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

[iH8DemLibz]

The only thing Maryland has in the way of Castle Doctrine is that you have to Retreat from Castle room to Castle room to Castle room until you can no longer retreat.

At which point you're dead and your wife and daughter are gang raped.

This State has zero concept of self defense. Unless, of course, you're some kind of Big Wig. Then you can have all the guns and body guards you can afford.

We lower class are having our rights methodically dismantled and they are going to beat us down until we accept it and get used to it.

Everyone needs to stand up and be counted in 2014 or this country is toast.

Oh! And go DINO.

 

[Brooklyn]

These people get it from conjecture, really - Massad Ayoub also goes on about it...but yeah, I'm going to wikipedia/xkcd GP: [Citation Needed]

Plus you'll have to hire that expert if it came down to it. I wouldn't volunteer they were reloads, obviously.

The only reason it might be an issue is the amount of force used...however a skilled lawyer would simply state that you used fewer shots.

Right because factory ammo is so expensive.. its better to hire an expert...

Reloads will not be able to reproduced. This may not be an issue.. or it may be critical.... your call. Boy that factory stuff sure looks cheaper than expert testimony...

 

[JettaRed]

So, is 12 gauge 00 buck shot excessive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iH8DemLibz]

So, is 12 gauge 00 buck shot excessive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's a relative question.

It depends on your position in the scenerio.

But to answer your question: NO!

 

[jkeiler]

If you take the decision to shoot, with all its consequences in MD as stated here, you are best off using the most effective firearm and ammo available and (as everyone knows) shooting for center of mass. And the fact is, you are better off killing the intruder than just wounding him/her, not just because it ends the threat, but you are likely worse off legally with a seriously wounded intruder in than a dead one. That wounded guy not only will sue you for medical expenses, pain and suffering, etc. (whether or not he has a case, or you assert immunity you still have to deal with it) plus he/she will be there to testify against you at your trial, explaining how they "pleaded with you not to shoot and surrendered" right before you fired the non-fatal shot.

 

[Inigoes]

If you take the decision to shoot, with all its consequences in MD as stated here, you are best off using the most effective firearm and ammo available and (as everyone knows) shooting for center of mass. And the fact is, you are better off killing the intruder than just wounding him/her, not just because it ends the threat, but you are likely worse off legally with a seriously wounded intruder in than a dead one. That wounded guy not only will sue you for medical expenses, pain and suffering, etc. (whether or not he has a case, or you assert immunity you still have to deal with it) plus he/she will be there to testify against you at your trial, explaining how they "pleaded with you not to shoot and surrendered" right before you fired the non-fatal shot.

No, the perp will not be able to sue if they are committing a criminal act, see civil liability.

However, if the perp is still breathing and the story isn't close to yours, then there is a problem.

Remember, all shootings will be investigated. If you are the shooter, you are the suspect.

 

[anthem4arequiem]

I know that our courts and MD government don't much care to follow law that they themselves passed, but this was passed in 2010 and supposedly replaces the duty to retreat. I am not sure what “not liable for damages” all entails, but I would think if you can be thrown in jail they are holding you liable.

5–808.
(A) IN THIS SECTION, “PERSON” DOES NOT INCLUDE A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.
(B) A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR A PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO ENTERS THE PERSON’S DWELLING OR PLACE OF BUSINESS IF:
(1) THE PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE IS NECESSARY TO REPEL AN ATTACK BY THE INDIVIDUAL; AND
(2) THE AMOUNT AND NATURE OF THE FORCE USED BY THE PERSON IS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
(C) SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO IS CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE UNDER § 14–101 OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW ARTICLE, ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, OR RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT ARISING OUT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION.
(C) (D) THE COURT SHALL MAY AWARD COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES TO A DEFENDANT WHO PREVAILS IN A DEFENSE UNDER THIS SECTION.
(D) (E) THIS SECTION DOES NOT LIMIT OR ABROGATE ANY IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY OR DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO A PERSON UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE CODE OR AT COMMON LAW.
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall be construed to apply only prospectively and may not be applied or interpreted to have any effect on or application to any case in which the cause of action arises before the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect October 1, 2010.
Approved by the Governor, May 20, 2010.

