A Maryland Gun Owner's Definitive Guide: The Law of Defending Others

Introduction: Beyond the Misinformation

Imagine this scenario: you have just finished grocery shopping and are walking to your car. Suddenly, you witness a person at the ATM near the store entrance being robbed at gunpoint. You are a law-abiding Maryland resident, and you are legally carrying a firearm. Your mind races with questions. Should you intervene? What are your legal rights if you use your firearm to protect that stranger? What happens in the moments, days, and years that follow?

This is not a hypothetical exercise for a growing number of Marylanders who have chosen to arm themselves for personal and home defense. Unfortunately, the legal landscape governing the use of force, particularly in defense of a third person, is shrouded in a dense fog of misinformation, half-truths, and "barracks lawyering." This confusion is especially pronounced in Maryland, a state whose self-defense laws are not written in a single, clear statute that a citizen can easily read and comprehend. Instead, the law is a complex mosaic of judicial decisions, known as common law, built over centuries of court cases.   

This report will serve as an authoritative and exhaustive guide for the responsible Maryland firearm owner. It aims to cut through the noise and provide a clear, detailed understanding of the laws governing the use of deadly force in defense of others. We will deconstruct Maryland's unique common law framework, analyze the pivotal court cases that are the law in this state, and provide a step-by-step walkthrough of the daunting legal, financial, and personal aftermath of a defensive shooting. The goal is not to tell you what to do in a moment of crisis, but to equip you with the knowledge necessary to understand the profound legal gravity of your actions, should you ever be forced to make that life-altering decision.

---

Section 1: The Legal Bedrock: Why Maryland Is Different

To understand the right to self-defense in Maryland, one must first discard the simplistic rules and slogans often heard in other states. Maryland's approach is fundamentally different, and this difference carries immense weight for any gun owner.

Maryland's Common Law Foundation

Unlike states that have enacted comprehensive "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle Doctrine" statutes, Maryland's laws on self-defense are not codified in a single legislative act. Instead, the principles are derived from English common law and have been shaped over decades by the rulings of Maryland's appellate courts. This means that to understand the law, one must look to the written opinions in court cases, not to a section of the Maryland Code. Landmark cases such as State v. Faulkner, Crawford v. State, and Gainer v. State are not merely historical footnotes; they are the living text of the law that governs the use of force in the state.   

The Presumption of Criminality

This common-law foundation leads to the single most critical concept a Maryland gun owner must comprehend: any use of force, especially deadly force, is treated as a criminal act first. There is no statutory presumption that your actions were justified. In the eyes of the law, when you use a firearm against another person, you have committed an assault or a homicide. It then falls upon you to raise the issue of self-defense as a justification for your actions. The burden is on the citizen to prove, in court, that their use of force was necessary and legally permissible. This stands in stark contrast to many "Stand Your Ground" jurisdictions, which may offer statutory immunity from arrest and prosecution if certain conditions are met. Maryland offers no such upfront shield.   

The practical implication of this framework is a landscape of inherent legal uncertainty. Because the law is interpretive and based on precedent, the specific facts of each case are scrutinized with microscopic intensity. The final determination of whether a shooting was justified is not made by the citizen in the moment of crisis, but is decided later, through the interpretive lenses of police officers, the county State's Attorney, and, ultimately, a jury. This reality elevates the importance of precise action and expert legal counsel far beyond what might be required in states with clear, statutory rules. A gun owner in Maryland who uses force is not simply acting to save a life; they are simultaneously creating a complex fact pattern that will be meticulously dissected by the legal system, and that system's interpretation will determine their freedom. This legal ambiguity is, in itself, one of the greatest risks an armed citizen faces.

 

---

Section 2: The Four Pillars of Justifiable Force: A Deep Dive into State v. Faulkner

For any use of deadly force to be considered legally justified in Maryland, it must meet a stringent set of criteria. A successful claim, known as "perfect self-defense," results in a complete acquittal—a verdict of "not guilty". The foundational legal framework for this defense was cemented in the landmark 1984 Court of Appeals case, State v. Faulkner. This case established what can be described as the four essential pillars that a claim of justifiable self-defense must be built upon.   

Pillar 1: Reasonable Belief of Imminent Danger

The first pillar is an objective test. The defender must have had reasonable grounds to believe that they were in imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. The key terms here are "reasonable" and "imminent."   

