Student kills intruder with "Samurai Sword"

[sgtmac_46]

Under the law here, it's not.

The young man did not know the identity of the man he killed and we only have his word that the man "lunged" at him.

I am glad that you are completely comfortable with a man's death, especially since you didn't have to do the killing. I'm glad that you're condoning an act as you sit comfortably in front of a computer screen.

Meanwhile, a young man has to deal with the conclusions of his action. A young man, a college student, not a soldier, not a police officer, but a young man has to accept the fact that he killed a man, an action that may have been avoidable. That's not even saying if he is charged.

I've never seen internet bravado in those who've actually had to make the decision to take a life, and see the immediate results of their actions, at close quarters.

I'm glad you're comfortable.

I'm completely comfortable......and i'm glad you're glad i'm complete comfortable. One less criminal breaking in to houses.

By the way, i'd condone it in person if I could.......i've seen a few cases like that.....clears up my workload. My standard isn't 'Was it avoidable'.......my standard is 'Was it OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE'.......it was 'AVOIDABLE' by the DECEASED never having been there in the first place.

And i'm sure the young man would rather deal with THESE consequences, than the consequences of having not done what he did, and being on the RECEIVING end of his own blade.


As for the 'internet bravdo' bit, the REALITY is just the opposite....I see a lot of the hang wringing and equivocating from those who's job has NEVER been to do this kind of thing.......the perception is that it is complicated, but the reality is that it is very simple. When confronted by a threat, there is a response. All this emotionalism applied to it mostly involves Hollywood movies with dramatic music playing in the background. I've looked down my sights at men intent to do me harm. I once stared down a man who charged across my own yard at me armed with a baseball bat. And the only reason he isn't dead is that he didn't cross my imaginary line drawn on the ground. And i'd have slept fine afterwards, because the decision was his not mine. He created the situation, he chose the terms, and my response was entirely based on his.

Spare me the 'internet tough guy' argument that usually comes as a back-handed insult for those who disagree with the 'Maybe he didn't have to kill him' crowd of dealing with criminals. It's cliched and old.

There are plenty of cops who talk like you think they talk, which is the 'I hope I never have to shoot anyone and i'm not sure if I could' crowd.......but we have a word for any police officer who is so torn up by the idea of possibly shooting someone in the line of duty if it becomes necessary that they worry they won't be able to.........UNFIT FOR DUTY!

As for the argument that perhaps his actions weren't justified because he left his house.......by what right do we have to demand that someone not access their own property simply because someone is ILLEGALLY ON IT? That is some backwards thinking.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Bingo.



The family of the deceased have already announced their intent to take him to civil court regardless of whether or not he is charged criminally. Again, this is not a simple issue, and Monday morning quarterbacking, attaboys, and internet bravado is pretty sickening when you take into account how much this young man's life may be affected by these actions.

We'd like things to be simple, but they rarely are.

His actions will have affects on his life that he was not trained for, not prepared for, and had not planned for.

So, I'm glad there are people comfortable with slaying anyone who walks across their lawn.

Which is why we in Missouri grant citizens CIVIL immunity when there is not CRIMINAL liability........so that the family of parasites cannot profit from the death of said parasite.

Many of the issues your bring up you THINK are inherent issues, but they are really only issues BECAUSE of the way too many people view citizens response to these incidents, which is the REAL problem. Don't break in to homes, don't steal and rob, and you have nothing to worry about.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I worry for the students of anyone with such conscience.

You mean the notion that when charged by a felon in your own yard that you should refrain from using force in self-defense? That concerns me as well.

I'm more concerned with the mindset that says if we are forced to engage in violence by someone else, we should feel suitably guilty, even if we did the right, thing. The mentality that says something is wrong with you if you aren't torn up and in therapy because you did what you had to do.

The reality is that the former is more a sign of mental instability than the later. Those who do the right thing AND are confident enough not to feel guilty about it are really the poster children of mental stability, not those who suffer terrible mental anguish simply for doing what is necessary. There is, however, a movement of people who wish to turn that upside down.....call it the Phil Donahue/Oprah phenomenon.

It's okay to feel guilty........but it's REALLY OKAY not to feel guilty as well!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Clarity time:

I'm going to say I'm in favor of the death penalty - in certain cases.

I find it hard to be cozy with the death of a career robber. A career rapist, murder, child molester ... sure. Robber? Not quite so much.

IN THIS CASE ... The lunge would either be for the young man or the door behind him - doesn't really matter which, because it was seen as a lunged attack which to me justifies the defensive use of whatever one can get their hands on. If you have the time to grab a bona-fide weapon (i.e. gun, knife, sword, stick) that's preferable over an improvised weapon (usually) such as a baseball bat, tire iron, etcetera. I really have no problem with the actions of this young man with the information we currently have. I reserve the right to change that position should new facts be revealed.

