I want to create a large private city in middle america that can outright ban guns.

You know this statement is not true.

The use of deadly force in MD requires:
(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant;
(2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger;
(3) The accused claiming the right of self defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict;
(4) The force used must have not been unreasonable and excessive, that is, the force must not have been more force than the exigency demanded.

In addition, when one is in one's home, one may use deadly force against an attacker if deadly force is necessary to prevent the attacker from committing a felony that involves the use of force, violence, or surprise (such as murder, robbery, burglary, rape, or arson

Why do you find the need to lie to make a point?

 

Anti-gunners have to lie, lies are all they have to work with.

Lies like, "Gun control and anti gun are different.," when in fact they are one and the same.

 

And yet the standard of law in the united states is innocent until proven guilty, meaning the burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate the defendant is in the wrong. There is no legitimate reason such should not apply pertaining to self defense.

 

Right the courts are going to rule age limits unconstitutional, time for 18 year olds to get ready to drink. Yeehaw!

This is a better law. (1) Duty to retreat to retreat or avoid danger if such means were within his power and consistent with his safety.'" and (2) It is also essential that killing is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony in question. If other methods could prevent its commission, a homicide is not justified; all other means of preventing the crime must first be exhausted.

That is not castle doctrine, because 1. It must be necessity, so if there is a way other than killing them you must use that way.

See in anti gun states we are civilized. Because you must retreat if outside the home and it is safe to do so, and you must use all other means of ending the threat before using lethal force.

 

Let the criminally motivated individuals be in fear of their safety in the commission of their acts, rather than the law-abiding individuals.

 

And get yourself and children executed in the process.

 

You said:
Thankfully, In MD the person needs to be armed and facing you, to shoot
You know your statement is false.

Why do you find the need to lie to make a point?

 

Because it is being used as a defense of homicide so they should have to prove that their fear was real and warranted.

I know I will feel safer in NY and NJ and MD who all have duty to retreat and require you to use up all other means of stopping them before killing them.
NJ "Retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc. except not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor"

NY "Retreat required if actor knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others, he or she may avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor."

MD "Duty to retreat to retreat or avoid danger if such means were within his power and consistent with his safety."

 

Your opinion does not matter.

 

There is an exception for iminant danger.

Also the agressor can not use deadly force to "save" themselves, so Whats his name from FL would have been guilty since he was a agressor.

 

That's truly sick, if a person enters a home with criminal intent the homeowner trying to protect himself and family must prove he is correct the criminal is not.

That's stuck on stupid logic.

 

It is not false, because it says you must be in immanent danger of great bodily harm or your life. Thus if they are not facing you and armed that does not apply.

 

Its easy to prove, if they had a gun on them case closed if they were unarmed then they probably were not a threat to begin with.

 

It -is- false. The law does not have the requirement you claimed.
Why do you find the need to lie to make a point?

 

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years for firing warning shot at abusive husband gets new trial

But instead of being protected, Alexander was charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, carrying a 20-year mandatory sentence. All for trying to protect herself without causing her estranged husband any harm, “the lesser of two evils.”


https://www.guns.com/news/2013/09/2...g-warning-shot-abusive-husband-gets-new-trial

 

If you shoot someone in the back, you arse is grass.

 

Irrelevant to the discussion
The law does not have the requirement you claimed.
Why do you find the need to lie to make a point?

 

They should have just put the burden of proof on prosecution for women, and kept it on the defendant for men, since its men who will abuse this law.

 

Before making anymore bull**** try understanding how impossible it is to determine is an intruder is armed and presents a clear threat, the fact is someone breaks into an occupied dwelling should understand they are making a decision that could result in their death.

The burden must be on the criminal, not the innocent victim, but I doubt you have the compassion to understand that..

 

An intruder (or attacker) need not be armed to trigger the right use deadly force in self-defense.

 

You could always try saying "HANDS IN THE AIR" Then if they take anything out or reach for anything you shot them once or twice until subdued and then wait for the police.

But I guess you prefer laws that let people kill students who are from countries that don't speak English. Texas guy that killed Japanese person trying to get directions but didn't understand get off my lawn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori

 

You are full of crap and have no idea of how to defend against a home invader, that is someone who breaks into an occupied dwelling and is a clear and present threat and in most states a felony, as such the use of deadly force is justified regardless if the criminal is armed or not.

Now in your pathetic world, you would rather have a homeowner shot and killed, before his wife, if possible could defend herself and her family.

That is so wrong it is indefensible.

 

Dude... he has to lie to make a point -- his world is far more pathetic than you can imagine.

 

And disclose you location to a hail of gunfire, real smart there genius.

Yes of course and you have clearly demonstrated a true lack of intelligence by failing to understand a shooting outside of a home, is not the same as confronting a possibly armed criminal, who has broken into a home.

Just keep on digging yourself in further.

 

That's sad, but self made, so no pity from me.