Burglar dies by sword.

[SapperSix]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_re_us/us_samurai_sword_death;_ylt=Ap5fwRsvZ3F1 _pksAjzUjvus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM4MzZzZ2pnBG Fzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwOTE1L3VzX3NhbXVyYWlfc3 dvcmRfZGVhdGgEY3BvcwM4BHBvcwM1BHB0A2hvbW VfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbG sDcG9saWNlbWVkc3R1

BALTIMORE – A Johns Hopkins University student armed with a samurai sword killed a suspected burglar in a garage behind his off-campus home early Tuesday, hours after someone broke in and stole electronics.

Some shocked neighbors said they heard bloodcurdling screams in an area just blocks from the university. Police held the student, a junior chemistry major who turns 21 on Sunday, for several hours, but no charges were filed by early afternoon, said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.

Around 1:20 a.m., the student heard noises behind the home and noticed a door to the garage was open, Guglielmi said. He grabbed the sword and confronted the intruder, who was crouching beneath a counter.

The student asked the suspect what he was doing and threatened to call police.

"When he said that, the suspect lunged at him, kind of forced the kid against the wall, and he struck him with the sword," Guglielmi said.

[superplough]

It's just like they say. The sword is mightier than the theif.

[Trefellin]

If only he had a pen.

[Old Ape Face]

Blood Curdling Screams eh? His death was honorable.

[Spadesy]

Miyagi say, sword is too much, use Okinawa karate...wax on, wax off, next time eat unagi. Unagi give you powah, thief no-more-talk ****!

[Jack_Bauer]

Anyone here who has a samurai sword post a sign on the outside of the house that says "Beware of the Samurai Sword"...

[Justinian]

Wow, this is kind of sad for the burglar... I bet he wasn't counting on that kid having a katana when he pushed him against the wall.

[Jack_Bauer]

Wow, this is kind of sad for the burglar... I bet he wasn't counting on that kid having a katana when he pushed him against the wall.

I dont think it's sad at all. Someone who breaks and enters someone else's property deserves what's coming to them as long as its within reason and legally. However, if that same burglar harms or threatens that person who's inside the house well.... its called self defense.

[Old Ape Face]

I hear it's quite difficult to slice a guy in half with a Katana across the belly, the kid must have stabbed him with the sword instead of taken a swing.

[seba_boi]

If the family of the burglar tries to sue, I'll go bonkers...

[Arnold]

Did he live by the sword too?

[Caster13]

I dread to think of 4chan's reaction to this. *shudder* >_<

And I think he did more than stab the guy if there were bloodcurdling screams.

If the family of the burglar tries to sue, I'll go bonkers...

I agree with you 100%. Sadly, they actually might.

[SapperSix]

Did he live by the sword too?

He was a low life crook, and 49 years old.

[Caster13]

I wouldn't have used a sword, more like several shots to the head with a high caliber rifle.

Those who live by the sword, die by the gun.

[SapperSix]

I wouldn't have used a sword, more like several shots to the head with a high caliber rifle.

Those who live by the sword, die by the gun.


It only takes one round. Quit wasting ammo.

[Haro!]

I'd do the same thing. However is their any sort of legal issue regarding the ownership of a sword there? Here in NYC I think it might be illegal, though there are people that own them (burglars, fair warning, do not come to Haro!'s house) and would possibly get the "victim" of the theft in trouble.

[Sushikins]

I actually keep a katana in my basement close to my bed, and it's my main means of self-defense in my house (since the metal bat was taken already). I haven't had to use it, but if I do, I imagine the news story would be pretty similar to this. :lol:

[ThePhillyFlash]

Toshiro Mifune would be proud. :)

[Old Ape Face]

I wouldn't have used a sword, more like several shots to the head with a high caliber rifle.

Those who live by the sword, die by the gun.

Ever try to shoot something at close range with a long barreled gun besides a Shotgun?

Would seem to be easier with a hand gun than a long barrel at close range.

Any FPS video game will teach you that.

[tenshi_a]

Your laws are... strange, if it's legal to kill someone with a samurai sword for suspecting them of burglary.

