PDA

View Full Version : more on "duty to retreat"


vantec08
02-14-2011, 3:52 AM
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/021311/sta_784993517.shtml

http://www.ocala.com/article/20110212/ARTICLES/110219891/-1/entertainment02?Title=Debate-over-Stand-Your-Ground-law-begins-anew

I have never understood "duty to retreat"

CalBear
02-14-2011, 8:21 AM
I take great exception with the concept that people somehow have a "duty to retreat." In some places, this basically means if someone comes at you with a knife, and you can jump out the window, you had better take that route. I find this repulsive and absurd. If someone comes at you with the intent to kill, maim, rape, etc., you should have the right to take forceful action against the person.

dantodd
02-14-2011, 8:28 AM
FWIW California had no "duty to retreat" statute. In fact, in the one case I sat on jury instruction were explicit in stating there is no "duty to retreat."

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

not-fishing
02-14-2011, 8:42 AM
I would retreat if possible.

I might not be able to retreat far, fast or climb a chain link fence due to my age and infirmities.

Also if I'm laying down or kneeling to steady my aim it takes to long for me to get up so I really couldn't retreat if I wanted to.

Fermel Parlee (Jackson gang: [after Bean shoots Bad Bob in the back] You call that sportin'? It weren't a real standup fight.

Judge Roy Bean: Standup? I laid down to steady my aim.

Fermel Parlee (Jackson gang: Well, I mean he never had a chance.

Judge Roy Bean: Not at all. Never did, never would have. I didn't ask him to come here. I don't abide giving killers a chance. He wants a chance, let him go someplace else.

stix213
02-14-2011, 8:56 AM
Retreat is obviously best in certain situations, and not in others. I am glad we don't have one of these silly forced retreat laws..... and surprised since we seem to have every other silly law

Uriah02
02-14-2011, 9:19 AM
I think the idea in "duty to retreat" is to prevent people from fighting back, in theory reducing violence because one party should be running away...:rolleyes:

bohoki
02-14-2011, 10:35 AM
http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979050116

CEDaytonaRydr
02-14-2011, 10:38 AM
FWIW California had no "duty to retreat" statute.

Correct...

For all of our "faults" we are, at least, a "stand your ground" state... ;)

Veggie
02-14-2011, 10:39 AM
As far as I would respect this law is I would try to leave before the situation warranted lethal force. After lethal force is presented I am not turning my back to anyone.

tcd511
02-14-2011, 11:11 AM
Retreat is obviously best in certain situations, and not in others. I am glad we don't have one of these silly forced retreat laws..... and surprised since we seem to have every other silly law

Don't say that too loud. The Antis may be listening.;)

GaryV
02-14-2011, 11:36 AM
The stupid thing about the Ocala article is that Florida never had a "duty to retreat" law. They try to make it sound like the "stand your ground" law suddenly changed your rights to self-defense. In reality, Florida was pretty much like California is now in this respect. What happened was that some prosecutors and judges were sometimes imposing their own personal idea that there should be a duty to retreat on crime victims who defended themselves. So the law was passed to make it explicit that no such duty existed. It didn't really change the law so much as formalize it to prevent prosecutorial/judicial abuses.

ap3572001
02-14-2011, 11:40 AM
WRONG! There is no "DUTY TO RETREAT". It is not black and white, not that simple.

If You are in fear for Your life , You have a right to protect Yourself.

If someone is sitting on the bench 50 yards away and yelling that they are going to beat You up, then for sure, just walk away.

If someone want's and CAN harm You , and by trying to retreat , You may make things even worse for Yourself. Fight back by ALL means.

CSDGuy
02-14-2011, 11:44 AM
While there is no "duty to retreat" statute, not availing yourself of a means of escape might make things more difficult for you in the civil trial... and could make things more interesting trying to show that you're not in a mutual combat situation.

Use your head. Try to avoid the confrontation, after all, you don't want to have to deal with that lawyer that's attached to every bullet you shoot out of self-defense... unless you have to.

smtimelevi
02-14-2011, 12:11 PM
In regards to the florida story i think the anti's need to leave that law alone. Nobody should have to run away from an attacker. What kinda crap is that? I could just see John Wayne rolling in his grave. Its a good law but i dont think that was a deadly force scenario. I wasnt there but from the way it sounded the driver and the other kids in the car coulda got out and whooped on the kid punching the passenger. This is where an asp baton would come in very handy.

