Stand your ground vs Duty to retreat

Submitted by LaunderMachine t3_zppgoj in baltimore

For those that don't know, Maryland is a duty to retreat state as opposed to a stand your ground state. This means that you can only use deadly force after all means of escape or to avoid harm are exhausted. Stand your ground is similar in that it involves deadly force and you feeling like your life is being threatened but takes out the retreat aspect.

Would you like to see Maryland a stand your ground state or stay as a duty to retreat state?

Edit1: I like the generally friendly discussion going on in here, that's what this post was meant for. Hence why I didn't include my opinion in the original post.

So that being said can ya'll please upvote the OG post lolol

Edit2: After reading some of what you guys have been saying. It sounds like DTR might not be adequate but SYG might be too much. Anyone know of a hybrid?

157

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bookoocash t1_j0u7vqr wrote

Duty to retreat. I feel like people are interpreting this as you can’t defend yourself until the other person is literally attacking you and by that point it’s too late, but all it is saying is that you need to exhaust all options to escape. Chased into an alley blocked off by a fence? Guy still coming after you? You have exhausted all options to flee. You can defend yourself. (Extreme example, I know, as I feel like I only see this in movies)

I just think “Stand Your Ground” opens too many doors to shooting first and asking questions later. Arguments and verbal altercations can quickly escalate into armed conflicts because of perceived threats, be they real or not. At least with duty to retreat, the threat is there. It is real. It has manifested itself physically and re-manifested itself each time the victim attempts to flee and the threat continues to be present.

Just as a little aside, I don’t think a lot of people grasp the grave impact of killing or seriously injuring another person, not just on the person they have defended themselves against, but on themselves as well. Stuff like that fucks up even seasoned police officers in instances of completely justified use of force. We have a severe mental health crisis with our armed servicemen, partially for these reasons as well. An attempted robbery, assault, etc is already traumatic enough. Do you really want to add to that? Of course if it comes down to it, you have to do what you have to do, but why not try to avoid taking a life if you don’t have to? Your mental health will be better for it.

133

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_j0vdm9a wrote

> Just as a little aside, I don’t think a lot of people grasp the grave impact of killing or seriously injuring another person, not just on the person they have defended themselves against, but on themselves as well

It's astonishing the amount of CCW advocates that will 'look down at me' or call me 'weak' or 'willing victim' for being glad I didn't kill the kid who robbed me once. They put NO value on other peoples lives.

20

wbruce098 t1_j0wxe1c wrote

Amen.

There’s a statistically probable chance that, if I stay here long enough, I’ll get robbed at least once. But the chance of me getting straight up murdered (without being an agitator or involved in drugs/gangs) is much, much lower. That kid’s life is more valuable than the inconvenience to me of replacing some cards, maybe a phone, or $40 cash. Assuming I actually have cash on me.

2

bennyfloggins t1_j0urpty wrote

I'm curious how many times the distinction between DTR and SYG is even relevant. I would assume in nearly all instances of self defense, either law would result in the same outcome. I would also be curious if there is any research into whether the law changes behaviors - like do people even know what the law says? If they do, are they acting on that knowledge in the heat of the moment? We only hear about the one or two cases a year where someone gets off on what seems like an obvious murder because of SYG laws.

I obviously don't have enough information to form an opinion on this, but my gut says that the law isn't going to change many of the outcomes. It's just a matter of what can be prosecuted after the fact.

14

wbruce098 t1_j0wwf4y wrote

Agreed. I’d rather lose my wallet and making take a punch to the face than have someone’s death on my conscience. If it comes down to it, sure I’ll defend myself, but I, personally, wouldn’t want to live with that decision if I can avoid it. Besides, SYG ups the stakes in a real situation where many of us say deadly force is justified: by whipping out that gun, I could also be a lot more likely to get shot myself. Am I as fast, accurate, and desperate to kill as the other guy?

0

megalomike t1_j0u2o9v wrote

people here already act like maryland is a "if the other person made you mad" state

129

BrassUnion t1_j0v25gz wrote

Maryland is a "he was talking shit" state.

66

Willothwisp2303 t1_j0vdjcg wrote

This is such a good take. This is literally how jurors interpret the current laws, giving the "blend" OP seems to be looking for.

The law as it applies to facts is always going to be interrupted through the lense of the average citizen in that jurisdiction. You don't necessarily need to change the law if youre ooking for increments of change.

10

Tahh t1_j0wwkcy wrote

To be fair, like half of the murders that occur are actually prosecuted.

5

tgblack t1_j0xdh5f wrote

I’m surprised that more carjackers aren’t shot, and I wonder if that would change with SYG, or it’s because of our concealed carry laws.

3

AllShadesObscura t1_j0vtygt wrote

I was kind of shocked to learn that. It doesn’t work very well in tantrum with castle doctrine. Considering behavior of the common dope in our state, a toned-down version of Stand Your Ground would benefit people like myself.

2

MrsToneZone t1_j0ugjmb wrote

In 2017, my husband fought off a juvenile who tried to steal his car as he dropped our then 18-month old off at daycare. It was a coordinated effort, and happened at a nearby daycare one street over the day before. The assailant escaped into a waiting getaway car and was caught 48 hours later.

The officers responding said my spouse was lucky he didn’t hurt the kid, and the entire judicial process treated my spouse like the bad guy for fighting back against an experienced criminal (the assailant had recently been released from state custody). He ended up being charged as a juvenile because of “low IQ, slight stature, and history of cannabis abuse.” From experience, I’m willing to bet he’s either re-offended or re-incarcerated by now.

I don’t buy “stand your ground,” but I wish victims/potential victims didn’t have to worry about liability resulting from defense of person and property.

78

hogsucker t1_j0uv98x wrote

I would take any legal opinions of cops with a huge grain of salt.

Why wasn't the car thief charged as a juvenile simply because he was a juvenile?

59

MrsToneZone t1_j0uvnt0 wrote

Correct. The state’s attorney reinforced that to us.

And for some crimes, the accused is automatically charged as an adult. In those cases, the defendant is entitled to a waiver hearing in which they can be waived down to juvenile court which has implications for sentencing and criminal record.

In our case, the defendant was automatically charged as an adult. The magistrate provided those reasons for his decision to waive the accused down to juvenile court.

This ends up happening in most cases that involve a juvenile, short of 1st degree murder or cases in which the victim is a member of law enforcement.

Source: I worked in the juvenile justice system for a few years after this happened.

18

hogsucker t1_j0wodpl wrote

I look askance at adults who think it's okay to treat children as adults...As long as the adult really, really wants to. I wonder how the legislators who pass those kinds of laws feel about age of consent rules.

5

AllShadesObscura t1_j0vw34x wrote

Stature? If SYG was considered, your husband would be cleared by me. Proof of the baby nearby is all that’s needed. You also say it like the guy who attacked was over 18, but with a mild learning disability at least. Asperger’s is no longer a thing and we’ve had presidents with speech impediments. Paid damages and a restraining order from the fam and are of attempted robbery.

1

MrsToneZone t1_j0vxtf2 wrote

Yes. The judges need to consider if the defendant would physically be in danger in state custody. With gang dynamics, family vendettas, and the institutional setting, in general, every youth in detention is in physical danger more often than they’re not.

Size/stature is a factor that the judicial system has to consider because if they knowingly endanger a “child” by putting them in an environment where they couldn’t effectively defend themself, then some attorney would make a case about the state being liable if any harm did come to that “child” while he was in state custody.

The kid who attacked my husband was 16, and no, he was not too bright. His backpack, ID, and phone were left in my spouse’s car when he fled. He was smart enough to listen to his attorney and didn’t gain too much weight while locked up (common advice from attorneys in advance of a waiver hearing…”appear helpless/childlike”). His mother also attended with many of his siblings, which may have been compelling. I don’t think he had any physical/intellectual disability. Just a stupid kid who fell prey to environmental factors, and made a series of poor choices.

I was PISSED, and didn’t understand the juvenile justice system at that point. I’m not even sure if I do now, having experienced it through multiple lenses over multiple years. All I know is that no one is winning in the current model. Families, youth, and the community are all set up to continually be fucked and underserved.

6

AllShadesObscura t1_j0vym4k wrote

Reminds of the apparent car thief that took my mother’s gps but not her car when the keys were in it along with plenty of valuables. If he was 16, then it’s weird to first try him as an adult. Uh, could you at least recommend restraining order and maybe mandatory therapy / anger management or something like big brother?

2

Tahh t1_j0wwqai wrote

He ended up being charged as a juvenile because *he was a juvenile

0

MrsToneZone t1_j0x0o7c wrote

True. But having worked with incarcerated youth, I can tell you that their juvenile status essentially equates to a “get out of jail free” card for most of them. Literally. From their mouths, I’ve heard almost these exact words. I often wonder if a more serious consequence (including an attempt at ACTUAL treatment) would serve as a more effective response to the epidemic of youth-related violent crimes.

Of course, empowering families, invigorating education, providing employment support, redesigning the penal and juvenile justice systems, and improving access to free reproductive health care resources (including birth control and abortion) would be the actual solution to the problem.

5

[deleted] t1_j0x2wgu wrote

[deleted]

0

MrsToneZone t1_j0x59co wrote

Yes, but what to do with limited resources and infinite need? I worked with a juvenile who had been incarcerated ten times in the year before his most atrocious crime. He will serve life, likely in mental health treatment, which is warranted, but he’ll never be rehabilitated.

Obviously treatment is preferred to punishment, but based on my observations, there is ample evidence to prove that a purely restorative model is unrealistic, too.