Sometimes I wish that it was legal to throw a brick through the window of a car where the driver is using a mobile phone while speeding. Then I think "no-one will allow that, it's just my personal extreme overreaction to a minor offense", and we'd all go round being Judge Dredd. It would make for interesting times.

Then I see that it's ok to chop a guy into pieces with a giant blade, if they steal your playstation. No charges, no sending people off to a psychiatrist for a psychotic episode, nothing.

I'm like "wow, this is like another planet".

[Justinian]

I dont think it's sad at all. Someone who breaks and enters someone else's property deserves what's coming to them as long as its within reason and legally. However, if that same burglar harms or threatens that person who's inside the house well.... its called self defense.

I agree with that to an extent, but I think death was a little severe when all he did was back the kid into the wall. He more than likely wasn't intending to kill the kid and may not even have had a weapon.

[RecentMidget]

I agree with that to an extent, but I think death was a little severe when all he did was back the kid into the wall. He more than likely wasn't intending to kill the kid and may not even have had a weapon.

call me paranoid, but the kid did have the right to defend himself when he was assaulted. Extreme force or not, his actions were within the boundries of the law. Now if he used a chainsaw, that would be even more epic.

*waits for story with chainsaw defense*

[Shiroiyuki]

....but he had time to go get the sword, come back, and confront the burglar.

He could have called the cops (as he apparently threatened to do anyway). He could have, you know, not confronted the burglar himself. And he could have, you know, not brandished a....samurai sword. Who does that?

Anyway, the fact that he grabbed a weapon and came back to the garage instead of calling the cops right off shows the intent to kill/harm/etc.

[Caster13]

Your laws are... strange, if it's legal to kill someone with a samurai sword for suspecting them of burglary.

Sometimes I wish that it was legal to throw a brick through the window of a car where the driver is using a mobile phone while speeding. Then I think "no-one will allow that, it's just my personal extreme overreaction to a minor offense", and we'd all go round being Judge Dredd. It would make for interesting times.

Then I see that it's ok to chop a guy into pieces with a giant blade, if they steal your playstation. No charges, no sending people off to a psychiatrist for a psychotic episode, nothing.

I'm like "wow, this is like another planet".

In many states if someone breaks into your home you have the right to defend yourself, your home and your family, through whatever means. Some states are more liberal than others and want things to be solved with a non-violent solution, but that ain't gonna happen unless a hippie broke in looking for pot or having the munchies after smoking too much and want tofu. If somebody breaks into my home, I'll either hold them at gunpoint or if I see that they have a gun or try to rush me with a knife then I'll shoot them.

Now the law has some boundaries for depending on the situation, but since something like this basically rarely happens and the law does not specify this particular situation then he was within the law. And if there started to be situation laws made then somebody else who kills a burglar who goes at them with a sword in a less violent manner in a similar but slightly different scenario with a few twists then the law would say that that is illegal, which would contradict the basic main law itself. And then people in government would go crazy making all different variations to the law and there would be one giant mess. It is the preservation of you own life and possibly others and protection of your home and property(like I said, the exact law and it's extent varies state to state), so therefore he was within his right. No matter how odd the case.

[Fobb]

I hear it's quite difficult to slice a guy in half with a Katana across the belly, the kid must have stabbed him with the sword instead of taken a swing.

blah blah blah..."When he said that, the suspect lunged at him, kind of forced the kid against the wall, and he struck him with the sword," Guglielmi said.

And there you have it sir.

[SapperSix]

Ever try to shoot something at close range with a long barreled gun besides a Shotgun?

Yes. You will have to aim higher just to compensate for the trajectory of the round though.

Would seem to be easier with a hand gun than a long barrel at close range.

That depends. With the shorter barrel of the pistol, any mistakes made by the shooter will be magnified at the business end of the pistol. Plus a pistol is pretty much worthless at ranges greater than 50 yds.

Any FPS video game will teach you that.

No comment.

[Old Ape Face]

That depends. With the shorter barrel of the pistol, any mistakes made by the shooter will be magnified at the business end of the pistol. Plus a pistol is pretty much worthless at ranges greater than 50 yds.


but if you're being attacked by a thief and they're pretty much right in front of you, (close enough to kill him with a sword) why not a handgun?

