From Maryland State Police:
At about 1:15 p.m. on Saturday, May 14, 2011, troopers were dispatched to the Exxon Gas Station/Convenience Store located at 1804 Edgewood Road in Edgewood for a reported armed robbery.
Upon arrival, troopers learned that a white male entered the establishment and approached the cashier to make a purchase. The suspect then lifted his shirt, displayed a silver handgun and demanded money from the register. The cashier complied with his demands and was uninjured. The suspect fled from the store and ran past the Waffle House, toward the Ramada Inn.
Troopers and Harford County Sheriff’s Deputies, including HCSO K-9, conducted an extensive search of the surrounding area, but the suspect could not be located. The Maryland State Police Crime Scene Unit responded to collect forensic evidence. Bel Air Barrack Criminal Investigators responded to the scene to lead the investigation.
The suspect is described as a white male, approximately 25 years of age, between 5’ 9” and 6’ tall and 130 pounds. The suspect has light brown or blonde hair, a moustache and blue eyes with moles or dots near his right eye. He was wearing a black skull cap, black jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt with gold writing on the front.
The investigation is continuing at this time. Anyone with information about this robbery is asked to contact TFC Brad Walls of the Maryland State Police Bel Air Barrack at 410-879-2101.
MacG says
Is it just me or are other citizens noticing an increase in crime? Fire-bombs and armed stick-ups in Abingdon and now this within a ten day period. Certainly the suspects are responsible for their actions but are not the Sheriff and his deputies responsible for preventing crime? For identifying those that have the potential for committing crime(s)? Community policing may be a solution. Having officers sit in parking lots talking with other officers while on duty is not doing much to thwart crime in Harford County.
WheresPatton says
Actually, while you are correct that we are seeing an increase in crime…the police have no duty to protect you (and that is US Supreme Court precedent).
Hence the reason you hear many pro-freedom folk say things like “when seconds count, the police are minutes away.”
king of common sense says
Deputies will continue to arrest as many criminals as they can but as long as the courts and the laws regarding jail credit continue to put them back on the streets there will be a crime problem. Unfortunately, when it comes to preventing crime you can’t arrest someone before they have committed the crime to prevent it from happening. Believe me, we know who has the potential to commit crime and who is likely to do it but the law doesn’t allow you to arrest someone for being likely to commit a crime.
WheresPatton says
This is true…yet…last week, Indiana State Supreme Court said that the individual does not have a right to resist an unlawful entry by a police officer.
Common law for more than 230 years has been thrown out the window because it doesn’t jive with “public safety and state policy interest.”
Death by 1000 paper cuts.
king of common sense says
Barnes V. State of Indiana, the case you are specifically speaking about has been incorrectly blown out of proportion by the news media, which is where you have undoubtedly gotten your information. In fact, the statement of facts for this case demonstrates a clear need for the appellate court ruling the way they did. In this case you have a suspect denying entry to law enforcement for a dwelling in which the victim is located. The appellate court is responsible for more than upholding outdated common laws that were created in a time period much different than the present. They must look at the big picture, upholding this common law would result in victims suffering at the hands of criminals asserting a right to prevent unlawful entry and the courts being bottle-necked with every uneducated criminal claiming they were lawfully resisting police activity.
WheresPatton says
Errrrnt…wrong. I don’t watch any TV news (well, ok, less than 1 hour per week, and mostly the local drivel), and I rarely if ever read the crappy print media from THIS country. Alternative media (non-politically leaning / affiliated) and the print media from across the pond (Telegraph) is far FAR more informative than the garbage from this side of the Atlantic.
Outdated laws? Oh jester of common sense, you are not king. So, what you are telling me is that you disagree with an English common law that has withstood nearly 1000 years (I’ll save you your lack of knowledge and tell you it is the Magna Carta) as the basis of individual freedom, and protection from the authoritarian crown in the old world, and now the ever encroaching police state rule in this country? You aren’t just the King of Fail, you are the penultimate “King of Fail, jester of the court of common sense.”
To save you some time, these philosophical and legal theories are exactly the reasons for our American Revolution and the protections afford within the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, they have been dumbed down along the way, as to provide for increased encroachment and less freedom. A man is king within his own castle, and as such, unlawful entry shall be resisted at all costs. You and I already cede our rights when we travel, but you’re willing to compromise them within your own home?
You justify the 4th and 5th amendments as “outdated.” You justify 1000 years of common law, and accepted practice thereof, as “outdated.” Hell, the Indiana Supreme Court (not just an ordinary appellate court) made statements of fact within its opinion that such jurisprudence exists to prevent authorities from forcibly entering one’s home without warrant or invite (unless a very specific set of circumstances exist). Unfortunately, they feel that the state has a “compelling interest” to (erroneously) ignore those protections. What would this man’s recourse be if these cops were thug cops whom hide behind their badges and chose, defiantly, to ignore their oath to support and defend the Constitution?
No, they must not look at the “big” picture, for tyranny of the crown (or the executive branch) transcends time. Clearly you sir, are a failing student of history. Further, you are a failing student of good jurisprudence. We do not judge laws based upon criminal activity. We judge laws based upon protections of freedom and innocence. Yes, there is an inherent risk and a bias predisposed towards the injustice for non-conviction of the guilty (or as you claim, saving a victim) but the authors of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights both knew that those risks were far superior (and easier with which to deal) than ones perpetrated by a corrupt ruling elite.
Courts are already bottle-necked, so that argument is moot. Further, unconstitutional laws are non-binding and unenforceable (and that is precedent). There is a big difference between a thug you are trying to paint (or a wife beater) and that of a man whom told the police to get lost and get off his property. After all, a man arguing with his wife is not in and of itself probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. No…the only thing that happened here is a contempt of cop case, and a contempt of common citizen / law case.
But thanks for play and thanks for making my point even stronger. Death by 1000 paper cuts. Us commoners are forced to concede our rights one court case at a time. It’s obvious our protections are non-enforceable outside the home, so why should they be protected in the home?
SuperflyofBelAir says
Someone please turn off Wherespatton.