Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

guest0112 t1_j0u1e4i wrote

Does the law take into consideration location? I prefer duty to retreat except inside my own home. If someone comes into my house, I consider that an immediate threat to my partner and kids. Worst case scenario, I’d rather shoot someone inside my home than risk my kids being killed. I could live with myself in jail knowing I saved my family’s lives

48

lucasbelite t1_j0u3hho wrote

Castle doctrine is pretty standard in common law. You don't have to retreat in your own home. > The castle doctrine in Maryland states that when a person is inside their home, they do not have to retreat. A homeowner is allowed to stand their ground and attempt to defend themselves against an intruder, as long as the use of force is reasonable.

79

sxswnxnw t1_j0v83t1 wrote

Yup, this is why whenever I hear these stories of people just walking into someone's house I'm like 👀...

5

strewnshank t1_j0w80gz wrote

>You don't have to retreat in your own home.

This is markedly different in the state where I lived before MD. In that state, there were criteria like "is the trespasser threatening you directly?" and "are they on the same floor as you?" that was used to reason the validity of a shooting in one's own home.

4

the-dumbest-owl t1_j0v9lvw wrote

Does that only apply to the homeowner? Could that also extend to a resident of the home?

3

AllShadesObscura t1_j0vwhmp wrote

Yes, it’s about being domicile. Technically, house-sitting and hotels count. Though, they would have added stipulations like the cleaning lady is allowed in at some point.

6

TheSpektrModule t1_j0uv9qm wrote

From my non-lawyer understanding of things...

Maryland courts have ruled repeatedly that although it's a duty to retreat state common law does not require you to retreat in your own home. The right to stand your ground isn't protected by statute but [there is caselaw on the side of homeowners].

> The duty to retreat also does not apply if one is attacked in one's own home. "[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." Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). The Court of Appeals said in Crawford, a case in which the defendant fatally shot a younger man who was attempting to break into his home to beat and rob him:

IMO that's one thing MD should clean up. I don't really think that SYG matters much but the law should explicitly protect the right to self defense in your own home. People should also have better protection from civil suits if they shoot a home invader.

13

rob-cubed t1_j0u43gd wrote

Agreed, as with most things in life "it depends" but my house and to some extent my extended property should be considered safe places where I have no duty to retreat. The perp has already committed trespassing and B&E. If they are not retreating when they find someone at home, knowing the homeowner may be armed, then I can assume they are also armed and represent a threat greater than property theft.

Also the duty to retreat assumes it is just my own life in danger, if there are other loved ones or pets in the house, where does that leave them?

10

Crabsnbeer- t1_j0u47nc wrote

Just get a jury trial and you would be fine.

4

[deleted] t1_j0uxg9s wrote

It’s all about how you word it. Fear for my life, came at me. Had what looked to be a gun etc… just say what the cops say.

5

6FeetBeneathTheMoon t1_j0vxv27 wrote

where the trial is taking place as well as the racial dynamics of the specific incident can make such an outcome not so certain.

2

Crabsnbeer- t1_j0vz4wg wrote

True enough. I still rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.

1

DoIt2It t1_j0u3nnm wrote

Castle doctrine. You’re fine attacking someone in your home.

3

TopS3cr3t t1_j0ue9tf wrote

> Castle doctrine. You’re fine attacking someone defending yourself in your home.

Fixed that for you.

46

anne_hollydaye t1_j0uay6j wrote

To clarify this further: ONLY if you feel your life is in danger, and ONLY to protect life. You cannot retaliate if they're trying to steal property. And one can absolutely expect to go to jail if one shoots an assailant in one's own home.

4

DoIt2It t1_j0ubod6 wrote

That isn’t true. You only have to prove that use of force was reasonable.

6

CrabEnthusist t1_j0ulmzb wrote

Using deadly force to purely defend property is per se unreasonable, but, there is a default presumption that someone breaking into your house is a threat to your safety.

14

anne_hollydaye t1_j0ud5sr wrote

This is what I was told by a lawyer who defends folks in this position, but I ABSOLUTELY may be wrong.

5

saltyjohnson t1_j0wqmw0 wrote

No, your use of force must be reasonable. You can't shoot an unarmed person for trying to take your TV, but maybe you can smack them in the leg with a baseball bat, depending on the circumstances. To say "you cannot retaliate if they're trying to steal property" is technically true, but you can defend property using reasonable force.

But honestly, that's what homeowners' and renters' insurance is for. Keep your priceless things hidden in a safe, but let them take your TV, who cares.

3

anne_hollydaye t1_j0ynpsf wrote

Since we're sorta talking about shooting people, I assumed folks would understand I meant you can't shoot a guy for stealing your TV...since LOTS of folks assume gun ownership = you can shoot a guy for stealing your TV.

But yes, you're correct on all points. Hell I even carried renters' when I was dating-but-living-with my then-boyfriend, because his homeowners' would not cover my stuff and renters' is cheap as heck.

2

saltyjohnson t1_j0yuryr wrote

Fair enough!

And yeah, renter's insurance is absurdly cheap. I've even thought about getting it as a homeowner so I could cover theft or other losses without hitting my homeowner's insurance, and I was gonna look into whether I could get coverage without being a renter, and then I forgot, and then years go by 🤷 But now I'm thinking about it again.

2

dualjobs t1_j0xgbmx wrote

They have to be breaking in your home with the intent to commit a felony.

If the person is entering your home because they have permission or think they have permission, it debatable if you can attack them.

2

ahbagelxo t1_j0u37jx wrote

I believe even in your own home you are obligated to perform "duty to retreat" first, which I do think is pretty insane. I feel like at the point that someone has entered your house illegally, they clearly have an intent to harm in some way, and you should be able to defend yourself proactively.

Edit: apparently this has changed! Which is great to know!

−18

Coomb t1_j0v1ygy wrote

It hasn't changed. Maryland derives the duty to retreat from the common law. But the common law has also held since at least the early 17th century that a man's home is his castle (i.e. his place of safest refuge -- meaning there's nowhere else he can retreat to) and that there is therefore no duty to retreat before a use of deadly force which would otherwise be justifiable. This was established explicitly by the Court of Appeals in 1963 (Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963)) but was the law in Maryland before that date because Maryland inherited the common law from its colonial government.

3

mrm0324 t1_j0ua14j wrote

I don’t think you have a duty to retreat in your own home.

2

anne_hollydaye t1_j0ub04h wrote

Thankfully, this law changed to a modified castle law.

1

ahbagelxo t1_j0ub5q5 wrote

I'm glad to be wrong about this! Thank you for the info!

7