A long barrel seems to me very out of place for someone so close that you pretty much don't have to aim at all.

[Jack_Bauer]

I agree with that to an extent, but I think death was a little severe when all he did was back the kid into the wall. He more than likely wasn't intending to kill the kid and may not even have had a weapon.

Maybe the kid got scared? Theres' no way that the kid would have known whether or not that burglar had a weapon or had the intention of harming him. All the kid wanted to do at the time is to protect himself. But I do agree with you that death was too much of a consequence. A slice on the chest maybe? Something that will be enough to incapacitate the burglar.

[Spadesy]

Ever try to shoot something at close range with a long barreled gun besides a Shotgun?

Would seem to be easier with a hand gun than a long barrel at close range.

Any FPS video game will teach you that.

FPS games lie. You can still effectively hit something with a long barreled weapon at close quarters, provided you at least broadly aim (as you would with any weapon - firing from the hip is stupid and doesn't work).

[Arnold]

Maybe the kid got scared? Theres' no way that the kid would have known whether or not that burglar had a weapon or had the intention of harming him. All the kid wanted to do at the time is to protect himself. But I do agree with you that death was too much of a consequence. A slice on the chest maybe? Something that will be enough to incapacitate the burglar.

Is it possible that this was just an instinctual defensive reaction to the burglar charging at him? Sometimes you do something to defend yourself, and while death isn't your intended reaction, that may be what happens.

[Jack_Bauer]

Is it possible that this was just an instinctual defensive reaction to the burglar charging at him? Sometimes you do something to defend yourself, and while death isn't your intended reaction, that may be what happens.

Thats what I was thinking my friend.

[Buzron]

That is ****ing badass.

[Justinian]

call me paranoid, but the kid did have the right to defend himself when he was assaulted. Extreme force or not, his actions were within the boundries of the law. Now if he used a chainsaw, that would be even more epic.

*waits for story with chainsaw defense*

Yeah I agree with the fact the kid had the right to defend himself with any means possible, it's just sad that the burglar died in the process. I'm not saying to kid was at any fault.

EDIT:
Maybe the kid got scared? Theres' no way that the kid would have known whether or not that burglar had a weapon or had the intention of harming him. All the kid wanted to do at the time is to protect himself. But I do agree with you that death was too much of a consequence. A slice on the chest maybe? Something that will be enough to incapacitate the burglar.

Right! I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Leader Desslock]

call me paranoid, but the kid did have the right to defend himself...
Self defense is not the same as self-offense.

The question a jury will be asked is, "Did the defendant do everything reasonable to avoid the use of deadly force?" The answer is...

....but he had time to go get the sword, come back, and confront the burglar.
...nope, he didn't.

(That's the answer to the question above, since the way I posted it doesn't make that entirely clear. I'm not refuting Shiroiyuki, I'm using her post to illustrate the answer to the question above. So the flow is "Did he do everything to avoid it? No he didn't." Apologies for any confusion this may have caused. Please continue with the discussion... -_-; )

He could've avoided the conflict, he was away from direct conflict, and instead, he chose to get into a direct conflict with a deadly weapon.

Assuming that such a defense is valid in his jurisdiction, he might be able to go with a Defense of property legal defense, but given that the amount of force he used (i.e.: deadly) is disproportionate to the threat to property or person, it'd be an uphill battle. He could easily be found guilty of Aggravated Assault or Voluntary Manslaughter.

...therefore he was within his right. No matter how odd the case.
Remains to be seen. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.

They're probably all covered with blood, for one thing. Not his blood, either.

[Shiroiyuki]

...nope, he didn't.


So you are honestly trying to say he was just....carrying a samurai sword around and just happened upon a burglar?

Yeah, because that seems very logical. Sometimes I like to keep throwing stars in my purse just in case I stumble upon a thicket of ninjas or a T-Rex.

:uhh:

I'm pretty sure he was just an otaku waiting for a chance to go Kill Bill on someone's ***, turned out to be just a white guy after all, panicked, and got a lucky stab in.

