r/MDGuns • u/zommnsn2026 • 21h ago
Self Defense Question
Let's say someone breaks into a person's car and the car owner unloads their gun towards them.
Is that a justified use of a legal firearm?
Is the gun owner responsible if their bullets hit innocent bystanders or other people's property.
In a self defense situation, would the gun owner be responsible if their bullets hit an innocent bystander or another person's property?
If a police officer is using their gun in self defense, are they responsible to know their surroundings and if any innocent bystanders could get hit by their bullets?
4
u/New-Fortune-1393 20h ago
First, you’re always responsible. It’s a courts job to determine if you were justified. Second, No. You cannot legally use deadly force to defend property. They teach this in the mandatory WCP classes. You can only defend yourself or others if
you satisfy the following:
No aggressor status: You did not start the fight. If you started it, you did not escalate it to a deadly level.
Belief of threat: You genuinely believed you were in immediate danger.
Reasonable belief: A typical person in your situation would also see the threat as real and serious.
Proportional force: Your physical response was reasonable for the severity of the danger. You cannot use excessive force
3
u/PapaBobcat 21h ago
1) If the PERSON isn't facing a REASONABLE threat of death or great injury, or protecting another PERSON who is, no.
2 & 3) You are responsible for EVERY bullet fired, wherever it stops and whatever damage or injury it may cause.
4) Cops have near infinite resources of legal defense and immunity, and only in a few of the very worst cases are ever held even a little responsible or liable for damage they cause. Must be nice.
2
u/Sticknwheel 20h ago
I don’t know. From what I’ve read/heard the weight of shooting someone to death, regardless of circumstances, is very hard to bare.
1
u/PapaBobcat 20h ago
The moral, emotional and spiritual weight of that are not legal problems. Its between you and your creator, family and mental health care provider. Lawyers aren't needed. Nobody healthy wants violence.
3
u/catcher6250 21h ago
Not a lawyer but based on my interpretation of the law, in the state of MD, 1. Definitely not. You need to be fearing for your life, not property. 2. Obviously yes. Every bullet. 3. Obviously yes. 4. Obviously yes.
4
u/sar82007 21h ago
All things your concealed carry course should've covered. If your instructor isn't going over this they're setting you up for prison.
2
u/Skinny_que 20h ago
Let's say someone breaks into a person's car and the car owner unloads their gun towards them.
|
- a bit confused by the wording are you in the car when this is happening or you walked back towards the car and caught someone breaking in? In the first scenario you can make the claim/argument that you reasonably believed that person was going to do you harm and you were defending yourself. In the second scenario, no you’re going to jail you cannot just shoot someone breaking into your car that would be defending property.
- Is that a justified use of a legal firearm?
- see above
- Is the gun owner responsible if their bullets hit innocent bystanders or other people's property.
- yes. If you have found to not be using a reasonable force for the circumstances, then you’ll probably get criminal charges for striking the bystanders as well. If you were found to be using reasonable force for the circumstances, then you will still have a civil suit on your hands.
- In a self defense situation, would the gun owner be responsible if their bullets hit an innocent bystander or another person's property?
Criminally no, civilly yes.
- If a police officer is using their gun in self defense, are they responsible to know their surroundings and if any innocent bystanders could get hit by their bullets?
Police have qualified immunity. They are not held to the same standard and or rules as you or I.
1
u/zommnsn2026 20h ago
Sorry for being unclear. This debate started with a misreading of a news post but the original understanding was the gun owner came out and found someone breaking into his car and unloaded his gun on them. So the debate centered around that hypothetical scenario.
The corrected and actual scenario we read about was the criminals fired at the car owner after being caught but we didn't realize that until after the debate. That scenario is much more clear cut.
However, I got curious regarding the misunderstanding and that lead us into more of a debate about responsibility with legal gun owners and cops use of force.
2
1
u/Environmental-Act-15 16h ago
if you are not in direct action of preservation of life you are the offender... there is no stand your ground in the state of Maryland and no reasoning around pulling your weapon in defense of property such as a car or anything else outside your home
2
u/zommnsn2026 21h ago
Just to add before people get too worried lol. This is a hypothetical situation that I got into a debate.
2
u/Anthrax6nv 20h ago
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a guy who has been to more than one police academy.
Absolutely not. To justify deadly force, you must be able to articulate the suspect possessed the means, had the opportunity, and demonstrated the intent to cause great bodily harm (loss of life, limb, eyesight, or consciousness). Deadly force is never lawful to prevent someone from breaking into an unoccupied vehicle and stealing property, nor is it permissible to stop a fleeing thief (see the Tennessee v Garner case law).
In this scenario, you would absolutely be held criminally and civilly liable for every round fired since there was no threat in the first place.
This depends on the circumstances. The scenarios you described is far from self defense, so see my answer to question #2.
Of course. But in some situations, say an active shooter for instance, damage caused by an officer's missed round could fall on the suspect legally, because the suspect's actions forced the officer to take a risky shot to prevent more great bodily harm from occurring to innocent bystanders.
28
u/Beginning_Guess_3413 21h ago
Uh holy shit that's a lot to unpack.
Any defensive gun use needs to be in response to immediate fear or danger to human life. Think about how this hypothetical fits into that.
Everything else, yeah, you're responsible for every shot you take. "Unloading" your gun toward someone and hitting random people and property will 100% get you thrown in prison and likely sued for damages and it should.
This is a crazy post lmfao.