And if a person dies because they were stupid enough to lunge at someone with a really big blade ... it is an unfortunate consequence of his bad decision.

That said ... it is the cavalier attitude I will never cozy up to and I really don't care what anyone has to say about it. Being cavalier about taking life *is* and *should be* worrisome. That doesn't mean one has to kill oneself for the necessary taking of life, especially in times of war.

Bloodlust is powerful, I'm sure and I hope to never experience it.

Cheers.

Actually what you're looking for is 'Burglar'.......and many rapists and murderers have long histories of committing 'burglar'. In fact the difference between a 'Burglary' and a 'Home Invasion Robbery MURDER' is the burglar ACCIDENTALLY finding someone home.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Several of you are confused about the facts of this case in your rush to judge it a righteous kill, and are thus missing why this could go very badly for the young man involved. It is very likely, given the facts, that he will be charged. Whether or not he is found guilty, remains to be seen.

1. The deceased was never inside the house.

The original story given that Pontillo heard a noise coming from the garage, grabbed his sword, and went to see what the noise was turned out to be completely fabricated, as it did not hold up to evidence and testimony. After hearing reports of a suspicious person in the area, police contacted Pontillo and his room mates. The officers allowed Pontillo & his fellow students to accompany them as they searched the area around their house, and found nothing. Afterward, Pontillo and his friends decided to check the area again. Pontillo decides to arm himself with the sword, and leave the safety of the house.

2. Maryland is a "Duty to Retreat" state.

This is extremely important. Pontillo left the safety of his house, armed himself, and sought confrontation. Seeing Rice in his backyard, Pontillo drew the sword, and demanded Rice stay in the yard, while yelling at his room mates to call the police. Neighbors report hearing Pontillo shouting for Rice to get on the ground. It is at this point that Rice allegedly lunged at Pontillo, and Pontillo struck once, nearly severing Rice's hand, and striking him in the neck.

Under Maryland law, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. However, if you have the opportunity to retreat, you must do so. If the jury accepts the case that Pontillo had the chance to retreat and that his actions escalated the confrontation, it could go very badly for him.

So horray that there's one less "scumbag" around. Is sacrificing a young man's freedom and future worth the death of one "scumbag"? A man who had never killed anyone?

One of the primary issues in self-defense is being aware of the legality of your actions, your rights, and your responsibilities.

Pontillo did not check his house. He didn't make sure all of the windows were locked and the doors were bolted. He armed himself and left the house. It is for that reason that this may end very badly for him.

But hey, at least you can go to sleep in your nice comfortable bed, far away from Baltimore, glad for the fact that there's another dead scumbag.

Meanwhile, a young man may go to prison for killing a man, something that he may well have been able to avoid.

But you won't lose any sleep.

Had the suspect been trying to escape, instead of lunging at Pontillo, would the wounds be to the suspects BACK?!

You want to make an issue about the incident based on Maryland's laws.......but the REAL issue is Maryland's laws. Sometimes there's a difference between what is LEGAL and what is RIGHT! Many states have already addressed that in a more enlightened fashion.

How's this.......Pontillo walks, and if all that happens is one dead burglar, I WON'T LOSE ANY SLEEP!

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't think you appreciate my position, because you're still attached to the idea that you have to justify the killing. Further, it doesn't matter whether or not you share the same view...because it doesn't affect you! Nor any of you Texas.

It's not about whether or not Rice should have died, should not have died, deserved to die, etc.

It's about an integral part of self-defense, a more intellectual part of it, that the majority of you seem to want to ignore in favor of your feelings about action and you own justification for it.

We've already had words like "liberal" and "bleeding heart" tossed around. "Concern for the criminal", etc.

Still missing the point.

An integral part of any self-defense training is understanding the "legalities of your locality".

Part of self-defense is making sure I don't end up in jail. Part of self-defense is that I don't have relatives of the deceased bankrupting me with lawsuits.

This is not Texas, and you cannot act like it is Texas, no matter how much you want it to be Texas, and please spare us the pontifications of how much you love Texas cuz you can just kill willy nilly in Texas.

Nor can government simply decide arbitrarily what laws it requires it's citizens to operate under. Because we are a NATION where government is based on the consent of the governed.

SO, in that sense saying that the Objective Reasonableness of one's actions is entirely irrelevant goes CONTRARY to our system of government. We have a right to DEMAND that government passes laws that are reasonable. Simply acquiescing to bad laws is Un-American. So if Maryland's laws consider defending yourself in your own backyard against a violent felon ILLEGAL, it is Maryland that is wrong.


I've got a feeling that's not your issue, however. If this had occurred in Texas you'd be making the same argument using a different pre-text.

