Student kills intruder with "Samurai Sword"

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Bruno@MT]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).