A good bill in Maryland

[Township75]

Law Would Protect Homeowners Who Confront


EST March 25, 2004 - Maryland lawmakers on Wednesday discussed a bill that gives homeowners greater leeway when they defend themselves against intruders.


Under the measure people who use deadly force to defend themselves would not be held civilly liable.

Currently a homeowner can be sued for money damages by a burglar or their beneficiaries if the homeowner hurts or kills the intruder.

Rest of the story is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4600090/

Anyone care to hide their spite for individuals defending themselves using firearms with something like "Now anyone can just shoot people who walk into their home and claim they thought they were a burglar."
Please, I am dying for a laugh today:)

[bluestateguy]

1. Just watch

There will be certain people here (we know who they are) who think that people have no right to defend their homes and their property from invaders. They'll say that the real problem is that the criminal has low self-esteem and instead of shooting him, a therapist should be called. Personally, I favor an "open season" law which allows people to shoot intruders, no questions asked.

[iverglas]

3. I give up

There will be certain people here (we know who they are) ..."

I don't. Can you point me?

Personally, I favor an "open season" law which allows people to shoot intruders, no questions asked.

Damn those anti-lynching laws, eh?

.

[bluestateguy]

4. The rules forbid it

Just look in the Public Safety/Justice forum at the gun threads. You'll see who I mean.

[slackmaster]

5. I think you've mischaracterized the standard mischaracterization

Rather than saying people have no right to defend themselves in their own homes, some here mischaracterize such actions as administration of punishment.

And I know who you're referring to.

[iverglas]

7. oh, we aaalll know who's being referred to

And what's being mischaracterized.

Rather than saying people have no right to defend themselves in their own homes, some here mischaracterize such actions as administration of punishment.

Where's Pert_UK when you need him, eh?

Me, I have no difficulty at all in distinguishing between self-defence and punishment without due process. And I know exactly which one a law permitting anyone to "shoot intruders on sight" would be.

I could probably even tell you which bit of your constitution would invalidate a law that denied some intruders the right to sue for damages.

It's that old equal protection magic ...

.

[slackmaster]

10. Um, I'll bet you don't know who I'm referring to in this instance

PM me who you think it is, and I'll PM you who I was actually referring to.

1-2-3-GO!

[Pert_UK]

14. I'm sorry, I was collecting some stuff from the airport.....

Now.......let's see what we can do with this, shall we?

P.

[MrBenchley]

9. The rules don't forbid links...

Let's see somebody trying to "say that the real problem is that the criminal has low self-esteem and instead of shooting him, a therapist should be called."

[Pert_UK]

17. I don't believe that the rules forbid that. MODS, can you help?

I find it unbelievable that you are allowed to ascribe a bizarre opinion to some fellow DUers but are not allowed to say who you are talking about, thus not allowing them the chance to say if they do hold those views.

You seem to genuinely believe that some people in the Gungeon hold some seriously odd opinions and I think that they would probably like to point out otherwise.

Post us some links to where they (or we?) make these claims.

[MrBenchley]

8. In Maryland

in the 1960s...that was the rallying cry for pro-segregation Marylanders..."Your home is your castle--defend it!"

[iverglas]

11. charming

Charm of the southern variety, I guess. "Charm City", eh?

http://www.freelancestar.com/News/FLS/2002/122002/12292002/831006

In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for V.P. Why? Agnew had routed George ("Your home is your castle!") Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law-and-order.

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm

(Oh look, Negroes With Guns ... a different perspective)

Two readers sent in more background on the relationship between Second Amendment absolutism and fear of black Americans. Reader P.M. reports on the 1966 Maryland gubenatorial race: that year, the Democratic primary was won by a Dixiecrat, George P. Mahoney, when the liberal vote was split between two different candidates. Mahoney ran on an unmistakably racist, pro-gun, anti-open-housing (pro-racial-discrimination) platform: "your home is your castle, protect it!" Sen. Tydings of Maryland was at that time an important gun-control advocate, and this was one of the first important signs of the future power (and racist roots) of the pro-gun movement, which before this time had not been a major factor in politics.

That one's worth a bit more quoting:

... In the South, compared to the North, vigilante killing is still considered to be a legitimate way of dealing with certain kinds of problems. A friend of mine who moved to Texas around 1985 was startled to find that almost no Texan would say anything about a murder case without first deciding whether the victim "needed killin' ". ...

For most of us, the South's tolerance of vigilante murder and crimes of honor is one of the reasons why we suspect that the South is still not quite civilized. The white Southern population, insistent as it is on its right to armed self-defense, is also the most likely to use violence as a way of settling personal disputes, and it is also the most enthusiastic for the death penalty. Altogether, the South sounds like a fairly murderous sort of place.

