Is it lawful to shoot an intruder who reaches for his waistband behind his back

[ToneGrail]

when you already have your gun drawn on him and you tell him to put his hands up regardless of if he is actually armed? My instructor said that he has to be armed.

 

[6-Pack]

Is that before or after you clearly heard him say "I'm going to kill you?"

 

[ToneGrail]

Is that before or after you clearly heard him say "I'm going to kill you?"

I guess before. I would think that you could reasonably articulate that you feared he was reaching for a weapon. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[6-Pack]

I guess before.

What I'm getting at is a corpse can't be brought into court to testify against you, so if you clearly heard him say "I'm going to kill you" and he was reaching for what you believed was a gun, no one could testify that's not accurate.

This is not legal advice!

 

[ToneGrail]

What I'm getting at is a corpse can't be brought into court to testify against you, so if you clearly heard him say "I'm going to kill you" and he was reaching for what you believed was a gun, no one could testify that's not accurate.

This is not legal advice!

Ahh understood!

 

[Boondock Saint]

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.

 

[smokey]

This is situationally dependent. I'd wonder why a regular citizen would have someone held at gunpoint just standing there without first identifying a weapon. Police? Sure, but why would a regular citizen be in that position to start with?

If you're drawing a firearm, it should be to use it. You should be using it because there's a clear and articulable reason to expect severe bodily injury or death that you need to stop right then as you're drawing your gun.

 

[ToneGrail]

As far as I know, police are trained this way for officer safely. I'm not so sure it applies to civillians though.

 

[scottyfz6]

Just be careful of the ring camera across the street, or the atm camera next to you.

Or the persons get away driver in the car down two spaces.

Still better to be alive and in court than dead.

 

[ToneGrail]

This is situationally dependent. I'd wonder why a regular citizen would have someone held at gunpoint just standing there without first identifying a weapon. Police? Sure, but why would a regular citizen be in that position to start with?

If you're drawing a firearm, it should be to use it. You should be using it because there's a clear and articulable reason to expect severe bodily injury or death that you need to stop right then as you're drawing your gun.

I'm talking about a home invader.

 

[Johnny5k]

I wouldn't expect your target will not be able to testify. Pistol shots aren't fatal as often as people would believe.

I think it would go a long way to be able to show that you have had training to recognize threats as well as how quickly an encounter can turn deadly.

One instructor I had recommended writing a letter, documenting your training, your thoughts on use of force, how and when you expect to respond to a threat and everything else along these lines that you can think of. Then mail that letter, certified mail to yourself so that it can be opened in an event like this to show your previous considerations on the matter.

 

[smokey]

I'm talking about a home invader.

Like I said, situationally dependent. Now with that information, you've got both more legal protections(md's civil immunity and castle doctrine) and more justification to be giving commands with a gun in hand. At that point, again, you'd need to be able to give an articulable reason why the movement presented a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. Since the person is already committing a felony to be in your home, it's reasonable to fear that the movement is a threat. This is especially true if the criminal is breaking in to your house while people are home. If the motivation was to steal, they'd hit an empty house. If people are there, it's reasonable to assume the criminal is interested in causing harm to the inhabitants and NOT just taking property.

Interesting sidenote, it would be very easy for a home intruder to swing by a kitchen and grab a large knife from the knife-block, so even if the criminal entered the house unarmed, there's no saying the criminal was unarmed when moving to his(likely) waistband.

However the situation started and went, following it the only person who speaks to police should be your lawyer. It's likely you'll have a cardiac emergency and may need to go to the hospital, away from police, until it resolves.

 

[Brute]

One instructor I had recommended writing a letter, documenting your training, your thoughts on use of force, how and when you expect to respond to a threat and everything else along these lines that you can think of. Then mail that letter, certified mail to yourself so that it can be opened in an event like this to show your previous considerations on the matter.

I've been putting off registering for a W&C course for a while now, not because of them being full, finding a good location, or even cost at this point. I'm worried that I'm going to end up in a class that goes way too "above & beyond", doesn't fully understand the law, or teaches things like this.

Susan Rice did a similar thing to this in the last few days of the Obama admin. Some sort of CYA attempt. I don't think many people bought it.

 

[lazarus]

This is situationally dependent. I'd wonder why a regular citizen would have someone held at gunpoint just standing there without first identifying a weapon. Police? Sure, but why would a regular citizen be in that position to start with?

If you're drawing a firearm, it should be to use it. You should be using it because there's a clear and articulable reason to expect severe bodily injury or death that you need to stop right then as you're drawing your gun.

I'd only draw when planning to use it. But I'll be real honest, even if someone is breaking into or broken into my home, unless I think they are an immediately deadly threat, I don't think I could shoot them without giving them a verbal warning. Sure, if they are knife distance and I run in to an intruder in my home, they are an immediate threat. If some guy breaks into my basement and I confront them armed, they could easily be 20 or 30 yards away from me if they are on the other side of my basement. Unless I can see they have a gun, or they give me a reasonable belief they might have a gun, I am giving them a verbal warning and commands. They start looking like they are reaching for a weapon or doing anything other than following my commands or obviously trying to turn tail and RUN (and not running towards or near anyone else in the house) then I think they are an imminent deadly threat.

