Police State

[Lugnut]

...and has been a castle doctrine state since 1963 as a matter of fact.

Again, PLEASE provide a source!

SB518 is the most current incarnation of the castle doctrine efforts but it is STILL being considered and is NOT law yet...

Current Status as of February 7, 2007: Bill is in the Senate - First Reading Judicial Proceedings

To the best of my knowledge Maryland is still a must retreat state. SB518 will change that.

 

[Midnightrider]

Again, PLEASE provide a source!

SB518 is the most current incarnation of the castle doctrine efforts but it is STILL being considered and is NOT law yet...

Current Status as of February 7, 2007: Bill is in the Senate - First Reading Judicial Proceedings

To the best of my knowledge Maryland is still a must retreat state. SB518 will change that.

and i always thought people on the internet knew EVERYTHING!

 

[Novus Collectus]

Again, PLEASE provide a source!

SB518 is the most current incarnation of the castle doctrine efforts but it is STILL being considered and is NOT law yet...

Current Status as of February 7, 2007: Bill is in the Senate - First Reading Judicial Proceedings

To the best of my knowledge Maryland is still a must retreat state. SB518 will change that.

You mean another link?!

The bill you refer to recognizes Maryland is a castle doctrine state! Read the link.
The bill you refer to says there is currently a duty to retreat outside one's home in public and is the duty to retreat law it is trying to change!

You do not seem to understand this bill. In the home there is NO duty to retreat from an attack upon one's dwelling. I even quoted the part of the bill that says so for you from the source!

If you want me to cite the court cases so you can read yourself, then here ya go.

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).

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

 

[Lugnut]

You mean another link?!

The bill you refer to recognizes Maryland is a castle doctrine state! Read the link.
The bill you refer to says there is currently a duty to retreat outside one's home in public and is the duty to retreat law it is trying to change!

You do not seem to understand this bill. In the home there is NO duty to retreat from an attack upon one's dwelling. I even quoted the part of the bill that says so for you from the source!

If you want me to cite the court cases so you can read yourself, then here ya go. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach....2d+538,+541+(1963).&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Novus, there is a difference between a BILL and a LAW. The bill we are talking about here is being reviewed. It has NOT been put to a vote and has NOT been passed into law. It's just a BILL.

You've provided a link to a summary of a bill that has only had it's first reading, not been voted on, has not been passed, and I might add who's predecessors have gone down in flames when presented for a vote.

Please provide information on a Maryland law/rule/regulation that codifies the castle doctrine as state law.

Believe me, I would LOVE to see it!!!

 

[Midnightrider]

Novus, there is a difference between a BILL and a LAW. The bill we are talking about here is being reviewed. It has NOT been put to a vote and has NOT been passed into law. It's just a BILL.

You've provided a link to a summary of a bill that has only had it's first reading, not been voted on, has not been passed, and I might add who's predecessors have gone down in flames when presented for a vote.

Please provide information on a Maryland law/rule/regulation that codifies the castle doctrine as state law.

Believe me, I would LOVE to see it!!!

I believe Novous is trying to say there was a precedent set in the following decision

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."

 

[Novus Collectus]

Novus, there is a difference between a BILL and a LAW. The bill we are talking about here is being reviewed. It has NOT been put to a vote and has NOT been passed into law. It's just a BILL.

You've provided a link to a summary of a bill that has only had it's first reading, not been voted on, has not been passed, and I might add who's predecessors have gone down in flames when presented for a vote.

Please provide information on a Maryland law/rule/regulation that codifies the castle doctrine as state law.

Believe me, I would LOVE to see it!!!

I know exactly what is being discussed, but what you seem to keep missing is what Midnightrider already pointed out and that is the current standing of law that the courts decided upon 44 years ago and re-affirmed a number of times the latest being in the 90s is that Maryland is a castle doctrine state.
The VERY same bill you keep referring to says in it, it will not change that because Maryland already exists as a castle doctrine state.

So not only did I show you in the very same bill you cite where it says Maryland is a castle doctrine state, I also showed you a link to the most recent case re-affirming MD is a castle doctrine state by the highest court in the state.
If you do not trust the words of Maryland Court of Appeals judges who know a whole lot more about law than both of us I am sure, then I don't know what to say further but that I am shocked.
As I understand it there was never a statute or law passed, but the courts determined long ago that the understanding of state law and Constitution says MD is a castle doctrine state. There is no law because there was never a need for a law allowing the homeowner to stand their ground since it existed in the eyes of the court anway. There is something called stre decisis and not only has the decision stood for four decades, but it has also been reaffirmed a number of times in that period of time.

