Student kills intruder with sword
- Thread starter hotacidbath
- Start date
Recommended Videos
this is why i keep a sword in a chest next to my copmuter and so that if im waiting for nax to up i can swing it around
Now, I've only skimmed the first three pages, so forgive me if someone has already brought this up... but self-defense doesn't necessarily apply in this situation.
Putting aside castle doctrine for a moment, defending yourself is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for killing another human being. Quoting Wikipedia here: "[...] when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat." (1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense#Legal_status_of_self-defense])
Now bear in mind there is no mention of a weapon in the linked article. There is no indication of the degree of violence used, if any, on the part of the burglar. The article vaguely states the man "accosted" him. And what exactly does that mean? Let's try Wiktionary: "To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively, as with a demand or request." (2 [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accost]) Or Merriam-Webster: "to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way" (3 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accost])
So the only thing the article says, and of which the only source is the man who could face criminal charges for his behaviour, is that the burglar approached him in potentially belligerent fashion. Everything else is the biased interpretation of the readers here, who empathize with the "victim" and demonize the burglar.
Also, let us consider that the college student did not stumble across the intruder, feel he was in danger, and reach for a weapon to defend himself. Before ever even confirming there was an intruder, nor what danger he might pose, he went directly for a very dangerous and quite lethal weapon, which may itself constitute mens rea -- malice aforethought.
Furthermore, the article says he "noticed the garage door was open". So he was outside the house, not in any immediate danger, but rather than go to a neighbour's house and call the police, or even to a payphone, he goes inside with the intruder? No, he goes and gets a lethal weapon, then he goes inside to confront the intruder. He puts himself in the line of danger through his own actions, and was obviously expecting to use violence as evidenced by the fact that he took a sword with him.
I'm soon going to have to address castle doctrine, so I'm going to point out more thing out regarding self-defense, in general. Even if you are attacked, and the person is using violence, and you have reason to fear for your life, there may be a duty to retreat. Going back to Wikipedia we have: "Some American jurisdictions require that a person retreat from an attack, and allow the use of deadly force in self defense only when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack." (4 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat#American_law])
So, castle doctrine. Well, Maryland doesn't have any statutory laws covering castle doctrine. The only support for this defense is in case law. And if you haven't already guessed, it too requires you use reasonable force to defend your person. So what's reasonable? Going back to Wikipedia:
"1) The defendant actually believed that was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend in light of the threatenend or actual harm." (5 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland#Self-Defense_.28MPJI-Cr_5:07.29])
"No more force than was reasonably necessary", eh? Now, call me crazy, but I think removing body parts and killing people would require he be in some pretty freaking serious danger to meet all three above requirements. All this against a person we don't know was armed, or even acting violently.
What about defending your property, though? Back to Wikpedia:
"1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing the crime of (crime) in 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)." (6 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland#Defense_of_Habitation_-_Deadly_Force_.28MPJI-Cr_5:02.29])
The third one is the problem yet again. There was no other way to stop him from robbing you than using a samurai sword? Especially considering you were outside the house to begin with? You couldn't call the police? You couldn't get your neighbour to help? You couldn't use any weapon less deadly than a sword? Really?
Let's be honest on what really happened. Burglar breaks into guy's house. Guy is scared/pissed off. Guy gets a sword, freaks out when confronted by burglar, and maims and then kills him. That's not self-defense. That's not even close. The burglar was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die because of it. The student should go to jail. The end.
Putting aside castle doctrine for a moment, defending yourself is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for killing another human being. Quoting Wikipedia here: "[...] when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat." (1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense#Legal_status_of_self-defense])
Now bear in mind there is no mention of a weapon in the linked article. There is no indication of the degree of violence used, if any, on the part of the burglar. The article vaguely states the man "accosted" him. And what exactly does that mean? Let's try Wiktionary: "To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively, as with a demand or request." (2 [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accost]) Or Merriam-Webster: "to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way" (3 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accost])
So the only thing the article says, and of which the only source is the man who could face criminal charges for his behaviour, is that the burglar approached him in potentially belligerent fashion. Everything else is the biased interpretation of the readers here, who empathize with the "victim" and demonize the burglar.
Also, let us consider that the college student did not stumble across the intruder, feel he was in danger, and reach for a weapon to defend himself. Before ever even confirming there was an intruder, nor what danger he might pose, he went directly for a very dangerous and quite lethal weapon, which may itself constitute mens rea -- malice aforethought.
Furthermore, the article says he "noticed the garage door was open". So he was outside the house, not in any immediate danger, but rather than go to a neighbour's house and call the police, or even to a payphone, he goes inside with the intruder? No, he goes and gets a lethal weapon, then he goes inside to confront the intruder. He puts himself in the line of danger through his own actions, and was obviously expecting to use violence as evidenced by the fact that he took a sword with him.