I don't particularly ever want to kill anyone. I don't believe I will hesitate if my mind is made up that a person must be killed. But until I think they must be killed, I will do everything I can to prevent having to. Me or them? Them or some innocent person? No choice at all. Them or...maybe they are just scared crapless and looking to run, well hopefully the police catch up with them and/or they've learned a valuable lesson. Or them or...they will follow my orders and get down on the ground spread eagle while I or my wife or kids call the police and they show up and arrest the guy?

Either of those last two are okay with me. I'll take my chance on them if its possible.

 

[lazarus]

Like I said, situationally dependent. Now with that information, you've got both more legal protections(md's civil immunity and castle doctrine) and more justification to be giving commands with a gun in hand. At that point, again, you'd need to be able to give an articulable reason why the movement presented a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. Since the person is already committing a felony to be in your home, it's reasonable to fear that the movement is a threat. This is especially true if the criminal is breaking in to your house while people are home. If the motivation was to steal, they'd hit an empty house. If people are there, it's reasonable to assume the criminal is interested in causing harm to the inhabitants and NOT just taking property.

Interesting sidenote, it would be very easy for a home intruder to swing by a kitchen and grab a large knife from the knife-block, so even if the criminal entered the house unarmed, there's no saying the criminal was unarmed when moving to his(likely) waistband.

However the situation started and went, following it the only person who speaks to police should be your lawyer. It's likely you'll have a cardiac emergency and may need to go to the hospital, away from police, until it resolves.

On the last, it doesn't matter. Tell police your name and that you are the homeowner, where the firearm is, where the intruder is, I wish to speak to my lawyer. That's it. No one else is injured if they ask. Nothing else. Not why you shot them, what the intruder was doing, nothing. Just the basics so that they can feel safe, render any possible aid needed, who you are. Then they ask any other questions through your lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, you can request one through legal aid, or reach out to find one (generally that will be allowed). Or of course you can ask your spouse to find a lawyer real quick if police insist on arresting you.

But you say you wish to speak to your lawyer, that's it. Within reason, they cannot question you further without a lawyer present. Having one on retainer isn't the worst thing as it might mean your lawyer is "there" (whether at your house, or meeting you at the police station/jail) right quick. Rather than possibly languishing in jail half a day or a day until you have a lawyer present and representing you.

 

[lx1x]

Not a lawyer. But quick search.

Maryland Self Defense Laws - FindLaw

Maryland self defense laws provide guidance about the situations in which a person who has been attacked can defend themselves. In some cases, a person can even kill someone else in self-defense. However, these rules can be complicated and there are many situations in which someone commits a...

www.findlaw.com

MD Castle doctrine (sort of) (common laws)

 

[Bullfrog]

This is situationally dependent. I'd wonder why a regular citizen would have someone held at gunpoint just standing there without first identifying a weapon.

He said it was an intruder, not just someone standing there.

There was an incident a year or two ago, I think it was in Woodbine... a drunk individual was trying to return to his friends' house. He beat on a neighboring door repeatedly, yelling incoherently, possibly including threats like "I'm gonna kick your ..." because he thought he was being f-ed with by his friends.

The homeowner shot him through the door because he thought he was about to break through. Homeowner was not charged.

 

[Bullfrog]

Video and press conference on the Woodbine shooting I mentioned.

Not exactly the same situation as the OP describes, but this homeowner also did not see a weapon before opening fire.

Woodbine homeowner won’t be charged in deadly shooting, Howard County prosecutors say

A Woodbine man who shot and killed a man from Chantilly who was trying to enter his home will not be charged, the Howard County State’s Attorney’s office announced on Tuesday.

www.fox5dc.com

Another source:

'No Criminal Violation' | Woodbine Homeowner Will Not Face Charges For Shooting Alleged Shirtless Intruder

The Woodbine man who fatally shot an alleged shirtless intruder trying to break into his home will not face criminal charges, Howard County State's Attorney Rich Gibson said Tuesday afternoon.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[BlackInjun]

I've been putting off registering for a W&C course for a while now, not because of them being full, finding a good location, or even cost at this point. I'm worried that I'm going to end up in a class that goes way too "above & beyond", doesn't fully understand the law, or teaches things like this.

Susan Rice did a similar thing to this in the last few days of the Obama admin. Some sort of CYA attempt. I don't think many people bought it.

Our instructor taught the same thing, think about every situation before you start carrying and decide what you would do. It might change RL but you should give thought to it. He didn't mention mailing it to keep a record but I don't see how it could hurt

 

[Brute]

Our instructor taught the same thing, think about every situation before you start carrying and decide what you would do. It might change RL but you should give thought to it. He didn't mention mailing it to keep a record but I don't see how it could hurt

Thank you for the advice. I've been carrying for a while now when I'm out of state. What I've determined, which I think covers this discussion, the alcohol thread, the "Carrie" magazine thread, the restaurant thread, is that everyone needs to do what they feel is right for them. There's a thousand answers and opinions to all of these hypothetical questions due to the ambiguity of how the laws are written.

Unfortunately (but also fortunately), it doesn't seem like there's very many court cases to look at in Maryland where a permit holder has had to make these tough decisions and be charged with these things. Maybe that will change and become more clear now that the barriers have come down. For right now, I don't think "Your Honor, I wrote a letter to myself three years ago" is something I'd want to rely on in a trial. But I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, and these scenarios will continue to be discussed and debated.