• Reasonable Grounds: This means the belief must be one that an average, prudent person would have held under the exact same circumstances. A purely personal or irrational fear is not sufficient. The court and jury will assess the totality of the circumstances—the time of day, the location, the assailant's words and actions, any size disparity, and the presence of a weapon—to determine if the fear of lethal harm was objectively reasonable.   
• Imminent Danger: The threat must be happening right now. It cannot be a threat of future harm or a response to a past attack. If the threat has passed, the legal justification for using force evaporates with it.   

Pillar 2: Actual Belief of Imminent Danger

The second pillar is a subjective test, focusing entirely on the defender's state of mind at the moment force was used. The defender must have, in fact, actually believed they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. It is not enough for the situation to look dangerous to a hypothetical outside observer; the person who used force must have genuinely held that belief themselves.   

The combination of these first two pillars creates a complex and challenging legal hurdle. A defender must successfully argue on two fronts simultaneously. They must convince a jury not only that they were genuinely terrified for their life (the subjective test), but also that any reasonable and prudent person placed in that identical situation would have been equally terrified (the objective test). This dual requirement provides two avenues of attack for a prosecutor. The State can concede that the defendant was truly scared but argue that their fear was unreasonable and exaggerated. Alternatively, they could argue that a reasonable person might have been scared, but that the defendant's actions show they were acting out of anger or some other motive, not genuine fear. To win an acquittal, the defense must prevail on both points; to secure a conviction, the prosecution only needs to create reasonable doubt about one.

Pillar 3: Not the Aggressor

The third pillar is straightforward: the person claiming self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict. If an individual starts a physical confrontation, they cannot then claim self-defense if the person they attacked fights back. If the initial aggressor escalates a non-lethal conflict to a lethal one, they also forfeit the right to claim self-defense. One cannot initiate violence and then claim justification for the consequences.   

Pillar 4: Proportional Force

The fourth pillar requires that the force used must not have been unreasonable or excessive; it must be proportional to the threat faced. This is the principle of "like for like." Non-lethal force can be met with non-lethal force. However, deadly force—any force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, which explicitly includes the use of a firearm—may only be used to counter an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. One cannot legally use a firearm to stop an unarmed person from throwing a punch, unless specific circumstances (such as a significant disparity in size and strength or the attacker's known martial arts skill) would lead a reasonable person to believe the punch could be fatal or cause crippling injury. The response must match the level of the threat.   

 

---

Section 3: Defending a Stranger: The Law on "Defense of Others

Maryland law unequivocally recognizes the right of an individual to use force, including deadly force, to protect another person from harm. This legal principle, often called "defense of others," is not a separate set of rules but rather an extension of the right to self-defense.   

"Stepping into the Shoes" of the Victim

The core legal concept governing the defense of others is that the intervenor effectively "steps into the legal shoes" of the person they are defending. This means the intervenor acquires the exact same rights and is bound by the exact same limitations as the person being attacked. If the person being attacked would have been justified in using deadly force to defend themselves, then a third-party intervenor is also justified in using deadly force on their behalf.   

Consequently, the four pillars from State v. Faulkner apply directly to the person being defended. For an intervenor's actions to be justified, they must have a reasonable and actual belief that the third party is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, that the third party was not the aggressor, and the force used by the intervenor must be proportional to the threat faced by the third party.   

The Intervenor's Immense Risk

This legal framework places an extraordinary burden on the armed citizen who chooses to intervene. They must make an instantaneous and legally correct assessment of a chaotic, violent, and rapidly evolving situation. The most significant risk is misidentifying the aggressor. If the person you choose to defend was actually the one who started the fight, the law considers them the initial aggressor with no right to self-defense. By "stepping into their shoes," you also acquire their status as the aggressor. In that moment, your use of force is not a lawful defense; it is a criminal assault or homicide.   

This transforms a law-abiding citizen into an on-the-spot investigator, judge, and jury, who must render a life-or-death verdict based on a snapshot of incomplete information. The legal protection for this profound act is entirely contingent on a post-incident investigation revealing that the split-second assessment of "victim" and "aggressor" was, in fact, correct. Consider the grocery store scenario: an individual sees a person pointing a gun at a cashier. The roles seem obvious. But what if, ten seconds before the citizen arrived, the cashier had attacked the armed individual with a box cutter, and the armed individual drew their firearm in a legally justifiable act of self-defense? The intervening citizen would have no way of knowing this. By shooting the person holding the gun, they would have illegally assaulted or killed someone who was, at that moment, lawfully defending their own life. The justification for an intervenor's actions is not based on what they perceive, but on the actual legal status of the participants, a status that can often only be determined after a thorough investigation.