GaryV
02-14-2011, 12:43 PM
In regards to the florida story i think the anti's need to leave that law alone. Nobody should have to run away from an attacker. What kinda crap is that? I could just see John Wayne rolling in his grave. Its a good law but i dont think that was a deadly force scenario. I wasnt there but from the way it sounded the driver and the other kids in the car coulda got out and whooped on the kid punching the passenger. This is where an asp baton would come in very handy.

It's hard to say whether it was legitimately a deadly force situation or not. Other reports say that the kids in the car had retreated to the car to escape the attacker, and he had pursued them, opened the door and started beating on the 13 y.o., hard enough to knock teeth out. I can certainly see where that might be a lethal force situation.

Be that as it may, one aspect of the Florida law is that if a person tries to forcibly enter your home or car while you are inside, you are automatically presumed to have justification to use lethal force. This is to cover people who may reasonably believe they are about to be victims of a car jacking. Basically, you have to be suicidal to go after someone in their car in Florida, because a lot of people carry, and if you grab that door handle or reach in the window you are legally fair game. This is why the prosecutor said his decision not to file charges on the shooting was easy. The kid with the gun was clearly justified under Florida law, without question. I imagine the other charges will probably be dropped as well, since the "minor in possession" charge won't hold up in a clear case of self-defense.

smtimelevi
02-14-2011, 1:04 PM
I didnt catch the part where they ran to the car. If that was the case then he was within his rights. Its a shame the other kid died but also a shame he attacked in the manner he did. Personally I'd hate to be in a situation like that, I dont criticize the kid for doin it. Cant say what I'd do until I was faced with it.
NOBODY should be denied the RIGHT of self defense, lethal or not. Im sure this is what they will argue in court. If lethal force was reasonable,blah,blah. The defense will say is letting someone beat the teeth out of a 3rd party,blah,blah.
NOBODY should have the DUTY to retreat. Such nonsense. What are the options? Run away like a civilized person? Call the police?
Oh yea I know all about Florida, I believe they started the CCW movement back in 87. I might move there this summer.

Hopalong
02-14-2011, 1:55 PM
Although there is no duty to retreat

And it's obviously not the macho thing to do

Or even mention here on an internet forum

It may very well be the wisest, safest, and least liable thing to do

Depends on the circumstances.

N6ATF
02-14-2011, 3:33 PM
Duty to retreat is just a euphemism for "run the other way, trip, fall, hurt yourself, then beg for your life before you are beaten/raped/stabbed/shot/whatever".

kcbrown
02-14-2011, 3:44 PM
I thought "retreating" is what you're doing when you're attempting to put more distance between you and the bad guy while sending lead his way, in order to keep him from entering that 21 foot Tueller perimeter... :chris:

Jaxpire
02-14-2011, 6:03 PM
I have a family, I have a duty to NOT retreat.

Cobrafreak
02-14-2011, 6:09 PM
Great Britain has a forced retreat law I believe. If you need help, you are instructed to yell "Police!", not "Help!" as you are fleeing, as anyone that hears you that is not a police officer needs to flee too. If they attempt to help they would get into trouble themselves and you for asking general "Help!" from them. Really very stupid imho.

kcbrown
02-14-2011, 8:04 PM
Great Britain has a forced retreat law I believe. If you need help, you are instructed to yell "Police!", not "Help!" as you are fleeing, as anyone that hears you that is not a police officer needs to flee too. If they attempt to help they would get into trouble themselves and you for asking general "Help!" from them. Really very stupid imho.

The idiotic laws on such things remind me very much of the scene in "Demolition Man" where the "police officer" confronts the bad guy. I can't help but think that the same mentality that led to the "forced retreat" laws (especially in the U.K.) would yield the same directives that said fictional "police officer" was given for dealing with the bad guy (which, naturally, caused things to end badly for said fictional "police officer").

pitchbaby
02-14-2011, 8:27 PM
Duty to retreat may not be written into California Statute... but I am sure that many DA's in this state would try to enforce it on you if you stood your ground.

Munk
02-14-2011, 10:42 PM
The entire concept of a "duty to retreat" is offensive and puts too much power in the hands of the criminal.

I think that a homeowner should be granted full civil immunity from prosecution if a criminal is injured during the commision of a misdemeanor or felony. The same should apply to ALL self defense scenarios. If someone violates you or your property, they should be prepared for ALL of the consequences of that action, up to and including getting shot in the frigging face.


I thought "retreating" is what you're doing when you're attempting to put more distance between you and the bad guy while sending lead his way, in order to keep him from entering that 21 foot Tueller perimeter... :chris:

This is "falling back" not reatreating; or perhaps it's a "tactical retreat."

CalBear
02-14-2011, 10:42 PM
Great Britain has a forced retreat law I believe. If you need help, you are instructed to yell "Police!", not "Help!" as you are fleeing, as anyone that hears you that is not a police officer needs to flee too. If they attempt to help they would get into trouble themselves and you for asking general "Help!" from them. Really very stupid imho.
Agreed. Laws in the UK are "criminal preservation" laws more than anything. They're so attached to the idea that even criminals don't deserve to be killed, even if they're about to kill someone else.

Falconis
02-15-2011, 1:41 AM
Pfft, only reason I see to retreat is for better tactical position. I just don't see any reason to run 50 yards backwards, be out of breath, THEN let someone beat me into a bloody pulp all the while pleading, "Please sir, do not hurt me!!!!" umpteen million times while I am being stabbed.

Just cause these aholes don't have a backbone to protect their family and loved ones, I see no reason I should have to give up mine.

ALSystems
02-15-2011, 2:22 AM
The entire concept of a "duty to retreat" is offensive and puts too much power in the hands of the criminal.

I think that a homeowner should be granted full civil immunity from prosecution if a criminal is injured during the commision of a misdemeanor or felony. The same should apply to ALL self defense scenarios. If someone violates you or your property, they should be prepared for ALL of the consequences of that action, up to and including getting shot in the frigging face.




This is "falling back" not reatreating; or perhaps it's a "tactical retreat."
I agree with this completely.
Well said.

Cobrafreak
02-15-2011, 5:19 AM
I tell you what, if I am going to "retreat" it is going to be walking backwards with my gun in my hands ready to put the sight bead on the perp if he follows. He will have every chance in the world to leave me alone before my line is crossed.

JeepFreak
02-15-2011, 6:38 AM
I don't see what the "Stand your ground" law has to do with the bowling alley case. What, he was supposed to retreat and leave the 13 yr old to get his face smashed in? It seems like this is your typical "lethal force in defense of another" case (with the exception of the age and the illegal gun). How do you retreat when you're defending a 3rd party?
Billy

Oh, and I don't know which is a funnier name, Dwa'Bachi or Hayhoe!! http://www.slicky.net/smilies/rofl.gif

Suvorov
02-15-2011, 7:13 AM
What states are "Retreat States"?

As others have mentioned, the "Stand You Ground" principle is one of the few good things we have here in Kalifornia.

kcbrown
02-15-2011, 2:50 PM
What states are "Retreat States"?

As others have mentioned, the "Stand You Ground" principle is one of the few good things we have here in Kalifornia.

Well, we don't have a "you must retreat" law, but that's not the same as having a "you can stand your ground" law. Do we actually have the latter?

big red
02-15-2011, 2:51 PM
No one is required to retreat when defending themselves or a third party that is obviously the victim. The offender put themselves in harm's way and as such has to accept the results if the victim or the victim's defender choses to stand and fight. We have not stayed a "free" country because we chose to run and hide. We stand up for our rights and one of those rights is not to be forced to retreat in the face of danger if we choose not to. It is one of the core reason we are fighting for our rights to bear arms and defend ourselves. We are chosing not to retreat and surrender our country, our lives, our families safety, our property, or anything else to those who would violate out rights.

Manic Moran
02-15-2011, 7:23 PM
Great Britain has a forced retreat law I believe.

Certainly not if you're in your home. "A man's home is his castle" is an English phrase, remember.

I can't recall the last time someone was prosecuted for using necessary force in public either.

NTM

N6ATF
02-15-2011, 7:43 PM
I keep hearing Brits prosecuted for public and home self-defense, they aren't?

Manic Moran
02-15-2011, 8:39 PM
I keep hearing Brits prosecuted for public and home self-defense, they aren't?

Name one who wouldn't be prosecuted in the US for the same event. (e.g. shooting people in the back as they're running away, i.e. Tony Martin).

This is an odd one, though. Might even be prosecuted in some States for it, but the Brits let him off.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/farmer-cleared-after-shooting-burglars-2163611.html

That's not to say there isn't gun-related legal stupidity in the UK. My favourite was one guy who turned in a firearm he found to a police station, and was done for posession.

NTM

Munk
02-16-2011, 2:32 AM
The offender put themselves in harm's way and as such has to accept the results if the victim or the victim's defender choses to stand and fight.