[Leader Desslock]

^ The "nope, he didn't" was the answer to the question I'd asked earlier, namely "did he do everything reasonable to avoid using deadly force?" No, he did not do everything reasonable to avoid it. He put himself into the situation with a deadly weapon*.

I agree, this was nerd rage.

And I've often suspected that you carry shuriken in your change purse. Now I know... :ph34r:



* granted, that's smarter than putting yourself into a situation with a completely harmless weapon (i.e.: vanilla yogurt), but still... there are laws...

[Spadesy]

Self defense is not the same as self-offense.

Self-offense? What does that mean? Either you attack, or you don't. Self defense is the context, not the action.

The question a jury will be asked is, "Did the defendant do everything reasonable to avoid the use of deadly force?" The answer is...


...nope, he didn't.

I wish courts didn't try to burn a guy for "not being nice enough" against somebody that didn't want to do him any nice. I'm a firm believer in that, if a thief breaks into your house, that thief's action is an agreement to accept whatever the hell comes to him. Didn't want to get stabbed with a sword? You know what prevents that? Not breaking into houses.

He could've avoided the conflict, he was away from direct conflict, and instead, he chose to get into a direct conflict with a deadly weapon.

Oh, you're just stealing my things Mr. Thief? Go on ahead, I'll go hide in the closet and call 911...puh-leeeze.

Assuming that such a defense is valid in his jurisdiction, he might be able to go with a Defense of property legal defense, but given that the amount of force he used (i.e.: deadly) is disproportionate to the threat to property or person, it'd be an uphill battle. He could easily be found guilty of Aggravated Assault or Voluntary Manslaughter.

He can be, and that's what sucks about it. It isn't fair that a jury gets to review a situation where critical thinking and the weighing of consequences goes out the window.

I agree, this was nerd rage.

Oh c'mon, why's he gotta be a nerd for owning a sword? If he was an ex-military member or cop or something people would talk about how badass he is. :uhh:

[Leader Desslock]

Self-offense? What does that mean?
I wrote that in response to the people who seemed to think it was legal to use whatever force or means one might choose to employ against a burglar who isn't an imminent threat to their person.

It's not legal to do that. It might feel really right, but it's not legal to say, "That guy's stealing my game, so I am going to go fetch my sword and kill him." Well - it's fine to say it, but it's generally illegal to do that.

Now if the person had been at home, a burglar had burst in his room, the burglar could be judged a credible threat to his person, and the person had just grabbed the nearest object (a sword) and defended himself with it in the half-second he had time to think about how to protect himself - that'd be a different situation. That would be legal self-defense, and there isn't a jury in the world who would convict under those circumstances.

This is a different situation. This kid could've avoided the conflict. He could've yelled, "I've got a gun and I've called the police!" from the next room. He could've stealthily followed the guy (with the sword, in case the plan failed) to try and get a vehicle plate#. He could've called the police. He could have done any number of things - but he didn't.

He chose to start a confrontation that put himself in harm's way, thus forcing him to use deadly force. That's Action. He armed himself with a deadly weapon, then stepped out and threatened the burglar - that demonstrates Motive and Intent.

He practically wrote the prosecution's case for them, if it comes to that. It might not. Hard to say. Again, I wouldn't want to be him, legally. He'll have the jury's sympathy, but I'd want more than just sympathy on my side in such a case.

I wish courts didn't try to burn a guy for "not being nice enough" against somebody that didn't want to do him any nice.
It's not for "not being nice enough". It's for "not being a responsible member of society and summoning the authorities", which society views as the 'right' course of action. Taking justice into your own hands is frowned upon as vigilantism. Whether that's right or wrong, that's what's legal - unless you have no options left. From the sound of it, this swordsman had options and willfully discarded them.

I'm a firm believer in that, if a thief breaks into your house, that thief's action is an agreement to accept whatever the hell comes to him.
If I was a thief, I would completely agree with you on that score. If someone blew my damned fool head off for breaking into his house, I would personally view that as no fault but my own. Absolutely.

I don't think the law agrees, however.

