Pistol in Car Dilemma

[Biggfoot44]

If you are accurate in the interpretation, What mechanism allows a DA to prosecute and others not ( If you shoot a robber in your home in self defense )? The law is by state, not county, correct?

Extremely condensed version of long dissertation on the Legal System ;

THE ( elected) States Attorney of each jurisdiction ( each county, plus Balt City) has ultimate say on which cases to prosecute ( ok . seek Indictment , but essentially same thing ) . 99% of routine cases determined by the internal hierarchy of Assistant States Attorneys , but the Boss potentially has final word .

99% of time , the main consideration is maintaining their Conviction Rate (
statistical smoke & mirrors there too ) . But occasionally motivated by " Interests of Justice " ( potentially good thing) . or by Political considerations ( usually bad thing ) .

Once an ( elected ) States Attorney decides something , no one can order him to do or not do something , not even the Governor .

( Yes . a Judge can dismiss a case , but nobody can administratively order him .)

 

[dblas]

Seriously, jury instructions are not derived from statute? Strange State, strange world.

You quoted it as statute, it's not, not even close since there is absolutely no such state statute in any article of Maryland law.
And as stated before, Maryland is a duty to retreat state. If you enter your house to confront someone inside (ask them to leave), you have advanced into a potential dangerous situation, not retreated from it. Therefore, you forefeit any claim to self defense or castle doctrine. In advancing towards the issue, you become the aggressor, and thus open yourself up to arrest and prosecution.

Again, welcome to the forums. Perhaps you would like to post an introduction in the introductions sub-forum.

 

[Wildman]

If you are accurate in the interpretation, What mechanism allows a DA to prosecute and others not ( If you shoot a robber in your home in self defense )? The law is by state, not county, correct?

The mechanism would be that the DA would claim, as others have said, that the Castle Doctrine does not apply because you were not in your home and would press the jury to use the self-defense statute and convince them that you had a duty to retreat. Your attorneys, of course, would press for the Castle Doctrine because it is your home that was under attack for some unknown purpose (could have been arson for all you knew at the time). The jury would then determine which statute applied. There is a risk entering the home regardless of what the law says. In the end the law is what the jury decides it is if the DA decides to prosecute. It is an unfortunate fact that legally, where you do something is often the determining factor in both prosecution and the verdict.

I believe DA's are by county & Balt. City but I could be wrong.

 

[Wildman]

If you are accurate in the interpretation, What mechanism allows a DA to prosecute and others not ( If you shoot a robber in your home in self defense )? The law is by state, not county, correct?

The mechanism would be that the DA would claim, as others have said, that the Castle Doctrine does not apply because you were not in your home and would press the jury to use the self-defense statute and convince them that you had a duty to retreat. Your attorneys, of course, would press for the Castle Doctrine because it is your home that was under attack for some unknown purpose (could have been arson for all you knew at the time). The jury would then determine which statute applied. There is a risk entering the home regardless of what the law says. In the end the law is what the jury decides it is if the DA decides to prosecute. It is an unfortunate fact that legally, where you do something is often the determining factor in both prosecution and the verdict.

I believe DA's are by county & Balt. City but I could be wrong.

 

[dblas]

The mechanism would be that the DA would claim, as others have said, that the Castle Doctrine does not apply because you were not in your home and would press the jury to use the self-defense statute and convince them that you had a duty to retreat.

Maryland has no "self defense" statute codified in law. Maryland follows the common law principles on the issue of self defense.

Your attorneys, of course, would press for the Castle Doctrine because it is your home that was under attack for some unknown purpose (could have been arson for all you knew at the time). The jury would then determine which statute applied.

Likewise, "castle doctrine" is not codified is state statute as a law. Again, Maryland follows common law principles on the issue of duty to retreat and "castle doctrine".

There is a risk entering the home regardless of what the law says. In the end the law is what the jury decides it is if the DA decides to prosecute. It is an unfortunate fact that legally, where you do something is often the determining factor in both prosecution and the verdict.

I believe DA's are by county & Balt. City but I could be wrong.

Maryland does not have DAs, we have SAs (State Attorneys), that do the same job.
I'm guessing you either aren't from Maryland or are fairly new to the state?

 

[Biggfoot44]

In the end the law is what the jury decides it is if the DA decides to prosecute.

And the Jury will deliberate based upon the Standardized Jury Instructions , as read to them by the Judge .

Unless the Jury gets a wild hair , and goes all out Jury Nulification . But they would still have the Jury Instructions read to them by the Judge . with strong inference that they * Have * to follow the Jury Instructions .

A wild card Jury would have to unanimously affirmatively decide to deliberately disregard the Judge and do something different .

 

[Lemkowot]

Extremely condensed version of long dissertation on the Legal System ;

THE ( elected) States Attorney of each jurisdiction ( each county, plus Balt City) has ultimate say on which cases to prosecute ( ok . seek Indictment , but essentially same thing ) . 99% of routine cases determined by the internal hierarchy of Assistant States Attorneys , but the Boss potentially has final word .

99% of time , the main consideration is maintaining their Conviction Rate (
statistical smoke & mirrors there too ) . But occasionally motivated by " Interests of Justice " ( potentially good thing) . or by Political considerations ( usually bad thing ) .

Once an ( elected ) States Attorney decides something , no one can order him to do or not do something , not even the Governor .

( Yes . a Judge can dismiss a case , but nobody can administratively order him .)

Thats a bummer, if you get stuck with a liberal appointed DA. Today that would be BCC, CC, HC, MC. Need to move to Frederick or Carroll County. In the long run maybe cheaper to move than to higher a lawyer.

 

[Occam]

Thats a bummer, if you get stuck with a liberal appointed DA. Today that would be BCC, CC, HC, MC. Need to move to Frederick or Carroll County. In the long run maybe cheaper to move than to higher a lawyer.

Or even to hire one, for that matter.

 

[Wildman]

If you are accurate in the interpretation, What mechanism allows a DA to prosecute and others not ( If you shoot a robber in your home in self defense )? The law is by state, not county, correct?

Sorry but I need to walk this back. Lazarus' post was incomplete. Here is the actual jury instruction (jury instruction & statute are synonymous in MD as far as I can tell) and, unless someone was in the home and you feared for their safety you absolutely cannot go in:

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.

If you do go in and you end up shooting the criminal you did not meet the 2nd criteria. You will go to prison.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Thats a bummer, if you get stuck with a liberal appointed DA.

No , * The actual head guy * SA is elected . The dozens to hundreds of people who work under him/ her are State Employees .

The Head Guy sets policy . and has final word , if he/ she cares to get involved with individual cases .

 

[Wildman]

Nope,

Maryland has no "self defense" statute codified in law. Maryland follows the common law principles on the issue of self defense.


Likewise, "castle doctrine" is not codified is state statute as a law. Again, Maryland follows common law principles on the issue of duty to retreat and "castle doctrine".


Maryland does not have DAs, we have SAs (State Attorneys), that do the same job.
I'm guessing you either aren't from Maryland or are fairly new to the state?

Nope lived here all my life, just didn't care to make the distinction between SA & DA. I will endeavor to be more precise in the future. I retracted my earlier statement though.

 

[BadLuckAintNoCrime]

Clearly the correct course of action is to light your house on fire which will force the intruder to come running out the front door and thus will become the aggressor.

 

[Lemkowot]

(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.

If you do go in and you end up shooting the criminal you did not meet the 2nd criteria. You will go to prison.

How do you conclude that (2) "the defendant believed that" is not possible? By definition, someone is in the home, you enter your home, he points a gun at them, you believe that he will kill, you act to protect. What am I missing? Forgive me if Im out of sequence here, but when can point 2 be satisfied? I cant believe an interpretation of any of the 5, is not possible, that would be silly?

 

[Overboost44]

Wow, I just read 13 pages of this thread and all I could think is, did you take the WCP course? If so, did your instructor not tell you any of this? Mine sure did and it was clear to me the first time he said it. It was the most important part of the course to me.

 

[Spaceballs]

I just read all 13 pages of this (thinking I'd learn something about keeping a weapon in the car)

If I may.... why would anyone WANT to enter their house when they think an armed intruder may be in there if you know your family is safely outside?

Forget if it's legal or not for a second. Why would you put your life in danger to protect your Xbox?

If I am already in the house during a break in and my family is in danger....then it sucks to be the intruder. If my family is in no danger, I'm not going inside and risking my family losing it's income source and caregiver over some stuff. Insurance will buy me a new Xbox. Insurance will not buy my kids a new father.