Judicial Recognition: Theodore Johnson v. State of Maryland (2025)

A recent case from the Appellate Court of Maryland, Theodore Johnson v. State, underscores the legal system's recognition of the powerful impulse to defend others. In this case, the defendant shot and killed a man who had just committed a substantial battery against the defendant's fiancée. While the primary legal issue was whether this constituted adequate provocation to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, the court's analysis is highly relevant. The court held that a substantial battery on a close relative can be legally adequate provocation. This decision affirms that Maryland courts recognize an attack on a third party, especially a loved one, as a powerful and legally significant motivating factor for a defendant's actions. It lends modern judicial weight to the long-standing common law doctrine of "defense of others," confirming that the courts will seriously consider such claims.   

 

---

Section 4: The Duty to Retreat: Maryland's Core Requirement in Public

A defining feature of Maryland's self-defense law is the "Duty to Retreat". This principle is a cornerstone of the state's common law and is a frequent point of confusion for residents accustomed to hearing about "Stand Your Ground" laws in other parts of the country.   

Defining the Duty

In Maryland, before a person can use deadly force against an attacker in a public place, they have an affirmative legal duty to retreat from the confrontation, but only if they can do so in complete safety. The law prioritizes the preservation of human life and therefore requires a person to avoid violence if a safe avenue of escape exists. The use of deadly force is legally positioned as an absolute last resort, permissible only when there is no other safe alternative.   

This stands in direct opposition to "Stand Your Ground" laws, which generally remove the duty to retreat and allow individuals to use force, including deadly force, in any place they have a legal right to be. Maryland has no such law. A person who could have safely walked, run, or driven away from a threat but chooses instead to "stand their ground" and use deadly force will likely find their self-defense claim invalidated in court.   

When Retreat is Not Required

The duty to retreat is not absolute. The law does not require a person to put themselves in greater danger in order to escape. Retreat is only mandated when it can be done with complete safety. A person is not required to retreat if:

• Doing so would increase the peril (e.g., turning your back on a gunman).  
• A safe escape route is blocked or unknown.   
• The attack is so sudden and violent that there is no opportunity to retreat.

The critical challenge for the armed citizen is that this analysis of whether retreat was "safely possible" is not made in the heat of the moment, but is conducted with the cool, dispassionate benefit of hindsight by police, prosecutors, and a jury. The defender's split-second decision that turning to run was not a safe option will be methodically re-examined in a courtroom. Investigators will use diagrams, photographs, and witness testimony to explore every potential path of egress. A prosecutor will actively search for any plausible, safe escape route the defender could have taken to argue that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and therefore illegal. This means the defender must be prepared to justify not only their decision to shoot but also their decision not to run away—a decision that will be judged by people who were not there and were not in fear for their lives.

 

---

Section 5: When You Don't Have to Retreat: The Castle Doctrine and the Robbery Exception

While the duty to retreat is the general rule in public, Maryland's common law has carved out critical exceptions where an individual is legally permitted to stand their ground. These exceptions apply to one's home and during the commission of certain violent felonies.

Subsection 5.1: The Castle Doctrine (Defense of Habitation)

The most well-known exception is the "Castle Doctrine." The law recognizes that a person's home is their sanctuary and ultimate place of retreat. Therefore, in Maryland, you have absolutely no duty to retreat when you are inside your own home. You may stand your ground and use whatever force is reasonably necessary, including deadly force, to repel an unlawful and forceful intruder.   

The legal justification for using deadly force under the Castle Doctrine is to prevent the commission of a felony that involves force or violence, such as murder, robbery, burglary, rape, or arson. The homeowner must have a reasonable belief that the intruder intends to commit such a crime or inflict serious bodily harm.   

This principle is firmly established in Maryland's judicial history:

• Crawford v. State (1963): This foundational case affirmed that a person is "not bound to flee and become a fugitive from his own home." The court ruled that an occupant may meet an intruder at the threshold and use any means necessary, including taking the intruder's life, to prevent a violent felony.   
• Gainer v. State (1978): This case significantly expanded the doctrine's application. The court ruled that the protection of the Castle Doctrine extends to any member of the household, not just the property owner. Crucially, it also held that the duty to retreat is eliminated even if the attacker is not an intruder but a social guest who has a right to be on the premises.   

Subsection 5.2: The Robbery Exception (The Grocery Store Scenario)

Returning to the central scenario, Maryland common law provides another critical exception to the duty to retreat: during the commission of a violent felony like a robbery. This is the direct legal answer to the question of intervening in an armed robbery.   

The law does not require a victim to attempt to flee from an armed robber. Robbery is, by its very nature, a crime of violence and intimidation, and turning one's back on an armed assailant may be the most dangerous action one could take. Therefore, a person being robbed at gunpoint has no legal duty to retreat.   

This exception applies directly to the armed citizen acting in defense of others. Because the victim of the armed robbery has the right to stand their ground and use deadly force to defend their own life, the intervenor who "steps into their shoes" also has no duty to retreat. The intervenor can legally use justified deadly force to stop the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm posed by the robber to the victim.

This legal justification, however, exists only within a very specific temporal "bubble" that surrounds the active commission of the crime. The right to use deadly force is predicated on stopping an imminent threat. The moment the robber ceases to pose an imminent threat—for example, by taking the victim's property and turning to flee—that bubble pops. While the person is still a fleeing felon, they may no longer represent an imminent threat of death to the victim. A private citizen shooting a fleeing criminal in the back is not an act of defense; it is viewed by the law as illegal retaliation or vigilantism. Therefore, the intervenor must make a correct, split-second judgment about the precise moment the incident transitions from an active, imminent threat to a completed crime with a fleeing suspect. Firing one second too late could be the difference between a justifiable homicide and a murder conviction.

---

Section 6: "Imperfect" Self-Defense: When Your Belief is Honest but Unreasonable

Maryland law recognizes a unique and important legal doctrine known as "imperfect self-defense". It serves as a partial, mitigating defense for individuals who acted on a genuine belief that they were in danger, but whose belief or actions were not objectively reasonable.   

How It Works

Imperfect self-defense applies when a defendant had an actual, subjective belief that they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that the force they used was necessary, but a jury determines that one or both of those beliefs were objectively unreasonable. For example, a person might genuinely but unreasonably mistake a cell phone for a gun and use deadly force in response.   

This defense is not a complete justification and does not lead to an acquittal. Instead, its legal effect is to negate the element of "malice," a key ingredient for a murder conviction. By negating malice, imperfect self-defense mitigates a murder charge to the lesser felony of voluntary manslaughter. While still a serious conviction, this can be the difference between a potential life sentence for murder and a maximum sentence of 10 years for voluntary manslaughter.   

Case Law Analysis: Porter v. State (2017)

The case of Karla Porter v. State offers a powerful and unconventional illustration of this doctrine. Porter had suffered from years of violent abuse at the hands of her husband and was diagnosed with Battered Spouse Syndrome. Believing he was going to kill her, she hired a third party to murder him. At trial, she argued for an imperfect self-defense jury instruction. The State countered that hiring a killer could not possibly be considered an act of "imminent" self-defense.   

The Maryland Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that Porter was entitled to the imperfect self-defense instruction. The court found she had presented sufficient evidence to show that she subjectively believed she was in imminent danger, even though the act of hiring a hitman was an objectively unreasonable method of self-defense. This case demonstrates the significant weight the courts place on the defendant's actual, subjective state of mind and shows how the doctrine can apply even in the most extreme and unusual circumstances.   

 

---

Section 7: The Aftermath: A Step-by-Step Guide from "Bang" to Booking

The actions taken in the minutes and hours immediately following a defensive shooting are often as critical to the legal outcome as the shooting itself. This is a period of extreme stress, confusion, and physiological shock, but it is also when the foundation of a legal defense is built or broken.

Step 1: Ensure Safety

The immediate priority after any use of force is to ensure the threat is neutralized and the scene is safe. If the assailant is down, do not approach them. Move to a position of cover or safety. Holster your firearm or place it on the ground and move away from it. Scan for any additional threats.

Step 2: The 911 Call - "Win the Race to 911"

You must be the first person to call 911. In the chaotic aftermath of a violent incident, the first person to call is often initially perceived by law enforcement as the victim. Your call should be brief and provide only the most essential information:   

• What: "There has been a shooting." Do not say, "I shot someone." The less said, the better.
• Where: "My location is [Provide the exact address or location]."
• Help Needed: "Send an ambulance immediately."
• Your Description: "I am the person who called. I am a [gender, race] wearing a [color] shirt and [color] pants." This is critical for arriving officers, so they can distinguish you from any potential threat.

Do not provide any further details. Do not attempt to explain what happened to the 911 operator. Your only goal is to get emergency services en route and to identify yourself as the reporting party.   

Step 3: Call Your Lawyer

Your second call, immediately after hanging up with 911, should be to a qualified criminal defense attorney. It is imperative for any gun owner to have already identified and saved the number of an experienced attorney for this exact contingency.   

Step 4: Interacting with Law Enforcement

When police officers arrive, they are responding to a "shots fired" call. They are entering a potential crime scene and have no idea who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. Expect to be treated as a suspect. This is not personal; it is standard, necessary procedure for officer safety and scene control.   

• Comply with every command instantly and without argument.
• Keep your hands empty and clearly visible.
• When instructed, calmly inform the officers where your firearm is located.
• You will almost certainly be handcuffed and placed in a patrol car. Do not resist.

You must make one, and only one, clear statement to the initial responding officers: "That person attacked [me/that person], and I will cooperate fully, but I need to speak with my attorney before I make any further statements". If possible, point out critical evidence, such as the assailant's weapon or key witnesses, but do not narrate the events.   

After this initial statement, you must explicitly and repeatedly invoke your constitutional rights by saying, "I am invoking my right to remain silent, and I want my lawyer". Simply remaining quiet is not sufficient; the right must be actively invoked.   

The reason for this strict silence is not to be uncooperative, but to protect against the known physiological effects of a violent encounter. During a life-threatening event, the body is flooded with adrenaline. This chemical cocktail causes profound and well-documented perceptual distortions, including auditory exclusion (not hearing sounds, including your own gunshots), tunnel vision, and a skewed sense of time. Your memory of the event will be fragmented, incomplete, and potentially inaccurate. Any statement you give to police while in this state is highly likely to contain errors or inconsistencies. Days or weeks later, when you give a formal statement with your attorney, that more accurate recollection will inevitably differ from your initial on-scene utterances. A prosecutor will seize upon these discrepancies and present them to a jury as proof that you are a liar who is changing your story to fit a narrative, thereby destroying the credibility that is the absolute cornerstone of a self-defense claim. The only way to prevent this line of attack is to provide no initial detailed statement to be attacked.   

Step 5: The Investigation and Charging Decision

Police will secure the scene, collect all physical evidence (including your firearm), and interview any witnesses. Once their initial investigation is complete, the entire case file is forwarded to the State's Attorney's Office for the county in which the incident occurred. The State's Attorney—an elected prosecutor—has the sole discretion to review the evidence and decide whether to file criminal charges. They may decide the shooting was clearly justified and decline to prosecute, or they may file charges ranging from assault to manslaughter or murder. This decision is based entirely on their interpretation of the facts presented by the police.   

---

Section 8: In the Courtroom: Proving Justification

If the State's Attorney decides to press charges, the case will proceed to court. In Maryland, a self-defense case involves a unique "burden of proof shuffle" between the defense and the prosecution.

The Burden of Proof Shuffle

• Step 1: The Defendant's Burden of Production: In a criminal trial, the defendant is presumed innocent and does not have to prove anything. However, to raise the issue of self-defense, the defense has a "burden of production." This is a very low legal threshold. The defense must simply produce "some evidence" that the defendant acted in self-defense. This evidence could be the defendant's own testimony, a statement from a witness, or physical evidence from the scene.   

 

• Step 2: The State's Burden of Persuasion: Once the defense has successfully produced "some evidence" and generated the issue of self-defense, the legal burden shifts entirely to the prosecution. The State must then prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did NOT act in self-defense. This means the prosecutor must convince every single juror that at least one of the pillars of self-defense was absent—for example, that the defendant was the aggressor, or that their fear was unreasonable, or that they used excessive force, or that they could have safely retreated.   

This burden-shifting is a crucial strategic element of a self-defense trial. Successfully generating "some evidence" of self-defense fundamentally alters the trial's landscape. It forces the prosecutor's hand, compelling them not only to prove the basic elements of the crime (e.g., that the defendant fired the weapon that caused the death) but also to take on the far more difficult task of proving a negative: that the act was not justified. The defense attorney's initial goal is to clear this "some evidence" bar, thereby putting the prosecution on the defensive and forcing them to disprove the self-defense claim, which significantly increases the opportunity to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

The Role of the Jury

Ultimately, the decision rests with the jury. The judge will provide the jury with specific legal instructions, outlining the principles of perfect and imperfect self-defense as they apply in Maryland. The jurors will then weigh all the evidence presented and determine if the State has met its heavy burden of disproving the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Their collective assessment of the "reasonableness" of the defendant's beliefs and actions is the final, dispositive factor.   