Oh, you're just stealing my things Mr. Thief? Go on ahead, I'll go hide in the closet and call 911...puh-leeeze.
"Puh-leeeze" what? That's the legally correct thing to do, if one has the option. Given the low value of the items taken, a Citizen's Arrest would not likely have been legal, and even if it had, the liability for not infringing upon the criminal's civil rights is entirely on the arresting party in the US.

Of course, as I said, if the guy is forced into a situation where he must use force to defend his safety and well-being (i.e.: true self-defense) after having done everything reasonable to avoid using that force, then the rules change and the person defending himself has the right to use the necessary force to remove himself from harm. Not "win the fight and kill the bad guy", but "get himself out of harm's way". That's what he has the right to do, under the laws to which we all are subject.

Since the (potential) defendant didn't appear (from the article) to act to reasonably avoid that situation, nor did he use force proportionate to the situation, the "self-defense" legal defense is subject to some doubt, in my opinion.

That leaves him with "Defense of Property", assuming it's even a legitimate defense in his jurisdiction. The amount of force used would again be compared to the amount of force required to protect against the perceived loss. Gonna be hard to justify deadly force, given the burglar's intended haul.

Again, I sympathize with your sentiment, but I very much doubt the legal system will be so kind.

It isn't fair that a jury gets to review a situation where critical thinking and the weighing of consequences goes out the window.
I think that's entirely fair. I think it's more fair than leaving it to the officer responding on scene to make the judgment call.

Oh c'mon, why's he gotta be a nerd for owning a sword? If he was an ex-military member or cop or something people would talk about how badass he is. :uhh:
I wouldn't, but that's me. The "nerd" comment was merely in response to Shiroiyuki's scenario, but personally, unless the guy was actually a sword instructor or kendo master, I'd probably call him a sword geek.

If it was an ex-cop or serviceman who left his service revolver behind and chose the sword instead, I'd still call him a sword geek.

[Caster13]

This has "weeaboo" written all over it.

[Spadesy]

I'm well aware that the law can get him for his actions, I am. But what I'm saying is, it blows.

This is a different situation. This kid could've avoided the conflict. He could've yelled, "I've got a gun and I've called the police!" from the next room. He could've stealthily followed the guy (with the sword, in case the plan failed) to try and get a vehicle plate#. He could've called the police. He could have done any number of things - but he didn't.

And the thief could've had a switchblade employed as he lunged, he could've ran away, he could've surrendered after seeing a guy holding a big blade after he asked "what are you doing here?" Nope. Idiot chose to lunge at the guy with the sword. If breaking into a house AND pinning the kid up against the wall isn't asking for trouble, I don't know what is.

We could throw an equal amount of 'could'ves' to either party.

It's not for "not being nice enough". It's for "not being a responsible member of society and summoning the authorities", which society views as the 'right' course of action. Taking justice into your own hands is frowned upon as vigilantism. Whether that's right or wrong, that's what's legal - unless you have no options left. From the sound of it, this swordsman had options and willfully discarded them.

There were a number of times where thieves have been shot and injured or killed after breaking into somebody's house, with the owner/defender not being convicted of anything, the ruling being self defense. I think the jury might be more biased toward the fact that the kid used a sword to do this instead of a gun, making the killing sound all the more gruesome.

Let's not forget that the guy might've not been entirely sure that there was another person in the house, maybe he was scared out of his wits and trying to protect himself as he was checking the scene out. Then he saw a man hiding, and the man lunged at him.

"Puh-leeeze" what? That's the legally correct thing to do, if one has the option. Given the low value of the items taken, a Citizen's Arrest would not likely have been legal, and even if it had, the liability for not infringing upon the criminal's civil rights is entirely on the arresting party in the US.

Of course, as I said, if the guy is forced into a situation where he must use force to defend his safety and well-being (i.e.: true self-defense) after having done everything reasonable to avoid using that force, then the rules change and the person defending himself has the right to use the necessary force to remove himself from harm. Not "win the fight and kill the bad guy", but "get himself out of harm's way". That's what he has the right to do, under the laws to which we all are subject.

Since the (potential) defendant didn't appear (from the article) to act to reasonably avoid that situation, nor did he use force proportionate to the situation, the "self-defense" legal defense is subject to some doubt, in my opinion.

