Duty to retreat myth dispelled

I remember reading a letter from the AG's office about there is no duty to retreat in your own home in MD and I finally found some clarification from an actual case:

One of the elements of the defense of self-defense is "the duty of the defendant to retreat or avoid danger if such means were within his power and consistent with his safety." Bruce v. State,218 Md. 87, 97, 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958); see also DeVaughn v.State, 232 Md. 447, 194 A.2d 109 (1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S.927, 84 S. Ct. 693, 11 L. Ed. 2d 623 (1964); Corbin, supra, 94 Md.App. 21, 614 A.2d 1329. There is an exception to that requirement,which we enunciated in Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190A.2d 538, 541 (1963), that "a man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker." See also Gainer v.State, 40 Md. App. 382, 391 A.2d 856, cert. denied, 284 Md. 743(1978); Barton v. State, 46 Md. App. 616, 420 A.2d 1009 (1980).

Click to expand...

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach....2d+538,+541+(1963).&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Click to expand...

I posted this in this forum so that we all know our rights if someone invaded our homes.

Caveat: I may be misreading the above case, but I doubt it.

Your Google-Fu is STRONG young Novus.

How right you are.

jpk1md said:

Your Google-Fu is STRONG young Novus.

Click to expand...

That was a long time ago. (1963) Since then, Maryland has become a safehouse for criminals, so don't count on not being charged if you're force to shoot some POS for breaking into your house. This is what Maryland has become.

Benlineberry said:

That was a long time ago. (1963) Since then, Maryland has become a safehouse for criminals, so don't count on not being charged if you're force to shoot some POS for breaking into your house. This is what Maryland has become.

Click to expand...

There was at least an Maryland Court of Appeals case as recently as 1997 that cited the 1963 decision. It seems pretty well established in MD that you have no duty to retreat in your own home and the fact that the understanding has held for 30 or 40 years pretty much means it is here to stay unless the legislature changes the law so that you have to retreat.


Burch v. State, 346 Md. 253, 283-4, 696 A.2d 443, 458 (1997)

So, like I said, you'll be charged. Maybe not convicted, but still charged. There have been attempts for an amendment to change the law requiring homeowners to retreat, but it generally doesn't even voted on (The so-called "Stand Your Ground" law). The LAW IN MARYLAND is still written that you must retreat if at all posible. Juries may feel otherwise, but that's nothing to celebrate. It's pathetic that you can be charged with a crime in this state for defending your home, property, loved-ones and self. It's rediculous that only criminals can carry guns. It's sad that Maryland leftists values undesirables at the expense of honest citizens. It's depressing that we celebrate that we may not have to go to jail if we defend ourselves.

Benlineberry said:

So, like I said, you'll be charged. Maybe not convicted, but still charged. There have been attempts for an amendment to change the law requiring homeowners to retreat, but it generally doesn't even voted on (The so-called "Stand Your Ground" law). The LAW IN MARYLAND is still written that you must retreat if at all posible. Juries may feel otherwise, but that's nothing to celebrate. It's pathetic that you can be charged with a crime in this state for defending your home, property, loved-ones and self. It's rediculous that only criminals can carry guns. It's sad that Maryland leftists values undesirables at the expense of honest citizens. It's depressing that we celebrate that we may not have to go to jail if we defend ourselves.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing a few things. The duty to retreat is when not in your home or when in someone else's home. When in your home the law is understood to mean that if you reside there you do not have a duty to retreat.
Also defending one's property using lethal force is also not defensible, but the law dealing with a home invasion in MD basically makes MD a "castle doctrine" state. Here, this is an excerpt of one of the bills you alluded to and it too mentions that MD is a "castle doctrine" state.

SB 518, 2007
Other states, like Maryland, have adopted an exception to the duty to retreat known as the
“castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, “a man faced with the danger of an attack
upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may
stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker.” See Burch v.
State, 346 Md. 253, 283-4, 696 A.2d 443, 458 (1997) quoting Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). Courts are split as to whether a duty to retreat exists
under the castle doctrine in situations involving cohabitants, guests, and invitees.