3

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

BaltimoreBadger23 t1_j0u64qs wrote

Stand your ground is a tool used to protect those law enforcement choose to protect, and is ignored when it's someone they don't want to protect. Stand Your Ground has been a disaster and abused in every state it's implemented. All it does is lead to more deaths and more murderers getting away with it.

One Source

45

thethighshaveit t1_j0unjzr wrote

I moved from a SYG state. It's another excuse to execute Black and Brown people. That's all it is and all it is used for.

15

SaulsAll t1_j0u161o wrote

I prefer duty to retreat. I feel stand your ground is a lot more feelings-based and has too low a bar for lethal force. I don't want it to be acceptable to shoot someone because their skin color made their yelling seem life-threatening.

That said, duty to retreat might also have too high a bar. For instance, if someone's entire life is contained in and dependent on their vehicle, I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to abandon it if they have the means to defend themselves.

It's tricky all around, and I don't have info at hand to say which is more effective, or even what effective would mean with this issue. Are we more worried about people dying, or are we more worried about putting the burden on the victim of violent altercations to do the right thing?

28

DoIt2It t1_j0u3m8p wrote

DTR requires that someone retreat if they reasonably believe that they’re able to safely. So if I’m in my car, and someone tries to carjack me, it’s probably a situation in which you’d be fine for self defense if you couldn’t just drive away.

12

minor7flat6 t1_j0u7lm0 wrote

if you’ll allow me to answer the rhetorical — i’m more worried about people who are already doing the right thing not dying.

the choice is really: we can only prioritize one, so do we prioritize victims’ lives? or perpetrators’?

5

MotoSlashSix t1_j0ungaa wrote

No.

I lived decades in a SYG state. Stand your ground is a law that is written for everyone but demonstrably not adjudicated for everyone.

It is ineffective in combating crime. It perpetuates the false narrative that "Second Amendment rights" are somehow universal when we know only "certain people" are actually afforded those rights in SYG cases. These laws were cooked up by lobbyists for specific people in order to to resolve the fact that they oversold gun technology that makes it easier to take a human life than to walk away from a conflict or retreat from a threat. It's one of the most toxic threats to the sanctity of human life Americans have codified in decades and in practicality it only applies to people privileged by class and/or color.

21

TellemTrav t1_j0uvstk wrote

SYG is not meant to combat crime. It's meant to empower citizens to defend themselves. Also, while SYG has a racial bias, I would say the entire justice system has that problem. While I commend compassion I don't think anyone should be compelled to show it to an agressor. Human life has subjective value for some and no one should be compelled to hold it to the highest standard when someone is attacking them.

10

MotoSlashSix t1_j0vu3im wrote

"Reframing" is not going to work.

>SYG is not meant to combat crime. It's meant to empower citizens to defend themselves.

This is dishonest revisionist history. The NRA-ILA flatly claimed that the Florida SYG Law "deters would-be murderers, rapists and robbers" and that "more guns, less crime."

The claim that SYG was not meant to combat crime, that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and it was only meant to "empower [certain] people to defend themselves" is belied by the proponents' own statements. It's also false to presuppose that a right to self defense is only guaranteed by SYG. Maryland law provides for the defense of self or others including use of deadly force. You don't need a SYG law to defend yourself.

All objective evidence shows that Stand Your Ground laws increase homicides and, when combined with racial bias, results in the killing of Black Americans.

​

>Human life has subjective value for some and no one should be compelled to hold it to the highest standard

Cars have less subjective value for some citizens of Maryland, so I guess by your rationale we can go ahead and destroy all of them that are driven aggressively based on our own subjective standards of value.

​

>while SYG has a racial bias, I would say the entire justice system has that problem.

Maybe racial harm to minority communities seems like a zero sum game for you, but the false notion that since racial disparity already exists it's okay to enact laws that make it worse is immoral and cynical.

5

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_j0vwrbv wrote

> It's meant to empower citizens to defend themselves.

This is a lie, as you so well demonstrate in the rest of your comment. You're allowed to 'defend yourself' under duty to retreat laws, but as you show what you really want is approval to hurt or kill the person you're mad at.

1

kl00 t1_j0v78r1 wrote

It’s important to note that within duty to retreat is the whole “retreat to your castle” meaning that within your home you are the king and pretty much anything goes. If a MFer is in your home,stand your ground.

13

[deleted] t1_j0vhit6 wrote

[deleted]

13

CaptainStudly t1_j0wl7th wrote

Top answer right here, I most certainly do not want to be doing the legal math in my head in the moment.

6

ltong1009 t1_j0u5jkw wrote

Duty to retreat. Because I value my life and the life of others.

12

LaunderMachine OP t1_j0uo3f4 wrote

I feel that but I don't think you can make it that simple

1

B-More_Orange t1_j0ujtke wrote

Stand your ground policies have been shown to correlate with increases in gun homicides. Hard pass.

11

LaunderMachine OP t1_j0unvc9 wrote

Kind of the point of the policy ya know... defending yourself from all this crime and such lol

−2

B-More_Orange t1_j0usao6 wrote

I would think any successful policy aimed at reducing gun violence would actually lower the number of gun-related homicides but that's just me.

12

MotoSlashSix t1_j0vvsjd wrote

Citizens of Maryland are not barred from defending themselves from "all this crime and such" under DTR law. That's an alarmist canard cooked up by the ILA and other lobbyists who want to make it easier to sell more guns.

5

BJJBean t1_j0uxw6l wrote

This is a wildly nuanced discussion as all these laws basically come down to "Who is the cop that showed up to make the report and who in the attorney general that will/will not be prosecuting your case." A state like Pennsylvania could have a stand your ground law but you know damn well the Philly SA will make your life a living hell if he can to score primary voter brownie points. Vice versa, you could have a state like MD but if a shooting happens in Western MD you're probably gonna have an easier time proving innocence based on the politics of that area.

Me personally, I support stand your ground.

Duty to retreat puts the burden on the self defender and requires him to prove his innocence. Stand your ground puts the burden on the state and requires them to prove that he is guilty. Our court system is supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty", not "Guilty until proven innocent."

Likewise, even if you are proven innocent, DTR laws screw over the poor. Good luck paying all the lawyer fees when you're raking in poverty wages. The State has basically unlimited cash to prosecute you and they have no problem spending it to get what they want.

All this aside, MD is a super majority DNC state. There is no way in hell we're going to become a stand your ground state. Most likely concealed carry laws will be further restricted next session since the Supreme Court recently struck down Maryland's anti concealed carry law and forced them to give out licenses. I expect the DNC to push back against that as much as they legally can and I expect more court cases to come up in the next decade in response to this push back. It's all gonna be a legal quagmire for a long time,

11

lolokaydudewhatever t1_j0u97rt wrote

Duty to retreat. Deadly force should only be used as a last resort, when you cannot retreat.

9

theblackgimp t1_j0vqctk wrote

Lived in the state my entire life and with the rising amounts of violence, constitutional carry and Stand your ground should be in place. Its your right as a human to defend your own well being no matter the means. Maryland government make it the opposite, they would rather good people die then punish criminals.

7

jojammin t1_j0u6s4m wrote

For the stand your ground people...squeegee boy who shot the guy on Conway would have a defense under stand your ground

6

bob_smithey t1_j0ucgia wrote

If it was legal for the squeegee man to carry in MD:
Coming up with a bat, yes.
Shooting him in the back, no.

9

CrabEnthusist t1_j0w70ym wrote

He was 15. He wasn't a man.

Duty to retreat/stand your ground as legal principles are affirmative defenses to homicide, have no inharent connection to guns, and thus the legality of the firearm used is irrelevant.

I suspect you already know these things.

−1

bob_smithey t1_j110qjp wrote

I'm unaware of the details with minor vs adult when on trial for murder. I don't know what the jury will think, since that is how we decide things. Being a minor, illegally carrying, and then shooting someone retreating multiple times doesn't sound good to me. The legality of the firearm doesn't matter. But it definitely matters in how the jury thinks. Just looking at the bigger picture.

0

r3d51v3 t1_j0wrk2d wrote

I don’t think the legality of the kid carrying a gun has bearing on his right to self defense. He could have been guilty of a gun crime, but still be not guilty on the homicide due to self defense. Initially it seemed to me he was defending himself, however after seeing the video, it looks like he shot the aggressor as he retreated, which is not self defense.

−2

bob_smithey t1_j10zzb1 wrote

Illegally carrying a firearm in Maryland is a misdemeanor. I'll leave the legal fu for the lawyers and courts to figure out. I don't know what differences there are between a minor and an adult in this instance.

You're in the "Judged by twelve is better than carried by six" group. However, as you stated, this doesn't appear to be self defense. We are not in a stand your ground state. And even if we were, I suspect there would be the same outcome in the courts.

1

r3d51v3 t1_j11swhz wrote

All I’m saying is that the legality of the weapon doesn’t bear on one’s right to self defense. When I heard the story, it sounded like the kid defended himself; whether or not he was allowed to have the gun is immaterial. However, upon seeing the video, he appears to have re-engaged after the man with the bat was walking away, which is clearly not self defense.

0

Douseigh t1_j1bn8zc wrote

This is correct. The fact that the gun was illegal is not related to self defense - I beeline Maryland has case law specifically noting this

1

Timmah_1984 t1_j0uez1r wrote

Maybe? The problem is that it’s been reported that the guy with the bat had turned and was walking away when the kid shot him. It’s possible that there is evidence which shows something different but if not then it doesn’t qualify as a self defense or stand your ground situation. There was a case in Florida a few years ago where a guy was yelling at a woman for parking in the handicap spot. Her boyfriend came out and immediately shoved him to the ground. The guy responded by shooting and killing him. He claimed stand your ground but was charged with murder and went to prison. Basically he didn’t give her boyfriend enough time to register that he had a gun, which arguably would have been enough to stop most people from continuing to fight.

4

jojammin t1_j0uq593 wrote

Jury would make determination if he satisfied syg jury instruction/statute. He would get to present evidence that he did. I would get the other squeegee boys to take the stand and testify that the victim charged the shooter and only turned away at the last second which would create reasonable doubt/give the affirmative defense of SYG

2

thethighshaveit t1_j0unr9u wrote

It's cute that you think SYG would be applied equitably.

4

jojammin t1_j0up3i9 wrote

Not sure what that means. It would be up to the jury to determine if the facts presented to them would satisfy the hypothetical stand your ground jury instruction based on the corresponding statute.

1

thethighshaveit t1_j0uroc6 wrote

Gee, you can't possibly imagine that might not mean equitable application? Also, prosecutorial discretion has a substantial effect on these cases. If there's inadequate evidence to prove that the individual did NOT act in self-defense, evidence that is hard to document because of the subjectivity of "fear," killers will not even be charged. And that's /if/ the local prosecutor is motivated solely by evidence and not protecting their buddies. Note all the times in recent news when overwhelming public outcry was needed to even charge murderers because the local prosecutor decided there was no crime.

If only research on this were easy to find.

https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/StandYourGround.pdf

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/01/the-dangerous-expansion-of-stand-your-ground-laws-and-its-racial-implications/

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/_stand_your_ground_kills_-_how_these_nra-backed_laws_promote_racist_violence_1.pdf

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/race-justifiable-homicide-and-stand-your-ground-laws-analysis-fbi

https://psychology.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2017-04/1-s2.0-S0277953615301489-main.pdf

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/stand-your-ground-laws-and-racial-bias

5

jojammin t1_j0uu940 wrote

>SYG shifts the burden of proof to the State

State always has the burden of proving defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What? You are citing papers without understanding them.

Jury, not the state, determines guilt and whether affirmative defense (defendant has burden usually under SYG statutes to prove self defense) has been met.

5

jojammin t1_j0uw7vz wrote

Wtf hypothetical are you talking about? Squeegee boy has been charged and is not a friend of the cops. Did you mean to respond to another comment?

2

thethighshaveit t1_j22lwkw wrote

I'm saying that being up to a jury depends on actually getting in front of a jury. I'm not talking about the squeegee situation in particular but the reality of prosecutorial discretion being used inequitably.

0

Illustrious_Listen_6 t1_j0u9b16 wrote

If you made a choice to rob/hurt someone, expect serious consequences.

Stand your ground.

6

seminarysmooth t1_j0x5bgt wrote

I like the intent of DTR, but I feel like it gives the State too much leeway to prosecute.

6

Dogsinabathtub t1_j0uvk37 wrote

I feel like the right answer isn't black and white and somewhere in the middle... which infinitely complicates things unfortunately. At the end of the day it's all situationally subjective.

However, I do think that these laws shouldn't benifit you if you are the one commiting a crime, and you are in possession of a weapon illegally.

I think the act of commiting a crime while armed is enough to establish that you are aware of the dangers of your crime and are willing to use deadly force to deal with the confrontations those crimes entail.

5

LaunderMachine OP t1_j0ux7og wrote

Sounds like you want to take away the blanket statement and let the judge and jury decide on a case by case basis if what you did was lawful which I think might be the best of both worlds.

1

who_took_my_foreskin t1_j0wzy0t wrote

I believe if criminals knew there's a good chance they'll be shot for attacking people then maybe they'd think long and hard about doing it. Just an example: someone breaks in the house at ground level. I'm in the basement and the rest of my family is on the second floor. If the person committing the home invasion takes one step up(towards my family) or down (towards me, my lady, and my pup) the stairs, I'm yelling, "I have a gun, one more step and I'm using it". If they chose to turn tail and leave, so be it and thank God I didn't have to end their life, BUT (and this is regardless of any laws or duties) that second step is all the information I need to know they are making an informed decision to put their own life at risk and I shouldn't be at fault for what happens to them. If they don't care about their life why should I? That being said, I'd never shoot a man in the back unless he's faced away, trying to go up the aforementioned stairs towards my family that I hold dear. At that point he was given the chance to leave and instead chose violence, but that doesn't mean I'd dump a drum in his back, one or two should suffice. But to say I'd have sympathy for the criminal at that point would be laughable. I'd have much more sympathy for the family that holds the criminal dear, because they could lose someone they love and that's not a great feeling. I'd rather be judged by 12 instead of carried by 6(or being one of the 6). I think dtr wouldn't apply since I'm home and wouldn't have a route to retreat and even if I could, I'm not leaving my family that can't. How would you feel if you retreated and the criminal stole your weapon and then killed innocent folks with it? or worse killed your family that wasn't able to retreat? Could you take that on your conscience, knowing that if you'd have just put one in his chest, you could have saved the lives of those the criminal may kill? I couldn't. At the same time, I think standing your ground outside the home when escape is an option, is not necessary and that you should do what you can to avoid a conflict if possible. You don't always have to look for trouble, sometimes it finds you with your metaphorical pants down, and you should be able to react accordingly. Again I'll say one or two shots should suffice, but if you shoot a man and then stand over him and dump a mag or a drum in them, then you are guilty of murder. Once the threat is neutralized, the weapon should be holstered and an ambulance called as well as maybe make an attempt to stop their bleeding if you feel safe enough to do so. At that point "if he dies, he dies🤷🏽‍♂️" it's not the outcome I'd hope for, but the decision was their own. I think SYG should apply at home and DTR should be for outside the home. I believe MD has some version of castle doctrine in place for events in the home, and if not we should.

TLDR: if they come for my family,in my home, they'd better like hollow point .45 rounds and .410 slugs, the JUDGE in my house fires both and the JURY is a long way off of making a decision. Outside the home I'd retreat if possible, since I don't actively want to make a family mourn. No sympathy for the results of a criminals choices, but thoughts and prayers to their family. "you're going on a t-shirt bucko, I hope you like fake clouds and closed caskets"

5

TellemTrav t1_j0uuf2r wrote

I'm firmly in the stand your ground camp. Why should you value your assailant's life more than yours? Why should someone have to retreat or forced to deescalate a situation that they did not cause? You can quote statistics at the issue as much as you want but it doesn't change the fact that you should not have to back down from any violent confrontation.

4

BennyFloyd t1_j0vq1n0 wrote

Justification for use of force should be determined by a jury of the perpetrator’s peers. Every situation is completely different and we saw through Trayvon Martin what can happen when there are blanket laws in place that turn a situational matter into a pre-determined one.

4

Absurdityindex t1_j0wyec1 wrote

I think either flight or fight are logical responses to a threat to life. It's ingrained instinct for a reason. A person should never be faulted for defending themselves.

4

6flightsup t1_j0v35y8 wrote

Even the castle doctrine doesn’t sit right with me in some common scenarios. I’m holding fire if all residents here are upstairs and in their bedrooms. I plan and practice taking a position between the bedrooms and the stairwell. The intruder can take all of the valuables that they can get from downstairs before the cops arrive. I hope that they are caught, but protecting my stuff is less important than any human life. I’m going direct to lethal if they attempt to come upstairs though.

3

Douseigh t1_j1bnvsc wrote

I don’t agree with this. Your home, which provides Maryland with tax revenue, should be given the all clear for you to protect, preservation of the home is in marylands benefit as it is an asset for the state. It’s not like the house can move, and I’d never be cool with running from my own house lol, you cannot retreat from the area which you are safest, inherently that involves going to a less safe location which is against the nature of duty to retreat.

The police aren’t protecting it, and your entire life is in one spot. If someone breaks down your door you don’t got time to see what they intend to do, doubly so if you’re just getting out the bed and it’s dark.

1

6flightsup t1_j1d9vax wrote

I don’t see how the state or taxes are related to personal safety in any way. If all residents are safely upstairs, I am not going downstairs to defend a television or whatever a criminal is attempting to steal. Can’t decipher your comment further. Public education today I guess.

1

Jhiggins34 t1_j0v48ko wrote

If the law were enforced evenly, I would prefer this state remain duty to retreat.

3

AllShadesObscura t1_j0vv2o6 wrote

SYG works will retreating fails. You didn’t break into your own house or stalked your own workplace, etc. I find it funny how the open and carry states get safer once the law passes. It’s truly a weird phenomenon. In the U.S., I think if consistently stand by our stereotypical principles of individuality, freedom to do anything that isn’t harmful to others, and Wild West responsible gun ownership, then it can work. We sadly don’t and keep the rhetoric of white supremacy and poor people are horrible people blah blah blah nonsense. Also, how many are mentioning George Zimmerman in the comments? His case was definitely an exception that shouldn’t have happened considering what he was told not to do to his meek teen neighbor.

3

MotoSlashSix t1_j0wxkml wrote

I don’t know where you got that information but this is false. Open carry states do not get safer after OC passes. I lived in an open carry state for years before and after the law passed. Violent crime increased after the open carry law was passed. The same happened in Florida after SYG passed.