I'm soon going to have to address castle doctrine, so I'm going to point out more thing out regarding self-defense, in general. Even if you are attacked, and the person is using violence, and you have reason to fear for your life, there may be a duty to retreat. Going back to Wikipedia we have: "Some American jurisdictions require that a person retreat from an attack, and allow the use of deadly force in self defense only when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack." (4 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat#American_law])
So, castle doctrine. Well, Maryland doesn't have any statutory laws covering castle doctrine. The only support for this defense is in case law. And if you haven't already guessed, it too requires you use reasonable force to defend your person. So what's reasonable? Going back to Wikipedia:
"1) The defendant actually believed that was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend in light of the threatenend or actual harm." (5 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland#Self-Defense_.28MPJI-Cr_5:07.29])
"No more force than was reasonably necessary", eh? Now, call me crazy, but I think removing body parts and killing people would require he be in some pretty freaking serious danger to meet all three above requirements. All this against a person we don't know was armed, or even acting violently.
What about defending your property, though? Back to Wikpedia:
"1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing the crime of (crime) in 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)." (6 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland#Defense_of_Habitation_-_Deadly_Force_.28MPJI-Cr_5:02.29])
The third one is the problem yet again. There was no other way to stop him from robbing you than using a samurai sword? Especially considering you were outside the house to begin with? You couldn't call the police? You couldn't get your neighbour to help? You couldn't use any weapon less deadly than a sword? Really?
Let's be honest on what really happened. Burglar breaks into guy's house. Guy is scared/pissed off. Guy gets a sword, freaks out when confronted by burglar, and maims and then kills him. That's not self-defense. That's not even close. The burglar was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die because of it. The student should go to jail. The end.
Welcome to the Escapist.sidimere said:
Those are good points you brought up there (although you forget about the whole adrenaline thing. Of course, it doesn't apply to the legal ramifications, but it's still there. No normal, panicked civilian would consider how much force to bring to a possible threat. It makes sense in the mind of a panicked person to use as much force as they could find in the immediate area, just to be safe), and you've demonstrated nicely why the police are interviewing people and talking to prosecutors to see whether they should press charges.
We here on the Escapist don't know all of what happened apart from a few paragraphs from a news article (which you also touched on), so I wish we could find out sometime whether this person will or will not be getting charged. And, if so, if he gets off or gets a conviction.
That'll make the conversation even more interesting.
This took place at one in the morning, in a dark garage with little or no light to determine what the guy was holding.Socken said:
The trespasser likely just didn't see it.
Self-defense law, b####es! Past precedents have established a right to self-defense. If there is a case, I doubt the kid will get convicted on 1st Degree murder anyways, for three reasons:
1. Jury sympathy/awe. Any case against the kid seems difficult to make, and considering he killed a burglar who probably didn't have vast money and legal resources, the prosecution will most likely be shoddy at best. This means the jury is likely to support the kid.
2. Self-defense of property.
3. No intent to kill. At best this kid committed manslaughter, I doubt he'd end up in jail more than 1-2 years AT MOST. More likely he might have to do community service, or he'll be let off.
1. Jury sympathy/awe. Any case against the kid seems difficult to make, and considering he killed a burglar who probably didn't have vast money and legal resources, the prosecution will most likely be shoddy at best. This means the jury is likely to support the kid.
2. Self-defense of property.
3. No intent to kill. At best this kid committed manslaughter, I doubt he'd end up in jail more than 1-2 years AT MOST. More likely he might have to do community service, or he'll be let off.
Welcome to escapist, you devilishly well posting person you.sidimere said:
I'd like to bring up a counter point. My current house has a garage that is set back at an odd angle from my house. It is possible to see it from my upstairs hallway, and thus I could notice if it were open or not. Assuming their house was of a similar, odd construction (and we can't say yae or nae, as none of have a picture) it would be perfectly logical to assume he say the garage open from inside his house.
And this speaks nothing of houses that have a garage that is completely separate from the rest of the house, which is also a logical possibility. In fact, this strikes me as the most likely now that I think of it. If the garage were completely separate from the house, one could very well see inside even if one were still in the house.
because in most states, there are no longer any self defense laws. we gave up that right for the illusion of safety.speidel28 said:
Can... can I have a sumarai sword??? I really want one...now more than ever. But honestly that guys is awesome, how many people commit manslaughter do so with a samurai sword???
Self defence though. It would depend on the jury and if the threat to his life was significant enough to warrant his actions.VanityGirl said:
The guy he killed had previous convinctions so I'm going to go out on a limb and say the police won't file charges.
Agreed. Im telling my kids this story to teach them not to steal.Armored Prayer said:
Also, i dont think that enough attention is being paid to what was stolen. 2 laptops and a playstation. Then the intruder returns next night to (presumably) steal more. After warning him to leave, the intuder attacks him.
This is about as just as killing a guy gets.
Remeber he stole his playstation, then came back. I would like to think i would kill him too.
Dunno self defense can be streched quite a long way. Its not as if it was a concealed weapon...VanityGirl said:
