I figured I had better make this a separate discussion from the property thread.
So going through other threads here, it seems like you are allowed to defend your own life and the lives of your family.
However if you don't let them just kill you, than you're pretty much going to have to go before a jury of Marylanders and convince them that you both had a "reasonable" belief that you were imminently in danger, and that you used no more force than was reasonably necessary.
In some threads, members have indicated that if you shoot someone too many times or hit them in the head you're likely to go to jail. Many gun drills such as the failure drill and bill drill emphasize multiple shots and/or headshots in order to effectively stop an assailant (because a single gunshot center of mass is unlikely to be able to stop someone barring a psychological response). Are they sure ways to go to jail?
Do some "letter of the law" elements cease to matter? For example as I understand it the letter of the law states that you do not have a requirement to retreat in your home. However if a jury decides that, since you didn't retreat, you're a murderous psychopath and thus decides to agree with the prosecution your actions were unreasonable and your force excessive and sends you to jail, than you really don't have that right. Now, I'm not so much looking to debate whether the jury doing such a thing is right as I am trying to discern what the reality is.
I've also seen members saying that there are "no warning shots" and "no shooting to wound". However again would that be the sort of thing that could help you in a jury case? The idea being that you were putting your life at increased jeopardy by attempting to use as little force as you could to stop the threat. This would seem to be especially relevant if you're dealing with someone who is clearly unarmed but still rushing you, or if you're dealing with a shadowy form and don't know if they're armed or not or what the situation is. If you fire a warning shot into the ceiling or a round into their leg and they advance afterward than that would seem solid evidence they were dangerous and violent. You might still get charged with something afterwards, but if you just kill them than you're looking at a murder charge.
Finally, does the equipment matter? For example, one could argue that there are tactical advantages to having a mil-spec pistol gripped tacticool evil black gun with bayonet, but in the courtroom would you be a whole lot better off if it's a deer gun with beautiful walnut furniture sitting on the table as exhibit A?
So going through other threads here, it seems like you are allowed to defend your own life and the lives of your family.
However if you don't let them just kill you, than you're pretty much going to have to go before a jury of Marylanders and convince them that you both had a "reasonable" belief that you were imminently in danger, and that you used no more force than was reasonably necessary.
In some threads, members have indicated that if you shoot someone too many times or hit them in the head you're likely to go to jail. Many gun drills such as the failure drill and bill drill emphasize multiple shots and/or headshots in order to effectively stop an assailant (because a single gunshot center of mass is unlikely to be able to stop someone barring a psychological response). Are they sure ways to go to jail?
Do some "letter of the law" elements cease to matter? For example as I understand it the letter of the law states that you do not have a requirement to retreat in your home. However if a jury decides that, since you didn't retreat, you're a murderous psychopath and thus decides to agree with the prosecution your actions were unreasonable and your force excessive and sends you to jail, than you really don't have that right. Now, I'm not so much looking to debate whether the jury doing such a thing is right as I am trying to discern what the reality is.
I've also seen members saying that there are "no warning shots" and "no shooting to wound". However again would that be the sort of thing that could help you in a jury case? The idea being that you were putting your life at increased jeopardy by attempting to use as little force as you could to stop the threat. This would seem to be especially relevant if you're dealing with someone who is clearly unarmed but still rushing you, or if you're dealing with a shadowy form and don't know if they're armed or not or what the situation is. If you fire a warning shot into the ceiling or a round into their leg and they advance afterward than that would seem solid evidence they were dangerous and violent. You might still get charged with something afterwards, but if you just kill them than you're looking at a murder charge.
Finally, does the equipment matter? For example, one could argue that there are tactical advantages to having a mil-spec pistol gripped tacticool evil black gun with bayonet, but in the courtroom would you be a whole lot better off if it's a deer gun with beautiful walnut furniture sitting on the table as exhibit A?
