Is it true that there is no castle doctrine in our state?

This is an article about the guy in Glen Burnie who defended his home against an intruder and has now been charged with second-degree murder:

http://gunsnfreedom.com/air-force-sgt-charged-with-murder-after-shooting-crazed-intruder-in-his-home/

(The event is discussed at length in other threads, including this one.)

The article states "Because the state [Maryland] has no Castle Doctrine in place, a US Air Force Sgt. has been charged with murder for simply protecting his family from a crazed intruder." Is this true? Is there not a provision in Maryland law permitting me to use deadly force against someone threatening me or my family in my home?

sorry, this is a libtard state. unless said intruder is threatening to harm you or your family, you are s.o.l. and even if you are cleared of charges, don't forget about the wrongful death lawsuit that said intruder's family will slap you with

Ragnar said:

This is an article about the guy in Glen Burnie who defended his home against an intruder and has now been charged with second-degree murder:

http://gunsnfreedom.com/air-force-sgt-charged-with-murder-after-shooting-crazed-intruder-in-his-home/

(The event is discussed at length in other threads, including this one.)

The article states "Because the state [Maryland] has no Castle Doctrine in place, a US Air Force Sgt. has been charged with murder for simply protecting his family from a crazed intruder." Is this true? Is there not a provision in Maryland law permitting me to use deadly force against someone threatening me or my family in my home?

Click to expand...

No statute but the doctrine obtains in the case law

We DO have castle doctrine. It is not statutory law, but defined by the courts. See Crawford v State, Court of Appeals of Maryland.

I think if it was a random home invasion this shooting wouldn't be questioned. Because they seemed to know each other there're more questions.

The shoot seemed good to me, but I disagree with this state on so many things!

I thought there was legislation however it is only listed as a "civil" defense and has no bearing on criminal defense.

The "case law", as he found out, is only relevant as a "defense" typically and is always subject to change and further interruption. The State can also make it's case to separate itself from the case law by presenting factual information to distinguish the cases.

It would be far better if the case law were codified in statute, I think it would lead to more even application.

But, whether its in statute or case law, the law might protect your rights, but it does not protect you from insolvency attempting to defend those rights. You can spend tends of thousands defending yourself from a prosecutor trying to push the boundaries and/or make a name for themselves.

danb said:

It would be far better if the case law were codified in statute, I think it would lead to more even application.

Click to expand...

Never going to happen in this liberal minion infested state...

Here is a jury instruction from a MD judge since no statute exists.

Credit to Norton or DD214-can't remember who posted it originally
.
.

swinokur said:

Here is a jury instruction from a MD judge since no statute exists.

Credit to Norton or DD214-can't remember who posted it originally
.
.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the attachment. It sounds like it could be difficult to get a jury of 12 to agree on all five 100% in any case. ? Does this mean the Castle Doctrine is Y or N?

If the case was a clear cut case of self defense, then the castle doctrine would be applied and no charges would have been brought. From what I have heard, the State has several different arguments as to why this was not a case of self defense.

Just like those that wanted Zimmerman hanged before he even received a trial, how about letting the judicial process work in this one too.

As already mentioned, if the two guys did not know one another, if there was no hint that the "victim" had an affair with the wife, if the "victim" had a gun on him, if the shooter had a broken nose, etc. then this would be a pretty clear case.

Let's not jump to conclusions until we have all the facts. Anybody have a picture of the broken door? Were there any eye witnesses to the shooting other than the shooter? I know the shooter's brother and wife have talked about the matter, but I didn't see anything that said they actually saw what happened. Better yet, are there any unbiased witnesses to the shooting.

Lots of questions. Answers may or may not be provided at trial, but I seriously doubt the press will do a thorough investigation into the matter and report it appropriately.

Rumnhammer said:

Simple solution is don't bother calling anybody. Worms gotta eat, same as vultures. Save yourself a lot of trouble, most likely it would be someone who would not be missed, and you should not lose sleep over them.

Click to expand...

Imagine how that would look if you were actually charged with a crime. "Oh, I did not do anything wrong." Really? Then why did you bury the body and not call the police?

Technically, as others have pointed out, Maryland does recognize the Castle Doctrine, however, as a practical matter in this state, you can expect to be prosecuted in the event you defend yourself in your home using a firearm. You would have to raise the doctrine in defense, and leave it up to the jury. The key point is that you basically have to assume you will be prosecuted. This article discusses some of the issues. http://www.thecounterterroristmag.com/pdf/Keiler.Citizens.Issue5.lores.pdf

Unfortunately, mounting a successful defense to criminal charges will likely result in utter financial and emotional devastation. When those charges are completely meretricious, it destroys faith in the system.

I don't think justice prevailed in the Z case. I think the pressure of living under total scrutiny, and being the subject of such incredible hatred, changed him for the worse. i don't know about the financial aspects, but it couldn't have been good for him.

Same thing for the Duke lacrosse case. I think those boys are scarred forever. An acquittal only goes so far.

Les Gawlik said:

Unfortunately, mounting a successful defense to criminal charges will likely result in utter financial and emotional devastation. When those charges are completely meretricious, it destroys faith in the system.

I don't think justice prevailed in the Z case. I think the pressure of living under total scrutiny, and being the subject of such incredible hatred, changed him for the worse. i don't know about the financial aspects, but it couldn't have been good for him.

Same thing for the Duke lacrosse case. I think those boys are scarred forever. An acquittal only goes so far.

Click to expand...