That leaves him with "Defense of Property", assuming it's even a legitimate defense in his jurisdiction. The amount of force used would again be compared to the amount of force required to protect against the perceived loss. Gonna be hard to justify deadly force, given the burglar's intended haul.

Again, I sympathize with your sentiment, but I very much doubt the legal system will be so kind.

Whether or not he acted responsibly will be up to the jury. From how I read everything, he could easiliy pull off an explanation for what he did as self defense.

I think that's entirely fair. I think it's more fair than leaving it to the officer responding on scene to make the judgment call.

I don't think necessarily fair, but something that has to be done to go forward.

[Onigiri]

Wish the burglar had a sword as well...

You know, a different scenario with the same outcome.

[Spadesy]

It would've probably been a lot like Timmy and Jimmy's Cripple Fight.

[tenshi_a]

There are more details on what happened, now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6-YMJES-Os

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-sword-killing0917,0,16472.story


The burglar had just been released from prison for burglary, he was a long time career criminal.

The burglar stole a games console from the student on Monday, this was reported to police. It's now reported to have been an Xbox 360, not a Playstation & 2 laptops as previously reported.

On Tuesday, the students heard and saw a suspicious person outside.

The student did not attack the burglar in the garage, but outside the garage.

The student had found the burglar hiding in a corner, told him not to move, and shouted for the other students to call the poilce.

The student is however reported to have been backed up to the garage wall by the time he struck.

The burglar lunged agressively towards the student with his arms raised, the student brought down the weapon, through a wrist and into his neck, completely severing his hand but you know, neck, argh... he bled to death on the spot.


So, one swipe of the blade. What kind of student owns live blades? I would have thought that most student samurai geeks would own replicas. Live blades cost a fortune! Like, about the price of two Xbox 360s.

In other news, Ninja Blade is a great Xbox 360 game. Ninja Gaiden II isn't bad but it gets repetitive.

[Old Ape Face]

This is also the justice system at work here, The criminal came out of prison and is still a thief, as if nothing had changed while he was in prison.

So what is prison supose to do? Punish people for a long time hoping they think about their actions and become honest citizens when they come out? that's a Lacan story in my opinion.

And Samurai swords aren't really that expencive, I've seen them in military surplus stores in the back for like 50 bucks.

that or he's Reidar and has a set of Nun-chucks in his room for show.

Then again Reidar wouldn't need a sword to subdue a criminal in his house.

[tenshi_a]

This is also the justice system at work here, The criminal came out of prison and is still a thief, as if nothing had changed while he was in prison.
Well it appears that he had a choice, and he would rather have been chopped into pieces than go back to prison. I guess there is at least that...

And Samurai swords aren't really that expencive, I've seen them in military surplus stores in the back for like 50 bucks.
Wow really? Here, before they were made illegal, the price for replica samurai swords was usually £20 - £100, whereas if you wanted a sword-length live blade that was sharp enough to cut through a human hand in a single strike, you'd be talking about £300 - £400.

Everything is so much cheaper in America!

including life

[Shiroiyuki]

So, one swipe of the blade. What kind of student owns live blades?

As far as I know it is illegal to ship swords with a sharpened blade (that means the sword comes over still...you know...dull). I remember my sister bought a sword for my dad (not a samurai sword, just a sword *shrugs*) and she was very disappointed when it came with a dull thick blade. She emailed the company in question and was told they could not ship a 'live' weapon overseas.


So if that is true all over the place, chances are he sharpened it himself. Because he wanted to go Kill Bill on someone and finally got his chance.

Seriously though, they should have called the cops right off. This was an intent to kill, harm, scare....who knows. Point is, a deadly weapon was brought to the table and lived up to its name, and he should pay for that.

[l0k1]

I was given a replica sword a few years ago as a present it sits in the back of my cupboard forgotten about most of the time, but the blade is so dull and it'd probably break after one swing, more use a club.

So who takes the time to either buy/sharpen a sword, there we have it intent, I think the student put up signs inviting burglars into his house for just this situation, crazy sword wielding bastard.

Lock him up.

