Talk:Right of self-defense in Maryland

Redcross v. State of MD

I'm just going to drop these notes here from Redcross v. State of MD (1998) for reference, as I think this articles needs some careful looking over:

"The accused does not have a duty to retreat, even at the deadly force level, in the following situations: if the accused is attacked in his or her own home, Gainer, 40 Md. App. 382, 391 A.2d 856; if the avenue of retreat is unsafe, Barton v. State, 46 Md. App. 616, 420 A.2d 1009 (1980); if the nonaggressor victim is lawfully arresting the aggressor; or if the nonaggressor victim is the robbery victim of the aggressor. The most common exception to the retreat rule is the "castle doctrine": there is no duty to retreat if one is attacked in his or her own home. See e.g. Gainer, 40 Md. App. at 388. Because none of those exceptions is an issue in the case at bar, we need not discuss them further."

I have a problem with these two: if the nonaggressor victim is lawfully arresting the aggressor; and or if the nonaggressor victim is the robbery victim of the aggressor.

I personally believe the position was ill-worded and should have been written as: if the nonaggressor accused is lawfully arresting the aggressor; and or if the nonaggressor accused is the robbery victim of the aggressor..

It should also be clearly indicated in the article that the robbery victim part is only for waiving the Duty-to-retreat criteria, and that the other criteria (belief of immediate harm, etc.) must be satisfied. It currently is stated as such. Mojodaddy (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is a letter for letter direct quote from that case. You're objections are not unreasonable, but that unfortunately is the how they said it. Also, could you be more specific about what needs to be changed in the article, or go right ahead and change it? I kind of adopted this seemingly orphaned article recently and a lot really needs to be fixed. For example, it originally said Maryland has no Castle Doctrine and Duty to Retreat as absolute, when clearly this not true based on the referenced cases. I can generate direct links as well now, from the Court of Appeals website.Legitimus (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My only concern was the following of antecedent basis in the excerpt. It may be that in prior paragraphs of the full opinion they define what they mean by "nonaggressor victim", but given the excerpt provided one has to wonder what the definition actually is. It seems kinda odd that if the prosecution is accusing someone of murder/manslaughter/etc, and said someone needs to employ the self-defense case law, that the accused defendant is referred to as "the victim". The chosen terminology is, however, indicative that the courts require the accused to be an actual victim, and has no duty to retreat in these specific cases of lawful arrest or robbery. When presented in the article, I believe a consistent using of antecedent basis for "the defendant wishing to employ self defense" should be maintained. Whether it is "the accused" or "the nonaggressor victim" matters not to me. I'm no expert on self defense or MD case law, so feel free to make adjustments as you see fit. Mojodaddy (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)