All true. My wife made the same point to me the other day when we were talking about the Glen Burnie case. She remarked that she couldn't think of anything worse than being charged and convicted of murder. My response was that I could think of something much worse: watching your family get killed, raped or severely injured by some lowlife intruder. She agreed (she's a tigress when it comes to her family, as are most mothers). That's my nightmare and that's why I would pull the trigger if I had to. This point is pretty basic and is stressed in all personal protection training: If you carry or have a self-defense firearm in the home, you really need to do some honest soul-searching as to whether you could bring yourself to take a life and when you would do so. If your answer is yes, then you need to learn the law and constantly practice mental scenarios within the rules established by the law. Do it every single day as you go about your life, especially if you carry outside the home. You fight how you train, if you don't train, you fight poorly -- and either lose the fight or get convicted.

willyb said:

sorry, this is a libtard state. unless said intruder is threatening to harm you or your family, you are s.o.l. and even if you are cleared of charges, don't forget about the wrongful death lawsuit that said intruder's family will slap you with

Click to expand...

We have had Civil Immunity in MD for what? 3 or 4 years now?

mr h said:

We have had Civil Immunity in MD for what? 3 or 4 years now?

Click to expand...

Yes, since 2010. See attached.

That’s like asking if we have freedom in Maryland. Technically yes, but the state government can take it away whenever they deem it to be in the way of their particular goals.

Bellow are the MD Criminal Patter Jury Instructions as they pertain to various self defenses. At the close of a criminal case, the jury will be given a number of instructions on a number of subjects such the states burden of proof, issues pertaining to evidence presented, the elements of the criminal charges, and on defenses, if any have been raised. The castle doctrine in reflected in MPJI-Cr 5:02 DEFENSE OF HABITATION — DEADLY FORCE. These standard instruction are just the starting point. Often the State and the Defense will want to “tweak” the instructions to their advantage. They are not binding authority upon the court as to what the law is with respect to the elements of a crime or a defense.

MPJI-Cr 5:07 SELF-DEFENSE

You have heard evidence that the defendant acted in self-defense. Self-defense is a complete defense and you are required to find the defendant not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
(1) the defendant was not the aggressor [[or, although the defendant was the initial aggressor, [he] [she] did not raise the fight to the deadly force level]];
(2) the defendant actually believed that [he] [she] was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm;
(3) the defendant's belief was reasonable; and
(4) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend [himself] [herself] in light of the threatened or actual harm.
[Deadly force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If you find that the defendant used deadly-force, you must decide whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force posed an immediate and imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.]
[[In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make a reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if [the defendant was in [his] [her] home], [retreat was unsafe], [the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant], [the defendant was being robbed], [the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim]]. [If you find that the defendant did not use deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.]
In order to convict the defendant, the State must prove that self-defense does not apply in this case. This means that you are required to find the defendant not guilty, unless the State has persuaded you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the four factors of complete self-defense was absent.

MPJI-Cr 5:01 DEFENSE OF OTHERS

You have heard evidence that the defendant acted in defense of [name of person]. Defense of others is a defense, and you are required to find the defendant not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
(1) the defendant actually believed that the person he was defending was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm;
(2) the defendant's belief was reasonable;
(3) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary in light of the threatened or actual force; and
(4) the defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person he was defending.
In order to convict the defendant, the State must prove that the defense of others does not apply in this case. This means that you are required to find the defendant not guilty unless the State has persuaded you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the four factors of defense of others was absent.

MPJI-Cr 5:02.1 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY — NONDEADLY FORCE

You have heard evidence that the defendant acted in defense of [his] [her] property. Defense of property is a defense and you are required to find the defendant not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
(1) the defendant actually believed that (name of the person) was unlawfully interfering [was just about to unlawfully interfere] with [his] [her] property;
(2) the defendant's belief was reasonable; and
(3) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's interference with the property. [A person may not use deadly force to defend [his] [her] property. Deadly force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm.]
In order to convict the defendant, the State must show that the defense of property does not apply in this case by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the three factors previously stated was absent.

MPJI-Cr 5:02 DEFENSE OF HABITATION — DEADLY FORCE

You have heard evidence that the defendant acted in defense of [his] [her] home. Defense of one's home is a defense, and you are required to find the defendant not guilty if all of the following five factors are present:
(1) [name of person] entered [or attempted to enter] the defendant's home;
(2) the defendant believed that [name of person] intended to commit a crime that would involve an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm;
(3) the defendant reasonably believed that [name of person] intended to commit such a crime;
(4) the defendant believed that the force that [he] [she] used against [name of person] was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm; and
(5) the defendant reasonably believed that such force was necessary.
In order to convict the defendant, the State must show that the defense of one's home does not apply in this case by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the five factors previously stated was absent.

fabsroman said:

If the case was a clear cut case of self defense, then the castle doctrine would be applied and no charges would have been brought. From what I have heard, the State has several different arguments as to why this was not a case of self defense.

Just like those that wanted Zimmerman hanged before he even received a trial, how about letting the judicial process work in this one too.

As already mentioned, if the two guys did not know one another, if there was no hint that the "victim" had an affair with the wife, if the "victim" had a gun on him, if the shooter had a broken nose, etc. then this would be a pretty clear case.

Let's not jump to conclusions until we have all the facts. Anybody have a picture of the broken door? Were there any eye witnesses to the shooting other than the shooter? I know the shooter's brother and wife have talked about the matter, but I didn't see anything that said they actually saw what happened. Better yet, are there any unbiased witnesses to the shooting.

Lots of questions. Answers may or may not be provided at trial, but I seriously doubt the press will do a thorough investigation into the matter and report it appropriately.

Click to expand...

I've seen the broken door, and known the shooter for many years. Straight-up family man.

-John