Baltimore, MD. Burglar shot, killed in Park Heights home

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-intruder0716,0,5123655.story
Burglar shot, killed in Park Heights home

Police received a call reporting a shooting at the 3800 block of Hayward Ave. about 1:10 a.m. Wednesday, said police spokeswoman Nicole Monroe.

When officers arrived, they were told that a man had broken into a home. A man living in that house heard someone come into the basement, and he went upstairs to get a his .38-caliber handgun, police said. He was the registered owner of the gun, police said.

The man, armed with the weapon, went to investigate and heard footsteps upstairs. He called out to his aunt to see whether she was walking around the house, Monroe said.

Then he walked up to the first floor and saw the burglar running through the rear door of the kitchen and fired once, striking the burglar in the back, Monroe said.

The burglar ran out the back door and collapsed near a shed, Monroe said. The man called 911, put his handgun on the kitchen table and waited for police to arrive. Medics rushed the burglar to Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 3:05 a.m.

In Texas, that would be a legal shot. I don't know about MD. Personally, I would have a difficult time shooting someone who was attempting to disengage and escape, unless I had just witnessed him commit a horrendous crime.

[Frosty1]

1. Wow shot him in the back as he was running out the door.

What a brave man. Burglary is now a capital offense.:sarcasm:

[rd_kent]

2. From what I read here, I do not approve of this shooting.

Shooting someone in the back, while trying to get away? This is one homeowner who should be in trouble.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. As the story is written, this isn't self-defense.

The shot may be legal, but it isn't moral. However, additional facts could change the view.

[safeinOhio]

4. Criminal and civil charges will follow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland
By common law, some self defense in Maryland requires duty-to-retreat. Maryland at present, has no "Castle Doctrine" exception set down in statutory law per se, <1> but does have case law indicating duty to retreat does not apply when attacked in one's home. Other exceptions to duty to retreat are being the victim of a robbery, situations where the imminent peril of attack makes retreat impossible or retreat would not remove the danger (i.e. a physically injured or disabled person trying to flee from an able-bodied attacker). See Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 140 (2005). See also Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205, 216, A.2d 669, 675 (2001).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland
By common law, some self defense in Maryland requires duty-to-retreat. Maryland at present, has no "Castle Doctrine" exception set down in statutory law per se, <1> but does have case law indicating duty to retreat does not apply when attacked in one's home. Other exceptions to duty to retreat are being the victim of a robbery, situations where the imminent peril of attack makes retreat impossible or retreat would not remove the danger (i.e. a physically injured or disabled person trying to flee from an able-bodied attacker). See Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 140 (2005). See also Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205, 216, A.2d 669, 675 (2001).

If you are going to own a firearm, best know and understand the laws of your state.

[safeinOhio]

5. Sorry, didn't copy this part

Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)
Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim).

See number 3

[slackmaster]

6. One aspect is questionable IMO, the other is not

It's not clear that this was a valid defensive shooting, and being a burglar carries a risk of getting killed.

[safeinOhio]

8. If the law men don't get him the

lawyers will.

[Turbineguy]

7. Shot

while trying to escape.

[Taitertots]

9. Our justice system is abhorrent

Now this poor guy is going to have to face civil suits by the family of the criminal who victimized him.

Not only that, he may face criminal charges. It is like we do everything we can to protect career criminals at the expense of their victims.

[safeinOhio]

10. I can understand your frustration however

our justice system has judges and juries to dish out punishment. You can and should protect yourself and your family. When you shoot some one in the back you are not doing that. Even a cop can't shoot some one in the back that is fleeing. Where would you draw the line? Some kid trespassing by cutting across your lawn, stealing a bike from your porch? Guns are for legal self-defense, not for dealing out punishment.
We have laws that meet the level of the crime. Breaking and entering is very serious and can put you in a lot of danger. If your life is in danger or you think so because the intruder is threatening you, you have every right to defend yourself. The poor guy should know the law if he is going to own a gun and use it.

[Taitertots]

14. Keep the slippery slope fallacious thinking to yourself

Do you understand the difference between someone who has broken into your house and a child standing on your lawn?

[safeinOhio]

16. As a matter of fact, I do

I also understand the difference between some one running out the door and some one breaking in the door. I also support the 2nd amendment and the 1st and can see no reason to keep my thinking to myself.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. In certain circumstances you can shoot in the back.

If the felon has just committed a horrendous crime and will pose a threat to the public, you can shoot. An example would be if you have seen a felon commit a murder and he is trying to run away, you can shoot.

