guy not only doesn't get convicted......i'm considering it low odds he gets charged.  I guess i'm blood-thirsty because i'm not fantasizing about him dodging gang-rape in the prison shower as suitable punishment for his 'crime' (of self-defense).......color me deranged!


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 30, 2009)

Sgt ... read the whole thread and all comments before cherry-picking a few comments to reply to - sure looks like you missed a lot.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 30, 2009)

A lot of what I would consider to be common sense spoken regardless, however :tup:.

It is good to hear someone whose job is enforcing the law voicing approaches that jibe well with what we call Common Law over here in England.

Sadly we've moved away from that in recent times, with so much legislation to protect those who act outside of the accepted conventions of moral behaviour that it is now the 'ordinary' subject who is made out to be the criminal if they dare to act in their own interests.

I know that there are always exceptions to any rule or circumstance but if those of us who seek to be good citizens are not allowed to defend ourselves from either physical or psychological assault AND are not defended by the State, then you end up with such tragedies as was witnessed only a week or so ago here in England. 

What am I on about? A mother drove her disabled daughter to a remote location, soaked her with petrol in the car and immolated her and herself. Why? Because of a long term sequence of threatening behaviour, vandalism and abuse from local youths that was not dealt with even after hundreds of calls to the appropriate authorities.

I have ever considered that a proportional response by a homeowner on their own property should always be a legal recourse.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Heh. I asked a state trooper here if we had Castle Doctrine - he didn't know what I was talking about. But he did state we can go to the point of killing for self-defense but not necessarily *property* defense.
> 
> Oh, and I'm *fairly* certain that we still have hanging as an option to lethal injection.


While a lot of cops know the functional ins and outs of the law -- they don't always know legal theory like the Castle Doctrine.  Especially if it's not something they come across often.  That's why, when you need legal advice -- you go to a lawyer.  You want somebody arrested, ask a cop.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 2, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> While a lot of cops know the functional ins and outs of the law -- they don't always know legal theory like the Castle Doctrine. Especially if it's not something they come across often. That's why, when you need legal advice -- you go to a lawyer. You want somebody arrested, ask a cop.


 
JKS,

Not to be the jerk I can be, but then why do police think they need to tell people the law, especially on the net and forums? I am not saying you have, which is why I can ask you the question. 


Thanks


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 3, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> JKS,
> 
> Not to be the jerk I can be, but then why do police think they need to tell people the law, especially on the net and forums? I am not saying you have, which is why I can ask you the question.
> 
> ...


A lot of the time... it's because someone's asking a question.  Other times, it's a variant of talking head syndrome.  And sometimes, it's because someone's said something so utterly stupid or wrong (sometimes criminally so, and sometimes by someone claiming to be a cop) that you can't stand silent.  Kind of like some of the stuff you've posted about the auto industry... 

A cop has a very limited, very practical grasp of a narrow part of the law.  Some cops, either through laziness, specialization, or just plain ignorance, narrow that scope even further...  And the ones that count as ignorant or lazy don't know or admit their limitations.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 6, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> While a lot of cops know the functional ins and outs of the law -- they don't always know legal theory like the Castle Doctrine.  Especially if it's not something they come across often.  That's why, when you need legal advice -- you go to a lawyer.  You want somebody arrested, ask a cop.



Keep in mind many lawyers are far less knowledgeable about such things than police officers.  Specialization and laziness are not a unique characteristic of any one profession.

The reality is that many police officers, those who's area of expertise is in use of force, have far more expertise on the topic than most attorneys.


----------