I don't like all this very much. I know that this is a big country we live in, and that we all have to learn to get along, and so on and so forth. But it still rankles many of us low-crime Yankees*** to be forced to listen to high-crime Southerners lecturing us about guns, crime, and capital punishment. Especially nowadays, when the South has taken over all three branches of government.

Goodness, the things a furriner doesn't learn ...

Who'd 'a thunk that Alabama had a higher gun crime rate than New Jersey, for instance?

.

[MrBenchley]

12. Some idea of how screwed up Maryland was back then

is that Spiro Agnew seemed the more liberal of the two choices free-staters were faced with in 1966. Of course he didn't fool anybody very long...

Speaking of the racist pro-gun movement (and self "defense"), here's a find from a blogger who monitors the right wing (world o'crap): "join us next time, when Paula talks about Bolsheviks and Serfdom, American Style and advises:
It wasn’t so long ago property owners could shoot trespassers. Now the trespassers have all the rights, especially illegal immigrants. They should not even have legal standing. Property owners who have illegals on their property should shoot them on sight and ask questions later."

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/000426.html

Wonderfully, the right wing cesspool where the aforesaid Paula spews her idiocy has been produced here at least once by a member of the RKBA crowd as a serious news source.

[iverglas]

13. ooo, yes

Those "illegals", they aren't covered by those words in the US constitution about who has the right to life. Nor, of course, are any other trespassers. It's right there in the fifth amendment someplace ...

Why, somebody right here was just saying something about illegals earlier today. Actually, the comment wasn't even confined to illegals, as I recall, just people who'd gone to the US from somewhere else in particular. I'd check the post and report back, but oops, I can't, 'cause it ain't there anymore. ;)

I do know it was from somebody who's been busy making a lot of "self-defence" noise today, though ...

I'll have to have a look at that site (you omitted the link in your previous citation of it) ... once I get some of this work done!!!

.

[MrBenchley]

15. It's worth also looking at orcinus

who does a good job on home-grown terrorism of the sort so often associates with the gun rights crowd...

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

[slackmaster]

2. It's hard for me to believe this law is needed

There is no such exemption for liability for legitimate use of deadly force AFAIK in California law. Although we are famous for absurd lawsuits I don't believe any court would ever give any serious consideration to an intruder's claim in a home invasion situation.

[Spoonman]

6. It is needed!

I've read about more than one lawsuit were the criminal or criminals family sued and won because the piece of shit got hurt during the commission of the crime.

On the other hand, I thought we had laws that prevented criminals from "profiting" from their crime?!

I have to support any legislation that strengthens our right to self defense.

[Pert_UK]

16. I'm actually not sure that it's worth bothering, but anyway.......

Here's how this law might make sense....

If it is already legal to defend your property with deadly force then I presume that there are certain caveats in the legislation. For example, if you catch a child stealing an apple from your tree I presume that you're not allowed to chase them down the garden into a pitfall trap and then pour boiling water onto them (obviously Texas would be an exception).

I know it's dangerous to make assumptions about US gun laws, but I do assume that this is the case.

On the other hand, if you awake to find a hooded, armed man bursting into your bedroom and threatening to shoot your wife then it would generally be OK to shoot them dead in defense of your wife and yourself.

I hope and pray that people on here aren't advocating a similar fate for the apple-thief.

Now, this law makes sense in the following situation....

I suspect that in the 2nd situation (above) a homeowner would currently avoid criminal conviction (after an investigation) because the shooting was justified. However, they might still be liable to civil proceedings against them, as the legislation has not been tied together and the loophole still exists.

If this new legislation aims to close the loophole, so that people cleared of criminal misconduct cannot still face civil lawsuits, then (to some extent) this legislation makes total sense.

Now, Township75 and bluestateguy (if they are your real name) it FUCKS ME OFF that you have decided to post on this item purely as flamebait. Contrary to what you might think, most of the people on here who advocate some form of gun control are not bed-wetting, tree-hugging hippies who'd rather get gang-raped than raise a hand (or even a gun) in self-defense. We are not apologists for violent criminals and it is sickening that you would stoop so low as to suggest we are.

We're not going to shed tears for some violent criminal who is killed by someone in self-defense, but that doesn't mean that we think all violent criminals should be taken out and shot, and especially not without trial.

You post a reasonable story from a credible source, make assumptions on how your "opponents" will interpret it and then deride them for the views that you have attributed to them. You're having such a good time bashing us for our moronic views that you failed to spot that you came up with these patently stupid views yourselves.

If you bothered to read the considered opinions of many of the "gun control" people on here you'd realise that although you may disagree with us on some points, they're not often just sheer bullshit unlike some of the other comments on here.