---

Section 9: The Second Battlefront: Facing a Civil Lawsuit

For the person who has used a firearm in self-defense, winning an acquittal in criminal court is often only the end of the first battle. A second, and in some ways more perilous, battle may be waiting on the civil front.

Criminal vs. Civil Court

An acquittal in criminal court, which means the State could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, provides no protection from a civil lawsuit. The person who was shot (or their family, in the case of a fatality) can sue the defender in civil court for monetary damages, claiming wrongful death or battery.   

These are two entirely separate legal systems with vastly different standards of proof:

• In criminal court, the State must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," the highest standard in the U.S. legal system.
• In civil court, the plaintiff only needs to prove liability by a "preponderance of the evidence," which simply means "more likely than not" (often described as 50.1%).   

This disparity in legal standards means it is entirely possible for a person to be found "not guilty" in their criminal trial but still be found "liable" for millions of dollars in damages in a subsequent civil trial for the exact same act.

The Potential for Financial Ruin

The financial consequences of a civil lawsuit can be catastrophic. Even if the defender ultimately wins the civil case, the legal fees required to mount a defense can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, easily bankrupting an average family. If they lose, the judgment could result in the loss of their home, their life savings, and the garnishment of their future wages for decades. It is also important to note that standard homeowner's insurance policies almost universally contain an "intentional acts" exclusion, meaning they will not cover the costs associated with an intentional shooting, even one done in self-defense.   

The near certainty of facing a financially crippling civil lawsuit, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, acts as a powerful de facto deterrent against using force, even when it is legally justified. A responsible gun owner must weigh not only the immediate physical danger and the subsequent criminal prosecution risk but also the high probability of a devastating civil suit. This reality means that even a textbook "good shoot" can still result in financial ruin.

---

Section 10: Key Takeaways and Practical Checklist for Maryland Firearm Owners

The laws governing the use of deadly force in Maryland are complex, nuanced, and carry immense consequences. For the responsible firearm owner, a clear understanding of these principles is not an academic exercise but a critical component of preparedness.

Summary of Core Principles

• Maryland is a Common Law, "Duty to Retreat" State: The law is found in court decisions, not simple statutes. In public, you must retreat from a threat if safely possible before using deadly force.
• Defense of Others is Legal: You may defend a third person, but you "step into their legal shoes," acquiring their rights and their liabilities. Your intervention is only as justified as their right to self-defense.
• Deadly Force is a Last Resort: The use of a firearm is only justifiable to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The force must be proportional to the threat.
• Key Exceptions to Retreat: You have no duty to retreat from your own home (the Castle Doctrine) or when you or another person is the victim of a violent felony, such as an armed robbery.
• The Aftermath is a Legal Minefield: Your actions and words in the immediate aftermath of a shooting will be intensely scrutinized. Silence and legal counsel are your most important tools.
• Two Battlefronts: A criminal acquittal does not prevent a financially devastating civil lawsuit.

The Grocery Store Scenario Revisited

Based on a thorough analysis of Maryland's common law, a citizen who intervenes in the armed robbery scenario would likely be legally justified in using deadly force. The robber's actions constitute a violent felony, creating an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the victim. Under the robbery exception, neither the victim nor the intervenor has a duty to retreat. However, this justification is a fragile bubble. The use of force must cease the absolute moment the imminent threat is over. And even if the shooting is deemed perfectly justifiable, the intervenor must be prepared for the inevitable and arduous legal, financial, and emotional ordeal that will follow.

Post-Incident Action Checklist

In a moment of extreme stress, complex legal doctrines are impossible to recall. This simple checklist provides a clear, actionable script that should be memorized by any person who carries a firearm for self-defense in Maryland.

 

---

---

Disclaimer: The information provided by HARP Firearms Training & Defense (“HARP FTD”) is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice, tactical guidance, or an endorsement of any specific action. Firearm laws and self-defense statutes vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. Readers are strongly encouraged to consult applicable state and federal laws and seek professional legal counsel before relying on or acting upon any information contained in this post. Participation in any firearm-related activity carries inherent risks. Always follow all firearm safety rules, comply with local laws, and receive proper training from certified instructors. HARP FTD, its owners, instructors, and affiliates assume no liability for any loss, injury, or legal consequence arising from the use or misuse of the information provided herein.