I'm of a couple of minds on this. Part of me just wants to ask for thread to be locked (sorry Ariel), part wants to talk it out.
The big issue here is about self defense.
Here's the Maryland Self defense law, according to Wikipedia.
Here are a couple of relevant paragraphs, snipped from said article (and remember, I'm not a lawyer).
Self-Defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)
Self-defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend <himself> <herself> in light of the threatenend or actual harm.
<Deadly-force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly-force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response.>
<In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if the defendant was in <his> <her> home, retreat was unsafe, the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant, the defendant was being robbed, the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim. If the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.>
Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)
Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim).
It's that "no more force than was reasonably necessary" clause that's keeping the sheriffs busy.
For example: did the student realize that he could have used his sword as a bludgeon? I suspect the law is different depending on whether he was trained in how to use that sword, or whether he was just lashing out, following the examples he'd seen in movies?
Conversely, the student might have tried to simply slash the burglar, and the burglar did the instinctive thing of trying to block the sword with his arm, resulting in a severed wrist and bleed-out.
I think the bottom line for all of us is to make sure that our self-defense activities are well within the laws. As Rick noted, if you don't have "I was afraid for my life" tattoed inside your eyelids, you might want to engrave it on the hilt of the sword by your bed.
Best,
F