Click to expand...

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/fnotes/bil_0008/sb0518.pdf

As a matter of fact, it is by finding this bill that I was able to follow the citations.
I know of more than a few cases where the homeowners were not even charged for killing a home invader in MD. It is only when very questionable about what happened that they ever even press charges. MD does not have a "duty to retreat" in your own home and is basically a "castle doctrine" state.
The "duty to retreat" is the myth I am trying to dispell and unless someone can show me an Appeals court case otherwise contradicting the ones cited, I will confidently stand my ground both against an attacker in my home, and in my position that "duty to retreat" in your home is a myth that needs to be dispelled.

By the way, for the record I am a Maryland leftist, so careful with the all encompassing generalizations please.

SB-518 (that you keep eluding to) didn't pass.

Oh, and by the way, don't take offense. I didn't say Bleeding-Heart, Liberal Douche Bag, or Communist. "Maryland Leftist" is an accurate descriptor.

Benlineberry said:

SB-518 (that you keep eluding to) didn't pass.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that was not the point I was making.
The Senate Bill also stated that there was no need for a "castle doctrine" change to the law since Maryland was already a "castle doctrine" state.
The bill seemed to address changes needed for all other situations of self defense, or lawsuits in cases of self defense.
The bill recognized that there is no duty to retreat in one's home according to existing MD law.

Oh, and by the way, don't take offense. I didn't say Bleeding-Heart, Liberal Douche Bag, or Communist. "Maryland Leftist" is an accurate descriptor.

Click to expand...

I wasn't offended, I just wanted to make sure you realise that all Maryland leftists "values undesirables at the expense of honest citizens" is not true and I am a perfect example it is not true as an all encompassing generality.
When it comes to gun rights we are on the same side, but such expressions will not help getting some more progunrights liberals to join us.
Remember, in order to get the majority of Marylanders to support gun rights legislation, many liberals must be convinced to support it since this state is made up of mostly liberals. We should be recruiting more liberals instead of blaming all of them or implying it.

The concept of prior legal precedents standing as enforceable examples for subsequent similar/applicable cases is called stare decisis. Here's a link with some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

And novus that's interesting to hear you're a "leftist". I hope you don't feel too "outgunned" here by the majority of libertarians and republicans. That's an interesting combination of beliefs too, I only know of one other person who votes democrat and has guns and hunts. Must put you in a tough situation every election knowing which way to vote, assuming 2nd amendment issues are pivotal to you (like abortion is for some folks).

But you're right, we should try to be more receptive to those on the left that might be persuaded to see things our way. I have to deal with "leftists" in my own family at holiday dinners/get togethers and such. My sister and mom especially, they're hardcore Bush haters. But in return they have to deal with me . Bottomline is that I always try and remind myself that reasonable people can have opinions that differ. Respect those that respect you and make room for other opinions. That is, unless it has to do with infringing upon the 2nd amendment.

drott,
Haven't seen Progunprogressive in a while, but I think he is still a member too and even farther left than I am. I lean towards socialism, but I think he is full fledged socialist maybe.
http://www.progunprogressive.com/

Keep this in perspective. According to the law you must be in your home and the victim of an attack in order to legally defend yourself. The force you use must be reasonable.
For example, bad guy smashes your window and breaks into your home.You and he come face to face. You are armed with a firearm, and he has no visible weapon. Upon seeing you he stops and doesn't move. You blast him. believe me, here in Maryland you will be going to court and probably to prison.
If the bad guy has a weapon and you believe your life is in danger, you can defend yourself appropriately (and REASONABLY).
You must be able to articulate that you felt your life was in danger and therefore had to use deadly force. Even so, you may find yourself in court justifying your actions before a jury.
You don't want to be the poster child for a State's Attorney with bigger aspirations. Remember this is Maryland.
Above all - be able to justify your actions as reasonable, and necessary to prevent loss of life or serious physical injury.