Seriously, I'm not even particularly anti guns, but can anyone see why I find it so much easier to make good arguments for that side, given the ammunition they get?

[happyslug]

18. What the need?

Under the Common Law they was NO ABSOLUTE right to own any piece of property. What was meant by "Property Right", was some right given by the Government to a person (and his heirs). When it came to real Property (i.e Real Estate) exclusive use of such property was given to the owner of the property, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF PASSAGE.

People had to right to go through their neighbor's property to get to their own property (or for any other purpose) provided they did no damage to the property trespassed on (Please note we are assuming farm, wood or other open land NOT people's homes). Now special rules did apply to people's homes (One could not enter a home without permission of the owner, that was CRIMINAL TRESPASS). Criminal Trespass made entrance into a person's home a criminal act and subject the trespasser to criminal sanctions, but Criminal trespass was limited to people's homes (and to fenced in land and to "posted" lands starting in the late 1800s when the State legislatures expanded what was "Criminal Trespass to include areas marked "No trespassing").

Criminal Trespass has to be differentiated from "Trespassing" for Criminal Trespass is part of the Criminal Code, while "Trespassing" is part of any civil action (Often called "Civil Trespass" to distinguish it from Criminal Trespass).

Lawsuits involving injury in a home or on your property is a "Civil Trespass" action not a "Criminal Trespass" action. Being "Civil" the rules regarding Civil Trespass reflect traditional Common law concept of who has the right to enter your property and what obligation the owner of the property had to such Civil Trespassers.

Since the Middle ages, the ownership of property has always assumed people will trespass on property and given that reality the owner of the property has certain obligation to such trespassers. These obligations are weak, but clear, THE OWNER OF ANY PROPERTY HAS TO INFORM ANY TRESPASSERS OF ANY DANGERS CAUSED OR MADE BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. Now no obligation exist to inform the Trespassers of dangers caused by nature (i.e. if a rotten tree fell on a trespassers that was the trespasser's bad luck, he had no claim against the owner of the property). On the other hand the owner of the property did some work on the property and a trespasser became hurt because of that work, the owner was liable (Example, the Owner was cutting down some trees and left one hanging against another tree, and the trespasser came through and the tree fell on the trespasser, the trespasser had a cause of action against the owner for the owner had CUT THE TREE and failed to inform the trespasser of the danger).

When in comes to home owners the restrictions are even more limited. Common items in a home are known to be in most homes so a Trespasser getting hurt on such furniture is not a cause of action, the trespasser should have known of the hazards of walking through a house full of furniture without lights. Thus it is rare for a Criminal Trespasser to succeed in a Civil Suit against a home owner except in cases of "Booby-Traps". Booby Traps is where someone sets up a trap, gun or other device to harm a Criminal Trespasser. In such cases a "Civil Trespasser" would have no way to know of the Bobbie trap and since the Trap was MADE BY THE OWNER, liability for the trap exists under the Common Law.

Another area of the Common Law involving liability of owners of property for action they do to a Criminal trespass is the limitation on Self-Defense. Under most states laws, you have a duty to Retreat and avoid any and all conflicts. If you do not you can not claim self defense (Some states do not accept the "retreat to the wall" doctrine and you have to check with a lawyer in your home state to be sure).

Another concept under the Common Law is that you have to use just enough force to end the conflict (of course the law will look at the incident from the eyes of the person claiming self defense so a claim that you should have shot someone in the leg instead of in the heart will NOT defeat a self-defense claim. The issue of just enough force is one of one can expect of someone in the position of the person claiming self-defense).

Now even in Retreat to the Wall states, it is generally viewed that once you are in your home you do not need to retreat any further. You can defend yourself in your home provided you still try to minimize the conflict. Now this is a narrow exception for example a person can not claim self defense if he chases a trespasser out of his house and shoots him. Once outside the house and the trespasser is leaving, no self defense exists and if the home owner shoots the trespasser, the home owner can be held liable for his actions.

My point is what is being attempted here? The law already protects the home owner if he shoots someone in his own home. The law only says the home owner is liable if he does any act that is NOT in self-defense (i.e. shoots a fleeing trespasser or sets up a booby-trap).

[FrontPorchPhilosophr]

19. Actually, that's not ENTIRELY correct.....

While the law is, in fact, a bar to any CRIMINAL action against any home owner engaged in a legitimate self-defense action - and here in Maryland self defense STOPS when the threat abates - i.e. if the intruder is fleeing, the threat is abated - the laws as currently stated, do NOT insulate the aggrieved home owner against a CIVIL action by the injured intruder or his survivors.

