matt_borror said:
...if you think i'm not justified at shooting someone when they break into my house I challenge you to find the law stating so...
Well you might want to start by looking at some standard Maryland jury instructions on the self defense as quoted in this
Wikipedia article (emphasis added):
...Self-defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)
Self-defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) 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 the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided 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 was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response.>
<In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all 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 the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.>
Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5:01)
Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.
Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)
Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim)....
Note several interesting themes:
- The defendant (the person claiming self defense) must reasonably belief that he, or another, is in immediate peril of either an attack or being the victim of a crime committed in his home. It's not sufficient that the defendant believed that; the belief must be reasonable.
- The amount of force used in defense must be reasonable considering the nature of the threat.
- Lethal force would be reasonable only if the defender reasonably believed that the threat was potentially lethal.
- What may constitute a reasonable belief may well be clarified in Maryland case law.
Your statements in posts 99 and 112
matt_borror said:
...If they're in my house I'm going to shoot after I have a positive ID...
matt_borror said:
...if you break into my house i'm more than likely going to blow your ass away....
seem to indicate a predisposition to deploy lethal force without regard to the nature or level of the threat. And that would sure seem to be inconsistent with Maryland law regarding the standards for justifying the use of lethal force.
One reason many of us emphasize the importance of training and practice is that in the event of a confrontation one ideally should be sufficiently proficient with his defensive tools to perform the mechanical functions on demand and reflexively. One's attention needs to be on assessing the situation and quickly deciding the proper act. If one concludes that he needs to fire his gun, this would be the wrong time to have be thinking about how to make the gun work. Think about what's happening and what to do -- not how to shoot and hit your target if that's the correct response.
You will have only an instant to decide what to do. On the other hand, the police, DA and grand jury will be able to take their sweet time second guessing your actions. Consider the cases of --
Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought he was justified. He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
Mark Abshire in Oklahoma thought he was justified. Nonetheless, despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.
Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, thought he was justified. But he was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
Three men familiar with the rules of the use of lethal force in self defense and in gun friendly States thought they were justified in using lethal force in self defense. And in fact each was ultimately vindicated. Nonetheless, each went through a long, arduous and very expensive ordeal before he was vindicated.