Furthermore if you come home and the door has clearly been kicked in.... the odds are very good that the intruder is long gone. A burglar doesn't want to be in there for more than 5 minutes. And they likely knew when you'd be gone so they would be done before you got home. They will go in, toss your drawers and bookshelves looking for easy to sell valuables (cash, jewelry, guns, etc) that they can carry away quickly.

So if you see the door kicked in they are likely gone anyway. If you go inside you might destroy evidence by mistake. Let the cops who know how to view a crime scene be the first inside. Maybe you get lucky and the burglar cut himself breaking in and dropped some blood. The last thing you want to do is step in it and contaminate it.

 

[Lemkowot]

Wow, I just read 13 pages of this thread and all I could think is, did you take the WCP course? If so, did your instructor not tell you any of this? Mine sure did and it was clear to me the first time he said it. It was the most important part of the course to me.

Yes, obviously.

Little, we where told you cant with a gun, protect property, only life. Didn't matter, I already new this from my first permit.

One thing I did learn, MD is an open carry state ewo, so whats up with brandishing vs. open carry situations, no one could answer my question correctly. Simple thing to do is not open carry. Oh jeez, I could see the lines forming on this comment, hit me

I never brought up protecting property, it may have been assumed by many, never me.

Some brought up the legalities of what you can and can not do when you are armed and enter your home for what ever reason they where thinking. I think its turned into a good conversation, doubt your instructor explained all the fine details mentioned here.

Either way good points. Lets focus on keeping a gun in car/property for what ever you tihnk. What you do with it is a different story, holy smoke, getting a ccw is now more headache then I could imagine.

 

[Garet Jax]

Ugh... my dogs are like my kids. Just like for a lotta people.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Agreed, but under the law, pets are property, not lives you can defend.

 

[Lemkowot]

I just read all 13 pages of this (thinking I'd learn something about keeping a weapon in the car)

If I may.... why would anyone WANT to enter their house when they think an armed intruder may be in there if you know your family is safely outside?

Forget if it's legal or not for a second. Why would you put your life in danger to protect your Xbox?

If I am already in the house during a break in and my family is in danger....then it sucks to be the intruder. If my family is in no danger, I'm not going inside and risking my family losing it's income source and caregiver over some stuff. Insurance will buy me a new Xbox. Insurance will not buy my kids a new father.

Furthermore if you come home and the door has clearly been kicked in.... the odds are very good that the intruder is long gone. A burglar doesn't want to be in there for more than 5 minutes. And they likely knew when you'd be gone so they would be done before you got home. They will go in, toss your drawers and bookshelves looking for easy to sell valuables (cash, jewelry, guns, etc) that they can carry away quickly.

So if you see the door kicked in they are likely gone anyway. If you go inside you might destroy evidence by mistake. Let the cops who know how to view a crime scene be the first inside. Maybe you get lucky and the burglar cut himself breaking in and dropped some blood. The last thing you want to do is step in it and contaminate it.

For the first 2 questions. No one is condoning protecting property, why bring it up. Yes, if your family is outside, very simple, easy answer.

How would you determine your family is not in danger?

If a hostage situation, this would be a challenge for me as well. Like you say robber just needs to get out

Good point about robber just wants the stuff and get out. If your family is at gunpoint, you hope the bad guy leaves with his bullets.

 

[Spaceballs]

For the first 2 questions. No one is condoning protecting property, why bring it up. Yes, if your family is outside, very simple, easy answer.

How would you determine your family is not in danger?

If a hostage situation, this would be a challenge for me as well. Like you say robber just needs to get out

Good point about robber just wants the stuff and get out. If your family is at gunpoint, you hope the bad guy leaves with his bullets.

There was quite a bit of "Can I enter the house when I know there is a robber inside" in this thread. Pages and pages of debate on the legality of it. Links to references, case law, discussion of how entering the house may or may not be considered making you the aggressor and thus negating self defense. Hundreds of posts in this thread debating exactly that.

And there are 4 members of my family. If all 4 of us are outside in the car, I can be 100% certain that none of us are a hostage inside.

 

[Biggfoot44]

One thing I did learn, MD is an open carry state ewo, so whats up with brandishing vs. open carry situations, no one could answer my question correctly.

Maryland has no seperate or specific statute entitled , or addressing Brandishing .

If such brandishing - like actions were to be addressed criminally , the charge would be 1st Degree Assault .