Attached as a .pdf for your pleasure.

And did you see the part will they will pay you for your trouble? Would love to see that happen. Not holding my breath

 

[Ragnar]

Duty-to-retreat
In May 2010, the Governor of Maryland signed a bill that included Castle Doctrine. However, Maryland residents can invoke their rights provided by Castle Doctrine only if they do not have a prior conviction relating to the act for which immunity is being sought.

What bill/law was this?

 

[Ragnar]

I know that our courts and MD government don't much care to follow law that they themselves passed, but this was passed in 2010 and supposedly replaces the duty to retreat. I am not sure what “not liable for damages” all entails, but I would think if you can be thrown in jail they are holding you liable.

Thanks. I think we both clicked "post" at the same time.

 

[IndispensableDestiny]

The only thing Maryland has in the way of Castle Doctrine is that you have to Retreat from Castle room to Castle room to Castle room until you can no longer retreat.

There is no requirement to retreat in your castle (home). Stop making stuff up.

 

[Name Taken]

If you are justified in lethal force it doesn't matter if it's a sword, a hammer, your hands, a shotgun, a handgun with factory loads, +P's, a car, a rock etc.

This seems to have started from someone who, no offense, is in the business of selling himself and his ideas. This one has seemed to have caught on for some strange reason.

I guess no one should use a 10mm or .45 since that might be excessive? The idea sounds good when you first read it but when you start thinking about it it's non sense.

You are not trying to kill someone you are trying to stop the threat. Whatever you have at the time to do that if justified in using that amount of force from the start is going to be fine and dandy.

 

[BrianS]

If you're involved in one of these home defense scenarios, during the process of the state building their case against you do they seize all the other firearms in your house as well? Even if they are unrelated to the case? I would hate to see someone lose their valuable NFA collection for example despite it being locked away in safe.

 

[DraKhen99]

If you're involved in one of these home defense scenarios, during the process of the state building their case against you do they seize all the other firearms in your house as well? Even if they are unrelated to the case? I would hate to see someone lose their valuable NFA collection for example despite it being locked away in safe.

Nope. The police only take the gun(s) involved in the shooting.

John

 

[mtnwisdom]

We're sold this bill of goods when we're young that police are here to "serve and protect" us...that's their job. The police are here to stop crimes if they see them in time, prosecure offenders if they don't. Idealistically, they care about the citizens and want them to live well, but in the line of duty, they don't give a sh*t. They get called to a crime-scene, they are looking to see who they can charge with what. If they get called to a report of a shooting at your house, they arrive, and you have shot someone dead, you bet your ASS they are looking to charge SOMEBODY for SOMETHING. They can't charge the dead guy...he's dead. But the LAST thing they want to do is NOT charge someone and have Trayvon-style riots in the streets. If the case isn't 100% clear-cut, you can count on at LEAST coming up before a Grand Jury for an indictment. It's hard to know all of the details of the case. What we can PRESUME, though, is that the police arrived with the intent of charging SOMEONE with a crime, and somehow, some way, even if the shooter was 100% "in the right", SOMETHING gave the police enough of a reason to do what they came to do in the first place. This is COMPOUNDED by a generally hostile attitude toward gun-owners and self-defense in this state...even though 2A is now incorporated, the state has no problem showing its hostility to it. They view all "law-abiding gun owners" as rabid, "give-me-a-reason" types of people that are drooling for the opportunity to LEGALLY shoot someone. That's how they look at you if you live here and own a gun...if you choose to continue to live here, that's the state-sponsored stigma you deal with. This is FURTHER compounded by the "Trayvon" debacle. When the OJ Simpson case first went down, states' attorneys' offices completely re-wrote the book on how they prosecute DV cases. I can GUARANTEE you that the states' attorney's office re-wrote the book on how to handle "self defense" scenarios in the wake of Trayvon to avoid political backlash at all costs...specifically if there is ANY doubt, to AGGRESSIVELY pursue indictments and leave it for the courts to work out, rather than "let people off the hook". You don't know what was on that 911 tape. You don't know what evidence was recovered by CSIs at the scene, or what was said to police. This is what you can EXPECT in this state, from now on, if you exercise your right to self-defense. So when you shoot, you have to ask yourself...is this bullet worth a $x0,000 legal bill and months, maybe years, of stress from dealing with this event? That's in ADDITION to the guilt of taking a life, even that of a thug/criminal? If it is, then shoot. When the police arrive, don't tell them a DAMNED thing until you get legal counsel, because they WILL be coming for you. It's easy to say, "Better to be tried by twelve", but you better remember that you WILL likely be seeing those twelve in this state.

