Student kills intruder with "Samurai Sword"

[d1jinx]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Those Causing A Problem 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]

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

 

[shesulsa]

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.

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]

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.