As they raise their hand to throw shoot the bottle, instant crispy critter...
legality of home defense with firearm
- Thread starter euchoreo
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
As they raise their hand to throw shoot the bottle, instant crispy critter...
Would you suggest including "I feared for my life."
"I feared for my life. I'm not comfortable making any statements until I talk to my attorney."
These are the Maryland Pattern Jury Instructions on Self Defense. These are a great resource:
MD 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.
MD 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.
Andrew Branca suggests stating that you acted in self defense at the scene to the first responders. If Squire Branca suggests it, I'm doing it. Beyond that, he says have your attorney present when you speak to the investigators.
ETA: 144 posts and no one mentioned Branca, duh
ETA: 144 posts and no one mentioned Branca, duh
This is a tough one. Maryland does have Pattern Jury Instructions for Defense of Home.
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.
I'm not a lawyer, 2-4 seem pretty clear in your case. 1 is the one that worries me. Does throwing a Molotov Cocktail constitute attempting to enter a home?I think it could, but to me it doesn't seem as clear cut as the others.
Honestly I don’t think I would say anything. You are ALWAYS best served by only talking to the police AFTER you have talked to your attorney. PERIOD.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tungsten
Ultimate Member
The problem with a molotov cocktail and MDFF's post is that I don't know if you have to prove you couldn't abandon the house if it was firebombed. If you can abandon the home, then 2 and 4 don't apply. And if it is a mob just throwing molotov cocktails without looting, then 1 doesn't apply either.
GrimReaper
Ultimate Member
I would say something along those lines. Refusing to say anything will result in a few days in jail until they figure things out. Telling them the person broke into your house, you were in fear for your life and had to do what was necessary to protect yourself and family is not incriminating.
If you shot them in the back or outside your home then you should probably stay quiet until you speak to a lawyer.
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Tungsten
Ultimate Member
Yeah, that is a good point about abandoning the house. I imagine a person with disabilities or an elderly person might be a different case than a young, able-bodied person. In terms of abandoning the house, then defense of another might come into play. If you had a family member who could not be moved, such as someone on an IV pump or bedridden, and someone threw a molotov cocktail, you could make an argument that since they can't be moved, the fire poses a real risk to their life.
I'd say this is one a person should talk with a lawyer about their exact situation.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 49,963
Damn it! Coke through the nose and it isn't the white powder either.
Sorry about that chief!
- Dec 27, 2012
- 30,178
Fireworks is the new Molotov cocktail.
Video in link
https://twitter.com/gl0balsett/status/1277544524416520193
Video in link
https://twitter.com/gl0balsett/status/1277544524416520193
Attachments
rob
DINO Extraordinaire
Personally, I have spent a good deal of time thinking of exactly how to respond to the police in a variety of grave situations. I never liked the fact that saying "I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer" sounds guilty as hell. So I have decided that if I am ever in a bad situation my respectful statement will be: "I hope you understand. Because of the gravity of the situation, I will not be making a statement or answering any questions at this time."
I really, really like the suggestion about complaining about chest pain and would add tightness in my chest as well.
Rob.
I really, really like the suggestion about complaining about chest pain and would add tightness in my chest as well.
Rob.
In his in person seminars, Branca does suggest going to the ER before saying anything more than you acted in self defense. You may be in shock. You and quite often the first respondering LEO's are not as fully trained to evaluate this as those in the ER are. Let the experts decide.
Its true, outright refusal to say anything does look uncooperative and/or incriminating. Branca suggests telling first responders what they need to know for their own safety, secondly, where evidence and witnesses are. If others showed up after the fact, you don't want non-witnesses portraying that they were actual witnesses.
Its true, outright refusal to say anything does look uncooperative and/or incriminating. Branca suggests telling first responders what they need to know for their own safety, secondly, where evidence and witnesses are. If others showed up after the fact, you don't want non-witnesses portraying that they were actual witnesses.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
On the call to 9-1-1 also give as much pertinent information as possible...your description...what you're wearing...how many others are in the house with you...if you have time to do so. If you have a second person such as your wife have her keep the phone line open for communications...to provide locations in the house of the occupants and to provide that information as necessary.
Also, if you are in a safe room, have a house key with a bright orange tag that you can throw out the window and tell the dispatcher. It will save your doors from getting destroyed.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
Also...if you have a bathroom with a steel tub it would be a good place for the wife and kids to hunker down low in and have the bathroom door locked. It's not a guarantee of safety but it's better than sheetrock.
Maestro Pistolero
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2012
- 876
People turn and fire all the time while retreating. My SDPD Lieutenant Brother lost his best buddy in exactly that way, fresh out of the academy, chasing a bad guy without his gun out and the guy whirled and head shot him with a .22.
It's a terrible idea to have a 2nd person on the phone with 911 giving a play by play.
You have no idea what he or she would say. That recording will be heard by the grand jury and her screaming " OH MY GOD MY HUSBAND JUST SHOT HIM!!!!" sounds guilty as hell. It doesn't help your case.
Leave it on speaker phone after your initial call for service, and throw it on the floor. Then go about defending yourself. Let the evidence tell the story. Not a conflicting 911 recording to gum everything up.
" Sir but your wife said........." " That doesn't correlate with what you said".
IF you tell that person to tell 911 something, what that person say WILL NOT BE EXACTLY what you told them to say.
Staying on the phone with 911 while things are "Hot" doesn't help you help yourself. That call taker will be asking ALL KINDS OF QUESTIONS during that call.
People don't know that 911 is THE FIRST conversation with the police.
The 2nd talk with police will be with responding officers and then ultimately with an investigator.
You will talk to the police 3 times. The most information you give will be during that call.
Think about that for a second.
