Depends on the jurisdiction.
True.
The 'Castle Doctrine' does not cover your idea of self-defense in any state that I am aware of.
Really. Then I guess this information is all wrong:
Source: Wikipedia
Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that; the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which they have a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be. Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
The man had a lawful right to be in his front yard, didn't he. He had a right to get into his car, didn't he? So, when being aggressed by people with sticks and pipes, he doesn't have the right to get a weapon to adequately protect himself. Then, when aggressed for a second time, pull out a firearm and brandish it to keep from getting the crap beaten out of it.
As for a specific state, I suggest that you look up the case of Mr. Joe Horn in Texas. A simple google search should suffice. He killed two people burglarizing his
neighbor's home, and the grand jury did not indict him.
He was charged with assault, not battery. Different crimes. And I'm not entirely sure you're right on the mens rea, either. But in either case, he was charged with assault. Remember what is required for battery, you took con law classes. Mens rea, actus rea, and harm. Assault occurs when the actor performs an action that puts another in fear of harm - like pointing a gun at them.
Maryland Criminal Law section 3-201:
§3–201.
(a) In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.
(b) “Assault” means the crimes of assault, battery, and assault and battery, which retain their judicially determined meanings.
So, until they specifically state what they mean by assault..... And no, I am not a Maryland legal expert, nor do I play one on tv.
The police felt differently. I'm going to guess the jury will too, presuming he does not cop a plea. He would have been defending himself up until the time when he re-emerged from his house, with a weapon, looking to continue the altercation. That is in no way self-defense. You cannot pick a fight and then claim self-defense.
I won't be so cocky as to say whether it is definitively self-defense or not. I will say that the media's statement of "went back outside to confront them", leaves a lot to be desired. This is especially considering the fact that when he went outside, he had the firearm concealed. If his intent was to assualt them, why conceal the firearm? Just brandish it outright.
I would have to say that your definition of continuing the altercation and mine may be a bit different. Telling someone (I'm just guessing here, as the article does not say) to remove themselves from your property, is not continuing an altercation. It is exherting your rights to control who is on your property.
This is what I will say to the effect that I may agree with you about this not being self-defence. The article is thin. Why would a random group of strangers approach this man's house when he is merely on his way. It happens, to be sure, but not often in my experience. I would suggest to you that he was arrested, not merely for the things the article states, but rather the volumes left unsaid.
Again with the 'cowering'. If a person retreats to their house, calls the police, and remains inside until the threat leaves, they must be a coward.
To my mind, when you abdicate your own self-preservation for a simple fear of being injured, yes, that is cowardly. However, since I was talking in the context of myself, given a specific situation, it directly applies.
Well, call it what you like, but the laws in many jurisdictions say you have a duty to retreat if you can before you can engage in self-defense. And even in states that have a 'stand your ground' law, none of them cover going to a safe place, arming yourself, and then demanding a rematch so you can claim self-defense. It just doesn't work like that.
And, as my research has shown, Maryland does have a duty to retreat clause, which is probably why he was arrested. Makes no sence to me, but to each state their own. I for one will not live in Maryland.
The stand your ground laws state that you do not have to give ground, period. They state nothing specific as to regarding a particular case. The only one that I know about is the Castle Doctrine case regarding the aformentioned Mr. Horn.
Gee, don't you find it at least a little arrogant that, based on a very detail-less article, that you imply he "demanded a rematch".
If the man had stayed in his house, and called the police, and the punks had broken in to get him, he would have been well within his rights to blast them. There was no reason on earth for him to come out again, unless they set fire to the joint.
How do you know? Are you so prescient that you could, with this one statement, give the
only reason why a person would need to confront an attacker at their own place of residence?
Again, let us suppose a person had family, small children among them, that he was defending. You would not get into my house, to the point that if it is tactically sound, I will exit the house to get at you. Based on your scenario, I would be in jail, facing conviction, for defending them.
Again, I am not saying that it might not have been better for him to stay inside and call the police. But to say that should be his only option is arrogant and condecending. We should not be forced to place our sole measure of safety into the hands of others, trained though they may be.
You should have a better understanding of the law, officer.
Wow, so now we are going to start with the ad hominem attacks. Normally, that would make me disregard everything that you say, but I have matured since my younger days.
BTW, its
Sergeant. You know, the one who has been extensively tested on law, including case law. Oh, and I got a 90% on that test as well. So please, question my credentials certainly, but don't be an a** about it.
And people wonder why anti-gunners are terrified of idiots with guns.
Hell, I'm just as terrified of idiots with guns. I'm the one who has to confront them.
But we should not be terrifed of a person or people, if the single act of "violence" that they commit in their lives is to merely point a gun at a group of people armed with deadly weapons on his residence. (That being said with not knowing the guys criminal history.)
My take on it is that if you choose to go about armed, you should know what self-defense is, when you can employ deadly force in self-defense, and you must be prepared to use deadly force if the situation calls for it. This man had none of those properties - he was (until disarmed), a menace to society. He's as dangerous as the punks who threatened him with sticks and pipes - more, even.
Of course you should. But remember, these laws are made in a sterile environment by legislators who have no idea what an actual street confrontation is about. To assume that they could make a law covering every aspect of a lethal force encounter would be foolish.
So a man, defending his property, on his property, but not in a way that you see fit, is as much of a threat to you as people armed with deadly weapons. No, not as much of one, but more so. And this, even when he leaves to location and calls the police himself to inform them of the situation.
Uh, ok.....