2

AllShadesObscura t1_j0x7s0l wrote

My typing always gets horribly spell checked on these things. Please bear. Here’s a quick link. Obvious bias from Texas, but it is still something similar to what I’ve seen before. https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/has-texas-open-carry-law-increased-gun-crimes/

1

MotoSlashSix t1_j0xjk7n wrote

There has not even been a single complete calendar year since Texas passed their open carry law. This article is looking over a period of months, not years. So how does this illustrate violent crime declined when they haven’t had even a single a calendar year of data to look at? In multiple other states — including my home state — violent crime has increased since passage of open carry. More importantly, in states with open carry the violent crime rate is higher than the national average. In any event, assuming correlation is causation is s fallacy in either direction.

1

S-Kunst t1_j0wd1ka wrote

Where does the state stand on the topic of doing damage to a person who is breaking into your house while you are in the house? If I am on the 3d floor of my row house, I have no place to run. I will prob do as much damage to that person as I can. I am not a gun owner, but will use the very narrow & steep stairs to my advantage.

3

attymarie t1_j0wlo7w wrote

even with castle doctrine in MD, you still need to announce that you're armed and willing to shoot, and give them a chance to leave iirc. Last class I went through that was mentioned.

like, if they are fleeing from your home, you cannot shoot because they are no longer a danger, but if they continue to come toward you, you may defend yourself.

I like DTR. I feel if we were stand your ground, there would be so many "vigilantes" just shooting people left and right.

DTR means to just get yourself out of the situation, if you can't, protect you and yours. It allows drawing and firing to be a option if you feel you are in grave danger. As a young woman, my sense of danger may be different than someone else's, but I'm still going to do my best to not put myself in a situation where that is potentially going to occur, but you can't guarantee anything in this world.

3

Thanatosst t1_j0x5dyv wrote

I'd much prefer SYG. While running away is obviously the best solution in nearly every instance, I really despise the idea that, even if you're attacked and defend yourself, if someone with a stick up their ass thinks you could have ran you can still get screwed by the law. DTR is bassakwards.

3

BigBankkFrank t1_j0xuacc wrote

Honestly I am always with my family. I have a 2year old son and a daughter due in February. Although of course I’d love to avoid any violent encounter in their presence, justified or not. Me having the obligation to turn my back on an attacker and attempt to flee with my children does not sit right with me. I’m from the hood so my situational awareness when out is top tier if I pull my pistol I have a damn good reason. The thought of not being able to stand my ground WHILE my wife gets the kids to safety seems asinine to me.

A little story to accompany my opinion. I have a buddy who’s into real estate so he had his ccw for years. About a year and a half ago he goes to go check out a potential investment. He gets out of his car and walks toward the property. As he’s getting closer a guy comes out of an alleyway with a ski mask, hoodie on with his hands inside the hoodie pocket. Apparently the dude is walking straight towards him staring but also glancing at the surroundings. Now he tells me his antennas immediately go up because whose wouldnt. He says he didn’t want to unholster because he didn’t want to run the risk of appearing to be the aggressor to any potential witnesses and he wasn’t 100% percent sure if his intentions but in my mind I’m like fuck I’d probably come off the hip at that point. Not saying I would’ve started shooting but once I confirm a threat. Im willing to do whatever to make it back to my babies. You can feel when your being targeted if you pay attention. Anyway the dude ending of announcing a robbery my homie told me he complied with everything he said (don’t know how true that is, I wasn’t there) the guy ended up shooting my buddy 5 times. A women was near by heard the shots, saw him bleeding out and was able to provide aide until help arrived. He survived thankfully. Now I’m not saying SYG could have changed the outcome of that situation but to me DTR handicaps us a little too much.

3

Douseigh t1_j1bouhk wrote

Agreed. If I notice someone running up on me I’m drawing or running one of the two. Fuck waiting to see what it’s about. But you have to have good judgement and fear cannot out you in a situation where you’re doing something out of bias. That in my expertise takes a lot of time observing people who look like criminals and seeing the 2-3 actual criminals mixed in.

I remember one time I saw a carjacking - these two dudes came running up on a guy from no joke 70ish yards off. He wasn’t paying attention but something about that always fucked with me lmao like the terminator 2 Liquid Metal guy

1

Matt3989 t1_j0uobn9 wrote

In what situation does Stand Your Ground even apply?

Even as a Duty to Retreat state, if someone threatens you with a weapon (knife, gun, bat, etc.) or attempts to physically attack you, you are already justified to defend yourself with deadly force here.

2

dlchira t1_j0vzo8k wrote

DTR is already a “hybrid”: use the appropriate amount of force necessary to protect yourself and your property, starting from zero (ie, avoid the confrontation if possible) and progressing to taking a life if necessary. Why anyone would want to use gratuitous, excessive force (eg, SYG) is disgusting and simply beyond me.