[tenshi_a]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-md.samurai16sep16,0,114199.story

The police spokesman said the student who wielded the weapon had no advanced sword training. "He wasn't a ninja," Guglielmi said. "He may have been moderately trained or on the intermediate level."

There you have it. The guy with a samurai sword was not a ninja.

:P

[Trefellin]

The burglar stole a games console from the student on Monday,


Killing was totally justified. Case closed.

[Shiroiyuki]

So who takes the time to either buy/sharpen a sword, there we have it intent, I think the student put up signs inviting burglars into his house for just this situation, crazy sword wielding bastard.

Lock him up.

No, whoever takes the time to go back into his house, grab the sharpened sword (which should have been in a case, if they were properly attending to safety protocol), come back to the scene of the 'crime', confront the burglar (and kill him) should be locked up.


It's only self-defense if you don't initiate it.


Now, if he'd been in the garage sharpening the sword at the time the burglar happened to come in, and said burglar ran at him with a knife and got sliced open in the heat of that unavoidable confrontation, then yes -- that would probably be deemed self-defense/accidental death, etc.

But the fact the guy came back to the garage with a sharpened deadly weapon, without calling the cops, clearly shows his intent.

...The burglar stole a games console from the student on Monday.

There. Now it isn't only an accidental death -- he probably was waiting for the guy to come back. Now his actions only further prove he was out for revenge and not justice; otherwise he would have called the cops as he did on Monday.

Premeditated. He might not have intended to kill him outright, but mess him up? Hells yes.

[Old Ape Face]

As far as I know it is illegal to ship swords with a sharpened blade (that means the sword comes over still...you know...dull). I remember my sister bought a sword for my dad (not a samurai sword, just a sword *shrugs*) and she was very disappointed when it came with a dull thick blade. She emailed the company in question and was told they could not ship a 'live' weapon overseas.


So if that is true all over the place, chances are he sharpened it himself. Because he wanted to go Kill Bill on someone and finally got his chance.

Seriously though, they should have called the cops right off. This was an intent to kill, harm, scare....who knows. Point is, a deadly weapon was brought to the table and lived up to its name, and he should pay for that.

Actually, a few years ago, at the Big E (New England's largest fair, I mean massive fair) in the military tent they have there, they were selling different kinds of blades and stuff, including swords, even one handed battle axes and stuff, I tested the blades to see if they were no duller than a butter knife. I swear they were more like a steak knife sharp than a Butter Knife.

This was about 7 years ago. that's where I found that they were actually pretty cheap.

but ever since then I have yet to see the military tent at the Big E. so I become disappointed every time I go to find it's not there. I would buy a sword just for my own personal collection if I was around to buy them.

[seba_boi]

No, whoever takes the time to go back into his house, grab the sharpened sword (which should have been in a case, if they were properly attending to safety protocol), come back to the scene of the 'crime', confront the burglar (and kill him) should be locked up.


It's only self-defense if you don't initiate it.


Now, if he'd been in the garage sharpening the sword at the time the burglar happened to come in, and said burglar ran at him with a knife and got sliced open in the heat of that unavoidable confrontation, then yes -- that would probably be deemed self-defense/accidental death, etc.

But the fact the guy came back to the garage with a sharpened deadly weapon, without calling the cops, clearly shows his intent.



There. Now it isn't only an accidental death -- he probably was waiting for the guy to come back. Now his actions only further prove he was out for revenge and not justice; otherwise he would have called the cops as he did on Monday.

Premeditated. He might not have intended to kill him outright, but mess him up? Hells yes.



All valid points but there are a lot of circumstances that are neither mentioned nor elaborated...
1. the student wasn't sure if the intruder was indeed an intruder so why call the cops in the first place?;
2. he brought a weapon for protection if it was indeed an intruder (notice nothing was mentioned that he jumped behind him and immediately stabbed him--if what the student says is true, he threatened to call the cops on the burglar and neighbors heard screams so the guy must have been stabbed and not got his head sliced off or any like that);
3. not a lot of people think like you do and call cops first--most don't take lightly to criminals and their impulse would get the best of them at times, thus the carrying of the deadly weapon... And if some unwritten law requires that he calls the cops first, he wasn't properly trained nor used if such situations arise... Should he be punished for carrying a weapon for protection from an unknown intruder?...

