Posted on 02/28/2018 9:20:41 PM PST by nickcarraway
When should a resident be permitted to use deadly force against an intruder?
Whenever an unlawful entry is made, according to legislation proposed by Del. Neil Parrott, R-Washington.
Parrott made his case this week in the House Judiciary Committee, telling members that 34 other states already have the "castle doctrine," which permits deadly force.
Parrott's bill, he said, allows a person to defend himself against anyone who has made an unlawful entry into a dwelling — and to use any degree of physical force necessary.
"Why do we need it? Well, because people need to be able to protect themselves and their families in their own home," he said. Parrott cited cases in which Marylanders had been sent to court or jail for defending themselves.
"All people, no matter their gender or race, should feel safe in their own home and should not be afraid to be able to defend themselves," he said.
This is Parrott's second attempt to get a castle doctrine bill passed. Last year's bill didn't get past the Judiciary Committee.
This year's bill is opposed by the Maryland State's Attorneys' Association.
“We don’t think there’s any particular need for the bill," Anne Arundel County Assistant State's Attorney William Katcef said. "The case law in this state, I think, is the proper law that should apply in cases like this.
"What Del. Parrott is suggesting is that when someone breaks into the home, regardless of that person’s intent, regardless of the level of danger that that person presents to the homeowner, that … the homeowner should essentially have a free one — and that is, can use deadly force under any circumstances, and not just limited to those situations where that person’s life is potentially in danger," he said.
“In Maryland, you can use deadly force when you’re protecting your home if the level of the deadly force is what is required in order to ward off an attack," he added. "If your life is in danger and the only way that you can defend yourself adequately is through the use of deadly force, then you can utilize it. But it has to be something that is subjectively believed and objectively recognized to be required."
Making that judgment, however, can be tricky — especially for vulnerable people, argued Del. Trent Kittleman, R-Howard/Carroll.
"The sense of imminent danger to a female who has clearly less physical ability to interact with a big, bad burglar gives us a different perspective," she said, "and I don't want to have to stand there and say, 'Am I gonna be arrested?' I wish we could find some way to make this work."
The committee has not taken action on the bill, but could later vote on whether to present it to the full House.
Delegate Parrott is one of the best.
Given the choice, I’ll take continuing to live irrespective of the law. And if the threat is effectively neutralized, he/she won’t be around to be a witness in court.
If someone breaks into your home while you're in it, they're either (a) insane and dangerous, or (b) there to commit a felony -- rape, murder, or both -- against an inhabitant. Either way, your life is "potentially in danger".
A competent burglar who is only interested in stealing your stuff will make considerable effort to strike only when the house is uninhabited, moreso if a Castle Doctrine is in place.
It's also true that no reporters, and very few lawyers, actually understand self-defense law well enough to know what "Castle Doctrine" means.
Washington County’s excellent Delegate ping!
Lawyers . . .
Maryland "Freak State" PING!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.