Vince said:

Keep this in perspective. According to the law you must be in your home and the victim of an attack in order to legally defend yourself. The force you use must be reasonable.
For example, bad guy smashes your window and breaks into your home.You and he come face to face. You are armed with a firearm, and he has no visible weapon. Upon seeing you he stops and doesn't move. You blast him. believe me, here in Maryland you will be going to court and probably to prison.
If the bad guy has a weapon and you believe your life is in danger, you can defend yourself appropriately (and REASONABLY).
You must be able to articulate that you felt your life was in danger and therefore had to use deadly force. Even so, you may find yourself in court justifying your actions before a jury.
You don't want to be the poster child for a State's Attorney with bigger aspirations. Remember this is Maryland.
Above all - be able to justify your actions as reasonable, and necessary to prevent loss of life or serious physical injury.

Click to expand...

Personally i think that if someone breaks into my house, that is all the reason in the world for me to be scared for my life and my family and to take appropriate action.

If one takes the time to ensure that someone is carrying a weapon when they break into your home, you might not survive.

If someone breaks into your home you should assume that they are an armed and dangerous criminal IMO.

I think would have to take my chances with the jury if it came down to that. As at least that way my family and I would be alive to take the chance.

Vince said:

Keep this in perspective. According to the law you must be in your home and the victim of an attack in order to legally defend yourself. The force you use must be reasonable.
For example, bad guy smashes your window and breaks into your home.You and he come face to face. You are armed with a firearm, and he has no visible weapon. Upon seeing you he stops and doesn't move. You blast him. believe me, here in Maryland you will be going to court and probably to prison.
If the bad guy has a weapon and you believe your life is in danger, you can defend yourself appropriately (and REASONABLY).
You must be able to articulate that you felt your life was in danger and therefore had to use deadly force. Even so, you may find yourself in court justifying your actions before a jury.
You don't want to be the poster child for a State's Attorney with bigger aspirations. Remember this is Maryland.
Above all - be able to justify your actions as reasonable, and necessary to prevent loss of life or serious physical injury.

Click to expand...

I think Vince's post pretty much nails it.

I have also heard do not re-load if you know you have shot and possibly killed the intruder (could be considered premeditated) and not to shoot if his back is to you.

Redneck17 said:

I have also heard do not re-load if you know you have shot and possibly killed the intruder (could be considered premeditated) and not to shoot if his back is to you.

Click to expand...

I've also heard that in Maryland in addition to a firearm one should also carry a shovel for self defense.

Vince said:

Keep this in perspective. According to the law you must be in your home and the victim of an attack in order to legally defend yourself. The force you use must be reasonable.
For example, bad guy smashes your window and breaks into your home.You and he come face to face. You are armed with a firearm, and he has no visible weapon. Upon seeing you he stops and doesn't move. You blast him. believe me, here in Maryland you will be going to court and probably to prison.
If the bad guy has a weapon and you believe your life is in danger, you can defend yourself appropriately (and REASONABLY).
You must be able to articulate that you felt your life was in danger and therefore had to use deadly force. Even so, you may find yourself in court justifying your actions before a jury.
You don't want to be the poster child for a State's Attorney with bigger aspirations. Remember this is Maryland.
Above all - be able to justify your actions as reasonable, and necessary to prevent loss of life or serious physical injury.

Click to expand...

Breaking into the home is a violent act in of itself. Unless the person immediately surrendered, there is still a threat and the fact that they broke in is evidence of the threat.

I vaguely understand that in Supreme Court precedence in order for a nightime or residence with people in it burglary to be considered a violent crime there has to be a weapon and if they used a screwdriver or hammer to enter, then that may count as being armed, but for self defense purposes one has a right to defend themselves and the invasion alone indicates enough of a threat to justify an armed confrontation or standing one's ground. Until the threat neuters itself, then it is still a threat.
IMO standing still is not surrendering and the intruder is still a threat, but showing or vocalizing intent of a surrender and placing themselves in a body position that reduces the possible threat would be. Even an unarmed man is a threat and by breaking in they have shown to be a threat requiring defense against.