Now don't get me wrong, I for one think the burglar was no match for the samurai-weilding student and that was not a fair game for him to lose his life, but I'm a traditionalist... Sure such a small crime such as theft unjustly resulted to a much harsher punishment, but it was "accidental" and who is at fault in the first place--the burglar or the student?...

[Shiroiyuki]

1. the student wasn't sure if the intruder was indeed an intruder so why call the cops in the first place?;

Yes, I could see why it would seem more appropriate to get a sword. Might be a mouse.

It wasn't like a robbery had just happened the previous night or anything.

2. he brought a weapon for protection if it was indeed an intruder (notice nothing was mentioned that he jumped behind him and immediately stabbed him--if what the student says is true, he threatened to call the cops on the burglar and neighbors heard screams so the guy must have been stabbed and not got his head sliced off or any like that);

Tenshi's follow up story said he sliced through his hand/neck? and bled to death.

Even so, he killed him and knew the dangers of going after him with a sharpened sword.

3. not a lot of people think like you do and call cops first--most don't take lightly to criminals and their impulse would get the best of them at times, thus the carrying of the deadly weapon...
Unfortunately, it is against the law to kill another person unless in self defense, which this definitely wasn't.

If you heard what you perceived (correctly) to be a burglar, right after getting robbed, having reports of suspicious activity in the area, and while police were looking for a criminal around your campus, would you put yourself in danger by going after the burglar -- or would you call the cops like you did already the day before?

He was capable of calling the cops in such a situation, as he already proved.

In this case he wanted revenge and didn't call. Actually, the report Tenshi linked says he gathered a group of friends to join his little vigilante club and went looking for the burglar.

Should he be punished for carrying a weapon for protection from an unknown intruder?...

If the intruder came into the house and attacked the guy while he was cleaning his sword and he protected himself (and ended up killing the burglar), THEN your argument would hold up.

But he went out of his way to find and confront the burglar, so he can't pull the self-defense card.

...but it was "accidental" and who is at fault in the first place--the burglar or the student?...

The only reason he is dead is because the student handled the situation poorly. Had the student acted responsibly (as he magically was able to do the day prior), there would be no fatality right now.


To recap:

Around 1:20 a.m., the student heard noises behind the home and noticed a door to the garage was open, Guglielmi said. He grabbed the sword and confronted the intruder, who was crouching beneath a counter.

So he heard noises behind his home and noticed the garage door was open.

He had time to go back inside and grab the sword, arrange a hunting party (see Tenshi's article), and go investigate.

Conscious decision. This was not in the heat of the moment, he wasn’t left to kill or be killed; he made a choice to go looking for a criminal and took with him a deadly weapon.

The student asked the suspect what he was doing and threatened to call police.

Now, after having time to get the sword and come back with his little posse -- he threatens to call the police (which he should have done in the first place). The events thereafter -- with the burglar 'pinning him against the wall' is all hearsay as there is only one side to that argument.

BUT even so, all of that could (and WOULD) have been avoided if the student hadn't confronted the burglar and just called the police -- so it was hardly 'accidental' or 'self defense'.


Now, onto Tenshi's article...


The burglar stole a games console from the student on Monday, this was reported to police.
He had just been robbed. He reported it.

The second article states that the police were all around campus looking for this fellow, and the student got a bunch of friends together, grabbed the sword, and went to look for him, too.

The housemates and the officers canvassed the area around the house and didn't find anything unusual, Guglielmi said.

After the officers left, the housemates decided to check the area again, with Pontolillo grabbing the sword...
So again, he knew what he was doing. He went looking to find trouble, and trouble he certainly found.

[SapperSix]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-sword-killing0917,0,16472.story?track=rss

story update.

[Shiroiyuki]

^That's the same article Tenshi posted. Just an FYI

[SapperSix]

Well now, there's a lack of situational awareness on my part.

[fujyoshi]

If the family of the burglar tries to sue, I'll go bonkers...

oh man that'l be a riot

[GreatNekoKoneko]

... was there a dragon on the blade? if he went to john hopkins, he MUST have bought that sword at Otakon...