 

[Larry Gude]

When you get a handgun...

I know exactly what is being discussed, but what you seem to keep missing is what Midnightrider already pointed out and that is the current standing of law that the courts decided upon 44 years ago and re-affirmed a number of times the latest being in the 90s is that Maryland is a castle doctrine state.
The VERY same bill you keep referring to says in it, it will not change that because Maryland already exists as a castle doctrine state.

So not only did I show you in the very same bill you cite where it says Maryland is a castle doctrine state, I also showed you a link to the most recent case re-affirming MD is a castle doctrine state by the highest court in the state.
If you do not trust the words of Maryland Court of Appeals judges who know a whole lot more about law than both of us I am sure, then I don't know what to say further but that I am shocked.
As I understand it there was never a statute or law passed, but the courts determined long ago that the understanding of state law and Constitution says MD is a castle doctrine state. There is no law because there was never a need for a law allowing the homeowner to stand their ground since it existed in the eyes of the court anway. There is something called stre decisis and not only has the decision stood for four decades, but it has also been reaffirmed a number of times in that period of time.

...in Maryland you are told in a video you have a responsibility under MD law to retreat from your home before using lethal force if you think you can retreat safely. You can not use lethal force unless you do not think you can retreat safely and if you feel you or an immediate family member are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death.

Has that been changed to tell you you have no responsibility to either retreat from your home or decide what kind of danger you are in in the midst of an attack or invasion?

 

[vraiblonde]

And before we get off on a castle doctrine tangent, I would be surprised if that applied to the cops. And even if it did, you better be DAMN sure you're in the right before you go shooting some cop who's come to arrest you.

Seriously, you'd be better off just doing as the officer says and sort out the legalities later.

 

[jetmonkey]

...in Maryland you are told in a video you have a responsibility under MD law to retreat from your home before using lethal force if you think you can retreat safely. You can not use lethal force unless you do not think you can retreat safely and if you feel you or an immediate family member are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death.

Has that been changed to tell you you have no responsibility to either retreat from your home or decide what kind of danger you are in in the midst of an attack or invasion?

If after veiwing the video you roll your eyes an go "psh, whatever, liberal pussy" do you still get the gun?

 

[Pete]

The cop is a goober.

What person in his right mind would tell a argumentative drunk to "go back in your house"? I want him on the porch talking until I get in the car and leave SO I CAN SEE HIM. If he goes in the house I CANNOT SEE HIM or what he is doing. This is a prime example of one of those potential newspaper stories about some drunk retard blowing away a cop in his driveway with grampa's 12 ga. leaving behind a grieving widow and 3 kids.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

...in Maryland you are told in a video you have a responsibility under MD law to retreat from your home before using lethal force if you think you can retreat safely. You can not use lethal force unless you do not think you can retreat safely and if you feel you or an immediate family member are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death.

Has that been changed to tell you you have no responsibility to either retreat from your home or decide what kind of danger you are in in the midst of an attack or invasion?

Me thinks that video was made by liberals for liberals. I haven't seen it but what exact verbage does it use?

Does it say that under MD law you are "required" to retreat or you have the "responsibility" to retreat?

 

[vraiblonde]

Wiki does not list Maryland as a castle doctrine state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#U.S._States_with_Castle_Doctrine_Laws_in_Effect

 

[Lenny]

Wiki does not list Maryland as a castle doctrine state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#U.S._States_with_Castle_Doctrine_Laws_in_Effect

Remembering, of course, that Wiki is written by any Tom, Dick or Harriet on the street who has an opinion or a screwed up memory.

 

[vraiblonde]

Remembering, of course, that Wiki is written by any Tom, Dick or Harriet on the street who has an opinion or a screwed up memory.

Of course. BUT the state legislature was just debating a castle doctrine bill not too long ago. I assume they wouldn't be discussing it if it were already in place.

http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=96052

Several forum members attended the hearing - curious what happened because I never heard anything else about it.

 

[Novus Collectus]

...in Maryland you are told in a video you have a responsibility under MD law to retreat from your home before using lethal force if you think you can retreat safely. You can not use lethal force unless you do not think you can retreat safely and if you feel you or an immediate family member are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death.