Well Stated...

Law Enforcement, generally speaking, write reports... No offense intended to the LEO community, but as it concerns the individual, we are usually on our own for the 3-20 mins of the initial event.

As to what to say... The attorney(s) I have for that most unfortunate CCW or home event have schooled me in 2 things:
1. Be amiable and compliant to the responding LEO's (keep in mind, killing another human being is a crime, and LEO's investigate crime-it's their job)
and
2. KYBMS--- Keep Your Big Mouth Shut.

They said call them after 911, and hand the LEO's the phone on their arrival.

They collectively have lots of experience in this legal defense matter, so I think I'll listen to the advice I am paying for.

 

[PapiBarcelona]

Not every home invasion in this state ends with the homeowner going to jail. Saved this one just for some laughs when people start posting about "retreating from room to room" LOL

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/crime_checker/harford_county_crime/intruders-death-ruled-a-homicide

 

[danb]

actually, this one is my personal favorite: Hopkins student kills intruder with sword, was not prosecuted.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20..._1_samurai-three-other-students-dennis-o-shea

There are really two justice systems in Maryland if you kill an intruder in your home: The one for people who can afford a good attorney who knows the case law; And the one for people who can only afford an overworked public defender fresh off the bar.

 

[6-Pack]

technically, Maryland is a duty to retreat State. Shoot or even point your weapon at someone in the context of protecting property and you are going to jail:

USE OF FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Duty-to-retreat
By common law, some self defense in Maryland requires duty-to-retreat. Maryland at present, has no "Castle Doctrine" exception set down in statutory law per se, [1] but does have case law indicating duty to retreat does not apply when attacked in one's home. Other exceptions to duty to retreat are being the victim of a robbery, situations where the imminent peril of attack makes retreat impossible or retreat would not remove the danger (i.e. a physically injured or disabled person trying to flee from an able-bodied attacker). See Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 140 (2005). See also Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205, 216, A.2d 669, 675 (2001).
Meeting the duty-to-retreat criteria
The duty-to-retreat criteria can be met under two different circumstances. And, in both circumstances, the actions must be considered against the actions of a reasonable person in the same situation.
The first circumstance can be met when the individual is in a location where retreat is possible. It is met when the individual does, in fact, retreat but retreats to a location where they can safely retreat no further. Thus the situation results in some type of self defense.
The second circumstance can be met when the individual is in a location where retreat is not possible. This is a location where the individual has no known avenues of safe retreat. The issue of whether the avenues do exist are irrelevant, as long as the individual is unaware of their existence. Also, the avenue must always be an avenue of safe retreat.
Self-defense
If the duty-to-retreat criteria is met, then the following self defense criteria are examined, as contained within the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction. Optional or alternate inclusions into the jury instruction are enclosed with < >. Phrases surrounded with () are substituted with specific instances of the case.
Self-defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)
Self-defense IS a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> 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 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 the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided 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 was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response.>
In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all 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 the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.
Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5:01)
Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended 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 to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
• 4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.
[edit] Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)
Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
• 2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
• 3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim).
Defense of Property – Non-deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02.1)
Defense of property is not a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was unlawfully interfering <was just about to unlawfully interfere> with property.
• 2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
• 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.
Duty-to-retreat
In May 2010, the Governor of Maryland signed a bill that included Castle Doctrine. However, Maryland residents can invoke their rights provided by Castle Doctrine only if they do not have a prior conviction relating to the act for which immunity is being sought.

