Shmorrior t1_izlfrqn wrote on December 9, 2022 at 11:31 PM

Reply to comment by HockeyMusings in Owner of Maryland gun shop accused of shooting at unmarked police car by kstinfo

> He has a duty to retreat.

If safe to do so. Cars are faster than people and it's hard to retreat if one was accelerating towards you.

> And he can’t claim self-defense when he is chasing someone.

It doesn't appear that he fired until the car was already driving towards him. If he was firing at the car when it was initially driving away, I'd agree that his life wasn't in danger at that time and the shots wouldn't be lawful.

> The police were on a routine patrol. Which is what you would expect them to do on areas of increased criminal activity.

In a marked cruiser, sure. Rolling up unmarked, by your lonesome, while on the lookout for gangs of armed robbers is risky.

> A reasonable person who a suspects there is a robber in the area would call the police, give them a description of the vehicle, and the direction it is heading. At 12:30 in the morning with limited traffic that should be easy enough for them to find it.

As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. All parties involved seem to agree that the owner mistook the cop for a potential robber intent on robbing the gun store as had been done in multiple recent incidents. A 'description of the vehicle and direction its is heading" isn't immediately helpful if you think that vehicle is full of armed robbers intent on robbing you right now.

> As for what you think, it’s irrelevant. A judge has ruled the charges are warranted and that he be held without bail because he is a danger to the community

As we all know, the justice system is always right. Shit, why even have a trial? If a judge thinks he's dangerous, just march him right to prison!

HockeyMusings t1_izlqjvc wrote on December 10, 2022 at 12:54 AM

> If safe to do so. Cars are faster than people and it’s hard to retreat if one was accelerating towards you.

He was chasing them. Which, if on the lookout for armed robbers, is certainly not retreat. It’s vigilante justice.

> It doesn’t appear that he fired until the car was already driving towards him. If he was firing at the car when it was initially driving away, I’d agree that his life wasn’t in danger at that time and the shots wouldn’t be lawful.

Did you even watch the video? He shot it after it went by. It’s clear as day in the video. And the holes are in the back of the SUV. Even without the video that’s beyond dispute. Unless they have boomerang bullets now. Do they have boomerang bullets?

> All parties involved seem to agree that the owner mistook the cop for a potential robber intent on robbing the gun store as had been done in multiple recent incidents. A ‘description of the vehicle and direction its is heading” isn’t immediately helpful if you think that vehicle is full of armed robbers intent on robbing you right now.

If you think a vehicle is full of armed robbers that’s the exact moment your duty to retreat begins. You can’t chase after a car you think is full of armed robbers, shoot at them, and claim self-defense. That, and the fact he shot after they had passed, is the exact reason he is in jail with no bond. Your views on the justice system aside. It’s crystal clear textbook first-degree assault.