2

T_Anon_ t1_j0u193h wrote

Stand your ground

1

minor7flat6 t1_j0u74zo wrote

i was always taught that stand your ground was dangerous growing up, but i think i’d prefer a society where people couldn’t physically intimidate others without knowing they have a very real chance of getting legally killed in an act of self-defense by the victim they’ve chosen.

not that i even want a gun or plan to carry. i’ve had guns before and just don’t really care enough to take on the constant chore that is legal gun ownership.

it would just be nice if assholes who thought they could get away with being pieces of shit in public couldn’t. not with the same ease they used to before SYG passed in the rest of the country (isn’t it like 40/50 states have SYG now?)

SYG.

1

[deleted] t1_j0uvx5w wrote

In principle I believe in stand your ground. If someone is threatening you or your property they should be the ones to back down. I can see rationale for duty to retreat if you argue that anything other than inescapable bodily harm is a matter for the authorities but that kind of depends on the authorities holding up their end of the social contract and actually helping the victims. If they can’t or won’t do that, why should law abiding citizens be required to allow others to violate their rights?

1

lolanaboo_ t1_j0v98qj wrote

I prefer stand your own ground aka Fuck around and find out.

1

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_j0w0yik wrote

Thanks for proving the point that you SYG people just really want SYG laws so you can kill the person you're mad at.

1

willybestbuy86 t1_j0wrnkl wrote

I guess my question before i give an answer is what does the current law mean in the confines of your home

If someone breaks in to my home at night and I'm standing face to face and ask them to get out and they don't or move forward is that enough to cover the retreat

If I hear a burglar and I come out with a gun (cuz truth be told I don't know if they have one) and I say freeze and they don't does that cover retreat?

Or in those scenarios do I need to try to retreat out of my own home and then if they follow then I can defend?

1

Douseigh t1_j1bp1ey wrote

In you’re home you basically have stand your ground rights. You can’t retreat to a safe location if you’re already in the safest place you can be

1

Tahh t1_j0wwi4q wrote

I'd like to live in a civilized society instead of a a barbarian who wants to leave my fate to the cruel and uncaring hand of nature, so I'm on team "duty to retreat."

1

tsuscrumhalf t1_j0xcq14 wrote

Ideally I’d want a hybrid model. In my house, stand your ground. On the street, duty to retreat. If I’m out grabbing food & some fool comes at me, I’m gonna first try to exit stage left. If I can’t, bang. Same fool comes thru my door at 3am, I’m not asking questions, I’m protecting my kids & myself.

1

perceptron-addict t1_j0xvim4 wrote

Problem with duty to retreat is it places some of the responsibility for the situation on the victim, despite the victim doing nothing to create the situation in the first place.

1

DisentangledElm t1_j0y3knk wrote

There needs to be a middle ground between SYG, which can enable people to provoke conflict, and DTR, which empowers criminals to carjack and do other evil deeds (SYG doesn't apply to vehicles IIRC). You need only look to California and a few other locales where extreme theft is occurring with little to no deterrence. Folks will say, "it's just property and property can be replaced." They ignore the ripple effect of increased insurance premiums, increased cost of goods, and thieves - facing no consequences - just doing it again and again.

A good middle ground would be the state being less aggressive with personal ownership of less than lethal solutions.

1

rectumisprime t1_j11yy66 wrote

My neighbor, in Baltimore city, had someone break down their door and enter into the house. When the unarmed homeowner told the individual to leave, the individual proceeded to attack my neighbor (older man) and aggressively beat them to the point of hospitalization. It went from nothing to life or death in an instant. When the cops showed up, they almost shot my neighbor (as he was delusional after the beating) but thankfully someone was outside and screamed that he lived there. They ultimately caught the guy hours later and because he was drunk/high, only misdemeanor chargers and was out by the next day.

If someone breaks into your house, they should be categorically viewed as an existential threat, especially given age, size, and strength disparity.

You have ZERO idea of someone's intention or capability when they break into your house, especially at night and especially if you are a woman.

1

Douseigh t1_j1bo2iu wrote

Just want to add here that duty to retreat can be broadly considered.

If you are faced with retreating into a roadway you cannot retreat safely. Duty to retreat is not just run away it’s that you can only do so if safe option exists

1

B0skonovitch t1_j0undc2 wrote

Hybrid would be "we all get along" don't think that's possible

−1

Cunninghams_right t1_j0xsbpd wrote

the fuck is wrong with you? of course stand your ground is bullshit. if you can get away, you should get away. castle doctrine is fine, but stand-your-ground is fucking moronic.

−2

redseapedestrian418 t1_j0vlg16 wrote

If Maryland became a stand your ground state, I would move. More often than not, stand your ground laws just get innocent people killed and in situations where they should help, they don’t. We’re better off without laws like that.

−4

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_j0vd0ml wrote

I find most people who support stand you ground are sheltered, violent, blood thirsty thugs who have watched way too many westerns, don't understand how actual robberies happen and put no value on other people's lives.

−9