Has that been changed to tell you you have no responsibility to either retreat from your home or decide what kind of danger you are in in the midst of an attack or invasion?

A video?? If you are talking about the video you have to watch when buying a handgun, then I heard it does not say that about your own home, but that is besides the point anyway. Are you going to believe what you saw in a video that was made by non-lawyers may be mistaken, or would you trust Maryland Court of Appeals judges instead?

 

[Novus Collectus]

And before we get off on a castle doctrine tangent, I would be surprised if that applied to the cops. And even if it did, you better be DAMN sure you're in the right before you go shooting some cop who's come to arrest you.

Seriously, you'd be better off just doing as the officer says and sort out the legalities later.

What is legal to do in defense of your liberties from an unlawfulo arrest is different than what is prudent I agree, but your rights in Maryland are still there if it ever came to that extreme for some reason.
In Maryland you are allowed under common law to resist an unlawful arrest by a police officer. If they entered your house illegally, then you have a right to defend your dwelling with the necessary force. If they entered your even legally and you did not know it was the police when they invaded, then as long as you did not know it was them you should have the right to shoot in defense of your dwelling. Even if they are acting in "good faith" and observsance of the law, you can use the same justification.
There was a case more than a few years ago in Baltimore where the officers had a lawful warrant and lawfully entered a house, but since they used a no-knock warrant, they dropped the charges against a person there who actually shot one of the cops (in his vest) because he shot not knowing they were cops and thought they were illegal invaders.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Of course. BUT the state legislature was just debating a castle doctrine bill not too long ago. I assume they wouldn't be discussing it if it were already in place.

http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=96052

Several forum members attended the hearing - curious what happened because I never heard anything else about it.

Although there is a castle doctrine understanding of the law in MD, there is no protection from civil suits if one uses the right. The bill was to offer legal and civil protection for the homeowner which used such force in defense of their home as well as to offer the same legal protections to people in public who stood their ground, and to guests in someone elses home who stood their ground.
If you read the bill, you will see that the bill states plainly that Maryland is already a castle doctrine state.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Wiki does not list Maryland as a castle doctrine state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#U.S._States_with_Castle_Doctrine_Laws_in_Effect

This is another quote from the 1963 decision which was re-affirmed as recently as the mid 90s.

"The habitation defense applies when a defendant has used deadly force in response to a reasonable belief that the victim intended to commit a felony in the home or to inflict serious bodily harm or death on the inhabitants of the home. This defense is essentially a corollary to the “castle doctrine,” which allows a person to use deadly force without the need to retreat, in order to protect the person’s home." See Crawford v.State, 231 Md. 354, 360, 361-2 (1963).

The person who wrote that Wikipedia page may have easily made an omission. It happens even with commercial encyclopedias using professional fact checkers.

 

[RadioPatrol]

If they entered your even legally and you did not know it was the police when they invaded, then as long as you did not know it was them you should have the right to shoot in defense of your dwelling. Even if they are acting in "good faith" and observance of the law, you can use the same justification.

Yeah and with so many no knock warrants these days - seems to be a favorite tactic - I'd be shooting @ anyone coming busting in my house all dressed in black not calling out Police ........... and with FMJ 7.62x54R I'd probably get 2 with the 1st shot

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

A video?? If you are talking about the video you have to watch when buying a handgun, then I heard it does not say that about your own home, but that is besides the point anyway. Are you going to believe what you saw in a video that was made by non-lawyers may be mistaken, or would you trust Maryland Court of Appeals judges instead?

...the guy in the video was none other than Maryland Attorney General at the time; Joe Curran. I wonder where he falls in hierarchy vs. the court of appeals?

I'm not sure where the argument in this thread lays, but, Maryland is hostile to the 2nd amendment. We prohibit the right to keep and bear. We put conditions on the use of deadly force to defend your life and liberty. Maryland requires you to retreat if possible. Maryland requires you to surrender property unless you fear serious bodily harm or death. If I am being beaten severely or my wife is being raped and you happen along you WILL be arrested if you use a firearm to protect me or her. You are not allowed, under Maryland law, to use deadly force, to use a firearm, to defend a stranger.

People always say things like 'better judged by 12 than carried by 6'. Well, the right to keep and bear arms is as clear and simple as it gets both by written word in the Constitution and by simple common sense of a free people which we are moving away from being.

We are a criminal friendly state.