Yes and no. There is a duty to retreat IN PUBLIC, but the Castle Doctrine applies at your residence (or temporary residence such as a hotel room). The two actually go somewhat together: the Castle Doctrine is an exception to the duty to retreat.

 

[jkeiler]

No, the perp will not be able to sue if they are committing a criminal act, see civil liability.

However, if the perp is still breathing and the story isn't close to yours, then there is a problem.

Remember, all shootings will be investigated. If you are the shooter, you are the suspect.

The perp can sue you. He might and should not succeed. But you have to assert immunity from civil liability successfully. It is the same situation with the castle doctrine itself. Under the doctrine you should be free from criminal liability, but you will have to establish that in court, after you are arrested and charged. The point is the same. Regardless of your "rights" under the law, in this state, it will be incumbent on you, and at your expense, to establish those rights and prevail.

 

[ShoreShooter]

technically, Maryland is a duty to retreat State. Shoot or even point your weapon at someone in the context of protecting property and you are going to jail:

USE OF FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Duty-to-retreat
By common law, some self defense in Maryland requires duty-to-retreat. Maryland at present, has no "Castle Doctrine" exception set down in statutory law per se, [1] but does have case law indicating duty to retreat does not apply when attacked in one's home. Other exceptions to duty to retreat are being the victim of a robbery, situations where the imminent peril of attack makes retreat impossible or retreat would not remove the danger (i.e. a physically injured or disabled person trying to flee from an able-bodied attacker). See Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 140 (2005). See also Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205, 216, A.2d 669, 675 (2001).
Meeting the duty-to-retreat criteria
The duty-to-retreat criteria can be met under two different circumstances. And, in both circumstances, the actions must be considered against the actions of a reasonable person in the same situation.
The first circumstance can be met when the individual is in a location where retreat is possible. It is met when the individual does, in fact, retreat but retreats to a location where they can safely retreat no further. Thus the situation results in some type of self defense.
The second circumstance can be met when the individual is in a location where retreat is not possible. This is a location where the individual has no known avenues of safe retreat. The issue of whether the avenues do exist are irrelevant, as long as the individual is unaware of their existence. Also, the avenue must always be an avenue of safe retreat.
Self-defense
If the duty-to-retreat criteria is met, then the following self defense criteria are examined, as contained within the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction. Optional or alternate inclusions into the jury instruction are enclosed with < >. Phrases surrounded with () are substituted with specific instances of the case.
Self-defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)
Self-defense IS a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> 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 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 the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided 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 was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response.>
In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all 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 the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.
Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5:01)
Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended 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 to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
• 4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.
[edit] Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)
Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
• 2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
• 3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim).
Defense of Property – Non-deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02.1)
Defense of property is not a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
• 1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was unlawfully interfering <was just about to unlawfully interfere> with property.
• 2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
• 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.
Duty-to-retreat
In May 2010, the Governor of Maryland signed a bill that included Castle Doctrine. However, Maryland residents can invoke their rights provided by Castle Doctrine only if they do not have a prior conviction relating to the act for which immunity is being sought.

Thanks for this.

Where does the "brandishing" problem kick in? It would seem that brandishing would be the use of the least amount of force necessary to stop an attack.

 

[kbarrett220]

According to Maryland Law just pointing a Firearm or something that looks like a Firearm at someone is a 1st Degree Assault. I can't say whether you could successfully defend yourself in court or not. But, I can say with a great deal of confidence that you would be arrested and charged in most instances. The Information that I posted is straight from the Attorney Generals Office and is S.O.P. for State Police