While the criminal and/or his/her survivors is unlikely to PREVAIL, that's cold comfort if you have used up your life savings in legal fees on your defense. If they cannot SUE you for harm received as a result of their own criminal actions, then they cannot damage you TWICE - FIRST by the threat and the invasion, SECOND by CIVIL suit arising from harm received in the course of their own ILLEGAL acts.

If the frivolous lawsuit is prohibited TO BEGIN WITH, the criminal is prevented from profiting from his crime....:nopity:

[MrBenchley]

20. And of course

ANY lawsuit about guns is by definition frivolous....(snicker)

[CO Liberal]

21. They Have Such a Law Here in Colorado

It's called to "Make My Day" Law. It permits a homeowner to use deadly force to protect himself or his family from intruders.

[slackmaster]

22. I believe that was already permitted before CO's MMD law

The Colorado "Make My Day" law provides a definitive defense against civil suits, does it not?

[CO Liberal]

23. I'm Not Sure

I think it's rather interesting that those legislators who pushed this bill through referred to it as the "Make My Day" Law, no doubt fantasizing that using a gun like that made someone as macho as Clint Eastwood.......

[slackmaster]

24. The term was coined by people in favor of the bill, not its detractors?

I'll take your word for it since you live there and have a track record of honesty, but I would have expected a term like that to have come from people opposed to the bill. I guess that shows how polarized some people are on the subject.

[Wingnut357]

25. Same in Florida

This condensed issue is this:

Should someone enter your house without your consent, will you be forced by law to flee the residence and contact the authorities, or can you legitimately defend yourself and your property (house, in most cases) from the ill intentions of the antagonist.

The problem stems from not being able ascertain the motives of your attacker. If he just wants your Sony, it would most likely be improper to shoot him. However, if he wants your daughter, then lethal force could be justified. Asking him would probably prove fruitless.

In another light, it can be seen as a simply question of power. Does it lie exclusively with the local PD, to the extent that no effective resistance on your part may be countenanced? Or should the power reside in the individual, to act in his own interest.

In my view, the agressor abrogates his rights when he unlawfully enters my house. I will do what I am able to avoid a lethal encounter, but since I cannot know his intentions, I must act on the information available.

In this scenario, an unlawful shooting is still possible, if I were to shoot this person in the back, or outside my home. But it is a criminal matter for a jury to decide, and a judge to sentence. A trangressor suspends his rights when he enters my home, and should not be elegible for unlawful revenge in the civil court system.

[iverglas]

26. ah, those "unalienable" rights

In my view, the agressor abrogates his rights when he unlawfully enters my house. ... A trangressor suspends his rights when he enters my home ...

Fortunately, neither your "view" nor anyone else's overrides things like constitutions.

No one's rights are ever "abrogated" or "suspended", by him/herself or anyone else. That, after all, is what "unalienable" means.

Laws may restrict the exercise of rights, or permit interference in the exercise of rights. The rights still exist, and everyone still has them at all times. Any restriction, and any interference permitted, must be justified by the accepted standards.

A law that permits one person to harm or kill another amounts to denying the person who is harmed or killed the ability to exercise the right to life, e.g.

There may be justification for such a denial of protection. Most societies recognize the need for individuals to defend their physical security or life as a justification for harming someone else who is attempting to harm one. Few civilized societies regard the protection of property as such justification.

Canadian criminal law permits a person in lawful possession of property to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser. It does not permit the person in lawful possession of property to use force with the intention of harming or killing the trespasser unless s/he reasonably believes that s/he will otherwise suffer serious injury or death, and unless s/he has no other reasonable way of avoiding serious injury or death -- i.e., such force may only be used in self-defence, not defence of property.

Obviously, it might not always be an easy matter to determine whether someone reasonably apprehended serious injury or death, or had another reasonable way of avoiding it, when dealing with a trespasser in some circumstances. (Those factors have to be proved only on a balance of probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt.) That is no reason for the law to permit people to kill other people without having a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, or where they did have another reasonable way of avoiding it.

To permit anyone to use force likely to cause someone else serious injury or death solely because the other person had unlawfully entered his/her property would be a violation of the rights everyone has under the Canadian constitution. And, as always, I'm just damned if I can figure out why anyone would think it was fine & dandy under the US constitution, which also provides that no one may be deprived of life without due process, and that everyone is entitled to the equal protection of the law.

If a homeowner used force beyond what was reasonably necessary to avert danger of serious injury or death -- if the homeowner could not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that s/he had such a reasonable fear and no other reasonable way of avoiding serious injury or death -- then s/he was not acting in self-defence. And s/he should obviously be charged with assault or homicide. And the victim should obviously have the ability to sue for the harm done to him/her, just as anyone else who is unlawfully assaulted has.

The rule of law, fundamental rights, equal protection ... such basic concepts, such contempt some people seem to hold them in.

.