If the felon is in your home and retreating, but still armed, you can shoot. He can raise his arm and shoot faster than most people can respond. So he still poses a threat to you.

If is could see that he had no weapon in his hand and is trying to get away, I would let him go and call 911. If I can see that he is still armed, and is in my home, I would shoot without warning.

[rd_kent]

11. This poor guy? He shot someone in the back who was not threatening him.

[Taitertots]

12. I didn't know turning around is impossible

You must think so, because you seem to think that simply turning around means someone can't hurt you.

He should just be walking backward the whole time, then at least his family can extort money if his victim fights back.

[rd_kent]

13. He was running away, out the door.

I have no idea what you are getting at.

[Taitertots]

15. Do you think he can't turn around?

So why would you think that a criminal who has broken into your house is not a threat simply because their back is turned to you.

[safeinOhio]

17. Last thought.....

I'll turn around before he shoots me dead so my ex-wife can sue his ass. If I face him, he might see that I'm unarmed. Turns out the guy is unarmed, turns out you will be in big trouble.

[Tejas]

35. One small problem with "my ex-wife can sue his"

You'd still be dead. Only solution I can figure to that is not to do stupid things that'll get you shot.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taitertots]

20. Do you have a learning disability?

Can someone turn around? Obviously they can, and clearly they can in seconds.

Is a criminal in the process of victimizing you not a threat simply because they turn their back to you? Obviously they are a threat to you.

[rd_kent]

22. I do not feel it is possible for you to be more wrong.

SO what, the guy can turn around. If he does that AND he charges you, then you would be justified in shooting him. It seems like you are advocating executing someone for breaking into your home. You will be hard pressed to find anyone in this forum to support you on this.

[Taitertots]

23. You are free to have that OPINION

I'll continue to believe that people breaking into my house are a threat to me regardless if they momentarily turn their backs to me. Do you really think that people in the process of victimizing you are not a threat simply based on the direction they are facing? What angle do they have to be facing before you act?


You can pretend criminals in the process of victimizing you are not a threat simply because they turn their backs. I'm not that naive.

You can wait to shoot at them until they have turned back with a gun. I'm not that naive.

[rd_kent]

24. You are right, we are both entitled to act in our own way. Your course will land you in jail

mine will not. I'm not that naive.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. That depends upon the laws of the state.

In Texas, you can drop the guy, front, back, sideways, doesn't matter. All you need is for him to have broken into you home illegally while you are there, or for you to arrive home while he is still there.

If the guy is armed and in your house, he poses a threat to you even if he is running away. He can fire a shot at you in a fraction of a second, before you can respond, unless your reflexes are amazingly quick.

[rd_kent]

27. We will all just have to act in the way we feel is most appropriate.

I don't think I could stand to live with myself if I shot an unarmed person in the back while they were running away.

[Taitertots]

30. Could you live with yourself if you got shot?

Probably for a lot less time then having to live with killing a criminal who was victimizing you.

[rd_kent]

31. If I wasnt dead, then yes.

A criminal that is fleeing is not victimizing me.

[Taitertots]

32. Sounds like a risk I'm not foolish enough to take

How is someone in the process of burglarizing your house not victimizing you? They simply couldn't be there without you being the victim of a crime.

I am legally justified in believing anyone I catch illegally in my house is there to do me great bodily harm. As such I have every reason to believe their non-cooperative actions are malevolent.

[rd_kent]

33. You and I agree on just about everything.

How is someone in the process of burglarizing your house not victimizing you?

You're right, he is. But when he is running away, he is no longer burglarizing my house or victimizing me.

I am legally justified in believing anyone I catch illegally in my house is there to do me great bodily harm.

I agree, but when they are running away, I would no longer feel they are trying to do me bodily harm.

As I said before, we will just have to act in a way that each of us feels is appropriate.

[Taitertots]

36. Here is the difference

I think that whether or not a person is running, diving for cover, running for back-up, turning to obscure drawing a weapon, or running to grab a family member that is out of view is something that can only be determined after the fact. You have no way of knowing at the time.

I have legal and logical reason to believe someone breaking into my house is there to do great bodily harm to me.

As such I feel every reason to believe their non-cooperative actions are malevolent.

[Taitertots]

29. I live in Michigan

We have castle doctrine.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

28. Good shoot

Could've been armed and searching for cover, could've been headed to the door to summon accomplices and then return to do who-knows-what, could've been fetching a weapon, could've..........

[spin]

34. If Florida it would have been ruled a good shoot ...

under castle doctrine.

In the shooters shoes, I might have chosen to let the fool run. Nice to know that I have the choice.