 

[sgtmac_46]

No, depending on the factors involved, the point of retreat would have been when he realized that Rice was in the backyard. It will likely be suggested by prosecution that Rice should have retreated to the house at that point and called the police. Having retreated inside the house, it would have been much easier for him to then build a case for self-defense. If Rice had actually attempted to break into the house, a jury would likely be swayed very much in Pontillo's direction.

If this goes to trial, one of the the issues Pontillo's defense will have to deal with is proving that the young man had no opportunity to retreat. This will be built on position in the yard, who was cornered, etc. Pontillo claims his back was against the garage door. That could likely work in his favor.

Actually you've got it wrong......it is the Prosecutor's duty to PROVE that Pontillo had the REASONABLE ability to retreat. The burden of proof is on the state, and prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the end of the day, state laws that require such splitting of hairs are unfair to their citizens, and only serve a misguided attempt to defend felons in the commission of a felony. Fortunately other states are more enlightened that Maryland.

 

[sgtmac_46]

If you get the chair ... you won't be.

You ever heard of anyone getting the chair for self-defense? Legitimate, honest to god Self-Defense. I know Hollywood makes movies about it, but real, no Joke, there's a bad guy attacking me self-defense? If so then it is the system that is broken........and you have to be alive for the state to kill you anyway. I'll take my chances.....don't know that it's better to be dead so the state can't kill you.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Bottom line this guy not only doesn't get convicted......i'm considering it low odds he gets charged. I guess i'm blood-thirsty because i'm not fantasizing about him dodging gang-rape in the prison shower as suitable punishment for his 'crime' (of self-defense).......color me deranged!

 

[shesulsa]

Sgt ... read the whole thread and all comments before cherry-picking a few comments to reply to - sure looks like you missed a lot.

 

[Sukerkin]

A lot of what I would consider to be common sense spoken regardless, however :tup:.

It is good to hear someone whose job is enforcing the law voicing approaches that jibe well with what we call Common Law over here in England.

Sadly we've moved away from that in recent times, with so much legislation to protect those who act outside of the accepted conventions of moral behaviour that it is now the 'ordinary' subject who is made out to be the criminal if they dare to act in their own interests.

I know that there are always exceptions to any rule or circumstance but if those of us who seek to be good citizens are not allowed to defend ourselves from either physical or psychological assault AND are not defended by the State, then you end up with such tragedies as was witnessed only a week or so ago here in England.

What am I on about? A mother drove her disabled daughter to a remote location, soaked her with petrol in the car and immolated her and herself. Why? Because of a long term sequence of threatening behaviour, vandalism and abuse from local youths that was not dealt with even after hundreds of calls to the appropriate authorities.

I have ever considered that a proportional response by a homeowner on their own property should always be a legal recourse.

 

[jks9199]

Heh. I asked a state trooper here if we had Castle Doctrine - he didn't know what I was talking about. But he did state we can go to the point of killing for self-defense but not necessarily *property* defense.

Oh, and I'm *fairly* certain that we still have hanging as an option to lethal injection.

While a lot of cops know the functional ins and outs of the law -- they don't always know legal theory like the Castle Doctrine. Especially if it's not something they come across often. That's why, when you need legal advice -- you go to a lawyer. You want somebody arrested, ask a cop.

 

[Rich Parsons]

While a lot of cops know the functional ins and outs of the law -- they don't always know legal theory like the Castle Doctrine. Especially if it's not something they come across often. That's why, when you need legal advice -- you go to a lawyer. You want somebody arrested, ask a cop.

JKS,

Not to be the jerk I can be, but then why do police think they need to tell people the law, especially on the net and forums? I am not saying you have, which is why I can ask you the question.


Thanks

 

[jks9199]

JKS,

Not to be the jerk I can be, but then why do police think they need to tell people the law, especially on the net and forums? I am not saying you have, which is why I can ask you the question.


Thanks

A lot of the time... it's because someone's asking a question. Other times, it's a variant of talking head syndrome. And sometimes, it's because someone's said something so utterly stupid or wrong (sometimes criminally so, and sometimes by someone claiming to be a cop) that you can't stand silent. Kind of like some of the stuff you've posted about the auto industry...

A cop has a very limited, very practical grasp of a narrow part of the law. Some cops, either through laziness, specialization, or just plain ignorance, narrow that scope even further... And the ones that count as ignorant or lazy don't know or admit their limitations.

 

[sgtmac_46]

While a lot of cops know the functional ins and outs of the law -- they don't always know legal theory like the Castle Doctrine. Especially if it's not something they come across often. That's why, when you need legal advice -- you go to a lawyer. You want somebody arrested, ask a cop.

Keep in mind many lawyers are far less knowledgeable about such things than police officers. Specialization and laziness are not a unique characteristic of any one profession.

The reality is that many police officers, those who's area of expertise is in use of force, have far more expertise on the topic than most attorneys.