I am not advocating someone shoot someone in the back, or shooting someone who surrenders, or shooting if there is obviously no threat, but all I am saying is that I think the law says you can shoot an invader to stop the threat without having to worry about if you were supposed to jump out a window instead.
If someone was breaking down my door without announcing a legitimate reason why, then I will shoot immediately as they enter (nothing much indicates violent threat more than that).
If someone broke my window to get in, then I might shoot as they enter, but I would at least confront them armed.
If someone snuck in my house and made a noise letting me know they are there, then I will confront them armed and shoot if they present any kind of a threat to me or my family. I believe (as a layman) the law and the Appeals Court precedence supports my view.

Just to make sure I am not misunderstood, the primary motivation for anyone to consider in the event someone attacks them (in their home or elsewhere) is the defense of their life and the life of their family, friends, etc.

In no circumstances should legal considerations cause one to hesitate and die. Remember the old saying, "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

However, that said, keeping abreast of legal matters ahead of time is always a good thing so that in the event a person is forced to deal with a situation, there is some information to draw from.

I just wanted to add that according to the law you must be attacked in your home in order to use deadly force without attempting to retreat.

Novus, I do understand your train of thought that anyone who forcible enters one's home must mean that person ill will. And it does have some merit - to you, and probably most of us. However consider the legal types that will be looking at your case after the fact. Although they will (should) consider the case from the perspective of a "reasonable person."

There are plenty if burglaries ion this state in which the suspect enters the residence thinking no one is home. Once they get inside and are confronted or discover that the homeowner is there, they flee. It is relatively rare that the suspects attacks the homeowner. So, what you will have is the State's Attorney prosecuting the case asking you how you knew the person meant to attack you. Maybe they were a poor disadvantaged person trying to steal some home electronics and barter them later for heroin or crack. Although they are doing a crime that has the potential for violence, their intention isn't to physically hurt anyone, just steal some property. But, you shot them, the cold blooded killer you are. See what I am trying to say?

I wanted to shed some light from a law enforcement perspective. Plenty of people are arrested and tried and acquitted. If you prepare ahead of time, there might not be reason for law enforcement to arrest and the States Attorneys Office to prosecute. Remember, even if you're found not guilty, attorney's can be quite expensive, especially when they are defending you on a felony charge. You do not get that money back if you are acquitted or he case is dropped, or put on the stet (inactive) docket.

By the way, the police, and most State's Attorney's I know love it when the good guys win.

novus collectus said:

Breaking into the home is a violent act in of itself. Unless the person immediately surrendered, there is still a threat and the fact that they broke in is evidence of the threat.

I vaguely understand that in Supreme Court precedence in order for a nightime or residence with people in it burglary to be considered a violent crime there has to be a weapon and if they used a screwdriver or hammer to enter, then that may count as being armed, but for self defense purposes one has a right to defend themselves and the invasion alone indicates enough of a threat to justify an armed confrontation or standing one's ground. Until the threat neuters itself, then it is still a threat.
IMO standing still is not surrendering and the intruder is still a threat, but showing or vocalizing intent of a surrender and placing themselves in a body position that reduces the possible threat would be. Even an unarmed man is a threat and by breaking in they have shown to be a threat requiring defense against.

I am not advocating someone shoot someone in the back, or shooting someone who surrenders, or shooting if there is obviously no threat, but all I am saying is that I think the law says you can shoot an invader to stop the threat without having to worry about if you were supposed to jump out a window instead.
If someone was breaking down my door without announcing a legitimate reason why, then I will shoot immediately as they enter (nothing much indicates violent threat more than that).
If someone broke my window to get in, then I might shoot as they enter, but I would at least confront them armed.
If someone snuck in my house and made a noise letting me know they are there, then I will confront them armed and shoot if they present any kind of a threat to me or my family. I believe (as a layman) the law and the Appeals Court precedence supports my view.

Click to expand...

/agree