Maryland Man Shoots Home Intruder: Charged With Murder

[KLB]

His knowing the dead guy and having motive beyond home invasion would give enough doubt to really look at the facts.

Sounds like the key fact will be whether the dead guy really broke down the door.

 

[ru44mag]

I'm thinking 2 AM, and somebody breaks in and won't leave, keeps coming at me, even after being warned...hmm, I'm shooting. If he had been banging my wife, I'm doing a lot more than just shooting him twice. Case solved. But here is what bothers me most of all...because I have experienced this first hand.

Jessica concluded our interview by expressing that: “What I’m maddest about is that you are not innocent until proven guilty, you are guilty and remain so, unless you can come up with the money to have someone fight for your innocence.

 

[jrogers]

Looks like there is a little more to the story, but I would still not have charged him.
Attorney: Glen Burnie shooting was self-defense - CapitalGazette.com: For The Record

I wasn't there and don't know what happened, but this article should be taken with a few pounds of salt. It reads like a press release from the defense attorney.

If it actually happened exactly the way claimed here then sure, the guy did nothing wrong. The problem is that it is the attorney's job to ensure that the shooter gets off, so of course his narrative will portray the shooter's actions as unimpeachable.

Personally and without any justification, I'm wondering whether it started as a good shoot and ended with a coup de grâce.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How did the shooter and the dead guy NOT know each other? The dead guy actually stayed at the residence while the shooter was in Korea, and helped with their kids. If the wife didn't tell the hubby about the dead guy then it's a good bet that something was probably going on. This one has Lifetime TV movie written all over it.

 

[Whitsettd8]

You're banging my spouse and invading my home. I can legally delete you for one, but not the other. I delete you. Does it really matter what my motivation was at the moment of frobnicating the delete key?

I agree wholeheartedly I'm not arguing the law I see the law as very black and white but I don't think most people do. Assuming the story is accurate the prosecution is going to have a hay day probably showing history of a relationship between the perp and the wife. A body on the porch vs. inside the house. No mention of a weapon vs. an experienced military trained veteran with several other guest in the house. No 911 call until after he’s dead. The guy is in for the fight of his life and I'm guessing he's not going to walk away unscathed especially in an anti gun state. Again assuming the story is accurate. Do I personally agree with his actions based on the story NO if I were on the Jury NOT GUILTY

 

[jrogers]

How did the shooter and the dead guy NOT know each other? The dead guy actually stayed at the residence while the shooter was in Korea, and helped with their kids. If the wife didn't tell the hubby about the dead guy then it's a good bet that something was probably going on. This one has Lifetime TV movie written all over it.

Unless I misread the material, they did know one another.

 

[japartridge]

I for one have donated to the fund for his defense... regardless of what the back story is, you have the right to defend yourself and your family/friends from anyone, invited in or not, regardless of past experiences/background with the BG, if they are threatening your safety, or the safety of others in your care/charge. I would have done the same thing, and never thought twice about it. I pray that most on this site would do the same!

 

[KLB]

I for one have donated to the fund for his defense... regardless of what the back story is, you have the right to defend yourself and your family/friends from anyone, invited in or not, regardless of past experiences/background with the BG, if they are threatening your safety, or the safety of others in your care/charge. I would have done the same thing, and never thought twice about it. I pray that most on this site would do the same!

I think most are withholding judgement. We know way too little to have any idea of what happened.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I think most are withholding judgement. We know way too little to have any idea of what happened.

Except the prosecutions flimsy argument. If that is all they have, case closed for me.

 

[japartridge]

I think most are withholding judgement. We know way too little to have any idea of what happened.

I understand withholding judgement, but to me, none of that matters... if the BG was asked/ordered to leave, and not only refused, but advanced in a threatening manner while making motions to his waistband.... to me that is game over for the BG... Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[88GT]

If all things in the article are true, how could anyone find this guy guilty? That's one problem with the criminal justice system, there doesn't seem to be much common sense used sometimes.

Just keep reading below your post. Look at all the INGO members who think the history between the victim (who, incidentally, is not the dead guy) and the intruder somehow has any bearing on the facts of this case. But beyond that, there are plenty of people in this country who feel that self defense is a crime in itself. That the only people morally justified to prevent/respond to a criminal act are the police. With that mindset, it wouldn't really matter what the law said. They would judge the law and the facts of the case by their own standards and vote guilty. Just look at how many people claimed Zimmerman was guilty of murder in the absence of ANY evidence and despite several key points of evidence to the contrary.

There's way too much going on here to make a judgement off a news story. This does not appear simple self-defense to me. Seems more like marriage-defense

Based on what? How does having a history with someone negate the principles of self defense, legal or otherwise? All those battered women who get a firearm for protection are just screwed since they have a history with the guy I suppose.

Sounds like the key fact will be whether the dead guy really broke down the door.

Doesn't matter whether he did or not. Being asked to leave, refusing to do so, and advancing in a hostile/threatening manner is sufficient (at least in Indiana, not sure of MD's laws) to use force/deadly force.

I think most are withholding judgement. We know way too little to have any idea of what happened.

What else do you need to know? The only reason the homeowner is guilty of the charges is if absolutely no part of his story is correct. And quite frankly, if only one part of his story is correct, it's still a good shoot.

I know this much, I know who I don't want on my jury.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Bad guy stakes out place and knocks on door at 2 am and wants in.
Homeowner tells him to pound sand.
Bad guy comes in house and threatens homeowner.
Homeowner tells him to stop advancing.B
Bad guy doesn't.
Bad guy dead.
Good shoot.
The rest is all fluff.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I understand withholding judgement, but to me, none of that matters... if the BG was asked/ordered to leave, and not only refused, but advanced in a threatening manner while making motions to his waistband.... to me that is game over for the BG... Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

That why you have jumped to gun in sending in your donation. As of now, we do not know "who" the BG is...

 

[mrjarrell]

That why you have jumped to gun in sending in your donation. As of now, we do not know "who" the BG is...

Actually, it's pretty obvious. The dead guy, the cops and the prosecutor all fall into the bad guy category. The original bad guy is toes up in the ground, where he also would be in any sane state.

 

[Mark 1911]

The intruder forcibly broke in after being told to leave. It's the middle of the night. Intruder is also stalking. Once the door is broken down, what was Pinkerton supposed to do, ask Green to wait so he could call 911? Seems to me the dead guy did so many things wrong and really left little choice to Pinkerton. The idea of a murder charge seems so ridiculous, how could any competent prosecutor even ponder a murder charge?