Maryland Man Shoots Home Intruder: Charged With Murder

Hahahahaha! I love this:







SON OF A ****ING BITCH MOTHER****ER YOU SHOULD BE ****ING TRIED FOR TREASON AND HANGED YOU COWARD POS.

WE SHOULD SEND PEOPLE LIKE THIS TO NORTH KOREA SERIOUSLY.

Sorry, instant LEVEL OVER 9000 RAGE when I read that.


This moron needs to study law again.

in 2010 the Governor of maryland signed into law a modified “Castle Doctrine” bill (SB-411).
This new law will provide civil immunity for a person defending their dwelling or place of business. This immunity provides that the person is not liable for damages for a personal injury or death of an individual when protecting yourself in your home. Maryland added the proviso that the doctrine only applies as long as the persons defending them selves are not convicted of a crime related to the act for which the immunity is being sought.
 
Though I agree that there could be or could have been something going on with the wife, But once the guy was told that it is over, it is over! You know like the meaning of no is no. Being that as it may, it does not give the guy the right to breakdown the door once he was told to leave.

I agree. The only reason I suggest it is that it starts to create a basis for motive if it is outside of a self defense scenario.

If he was in fact breaking through the door (a fact I am not privy to) than it was likely a clean shoot.
 
This moron needs to study law again.

in 2010 the Governor of maryland signed into law a modified “Castle Doctrine” bill (SB-411).
This new law will provide civil immunity for a person defending their dwelling or place of business. This immunity provides that the person is not liable for damages for a personal injury or death of an individual when protecting yourself in your home. Maryland added the proviso that the doctrine only applies as long as the persons defending them selves are not convicted of a crime related to the act for which the immunity is being sought.
by my reading, this sounds similar to MA law re: castle doctrine

the defender does not retreat and uses deadly force against someone who unlawfully entered the home they occupy

they bear the burden of proof that there was imminent bodily injury to themselves or other occupants; if they cannot prove this imminent harm, then they can be convicted

DONATE HERE if you want to support the guy's defense
 
What sounds strange is that his family claims that they don't know each other but some of the article written about it said they the husband spoke with him and told him he had to move out. Then there is the part where he bursts through the door. Some of the articles say that he was let in and they talked and was then told to leave. If he burst through the door and kept advancing why was he found on the porch? was he shot and tried to leave or were they arguing at the door and he tried to get in and the husband shot him?

What you think people when shot fold up right there? Sorry, but unless you take out the central nervous system the body continues to function even though the person is for all purposes dead.

Selective reading or did you just stop after reading "why was he found on the porch?"
 
Not that it has any bearing on the case, or actually i have no idea if it does but with hubby off in Korea, and her home pretty much being turned into a club house...

is it only me that thinks Mr Green might have been giving it to Mrs Pinkerton in the study, with the candlestick?
 
Back
Top Bottom