You know what? This point stands out to me; I think this will save some homeowners against unreasonable civil litigation. There's very little to no liability for the property owner if the person who got injured was doing something where there is an "assumption of risk" that they will be hurt doing said activity. It's the same reason you don't see ski resorts getting put out of business every year by the people who break their bones on the runs.

Burglers and other criminals WILLFULLY engage in an activity that has been shown to be harmful to your health in a number of occasions.

resident-shooter
02-16-2011, 3:03 AM
Retreat may not be a duty, but in most cases its a sensible thing to do to prevent violence, charges, court fees, etc etc etc. In your own residence, however, retreat is not an option....

masameet
02-16-2011, 3:07 AM
True story.

Two or three years ago an Oakland (CA) home owner was home during the day. His place apparently got burgled a lot. Fed up with his home being targeted, that week day the man decided to stay home. And sure enough, that day he was home, somebody tried to break in. Hearing scrabbling noises at one of his windows, the man armed himself with his pistol and waited for the forced entry. But for whatever reason the burglar couldn't and walked off the property. Angry and scared, the home owner opened his door, shouted at the guy's back that he was armed, and told him to stay away. And what did the would-be burglar do? Well, he turned around and headed back to the man's house. How did the home owner react? He shouted to the guy: Don't come any closer or I'll shoot you. But the burglar kept walking towards him. So the home owner shot the would-be burglar on the sidewalk in front of his house. Or at least, that's where the guy ended up wounded.

And the Alameda County DA did not press charges against the home owner. Instead the burglar went to jail. Or I guess prison. Because he had a previous burglary conviction.

Manic Moran
02-22-2011, 10:02 AM
Just another example of the UK status, this one just came across the wire last week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8331990/Burglar-shot-by-householder-got-summary-justice-rules-judge.html

A burglar shot by a man defending his home was told by a judge that he had just received summary justice.

<snip>

"When I went into the dining room, he was trying to pull my motorbike through the window. I told him, not very politely, to get out, but he just stared straight at me. Because I have the rifle, I know a bit about the law around it so I showed him the gun and gave him a chance to leave before I did anything. I knew you can’t just shoot someone. He raised this iron bar up and started coming towards me so I just pulled my gun up and shot him. Even then, he started to come towards me again and threw a brick at me. He must have thought it was a single shot rifle, but I shot him again."


Only an air rifle, mind, hence the burglar was able to be brought before the court.

(Who the hell keeps a motorbike in the dining room?)

This judgement by Ireland's highest court relies heavily on British law, as the question, to the judge's suprise, had never come up before in Ireland. It's written in plain English, not Legalese, and is an eye-opening read to people who think that Europeans are forced to be defenceless by law. (if you want to save time, go about 1/3 the way down to the section titled 'The Legal Issues')

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument

Operative clause:
It is, in our view, quite inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of a dwellinghouse that a householder or other lawful occupant could be ever be under a legal obligation to flee the dwellinghouse or, as it might be put in more contemporary language, to retreat from it. It follows from this, in turn, that such a person can never be in a worse position in point of law because he has decided to stand his ground in his house.

NTM

Wherryj
02-22-2011, 10:38 AM
While there is no "duty to retreat" statute, not availing yourself of a means of escape might make things more difficult for you in the civil trial... and could make things more interesting trying to show that you're not in a mutual combat situation.

Use your head. Try to avoid the confrontation, after all, you don't want to have to deal with that lawyer that's attached to every bullet you shoot out of self-defense... unless you have to.

What this country needs are more judges willing to impose "loser pays" rules upon vexatious civil cases. Lawyers who make a living off "loser" cases knowing that there is a small chance of losing each case, but only losing their own time/filing fees, etc. may press bad cases just for the uncertainty factor.

If the lawyer had to eat the cost of unnecessary defense, things might be a bit more sane. I realize that the idea was to keep huge corporations from pushing all cases away merely by the amount of money that they possess, but this is already pretty much happening anyway. Unless you have a case that you KNOW that you can win AND you will be awarded legal fees AND collect, the other side will usually just overspend you out of your case. I know, I've had it happen.

No "loser pays" means yet more abuse of the system.

ALSystems
02-24-2011, 6:57 AM
What states are "Retreat States"?

Wikipedia answer


States with weak or no specific Castle Law
These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.

New York (May not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing 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.)
Pennsylvania 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 505 on the defense of self says there is no obligation to retreat from the home or workplace unless the actor was the initial aggressor or, in the latter case, set upon by a co-worker; however, "surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto" and "complying with a demand that [one] abstain from any action which [one] has no duty to take" are listed in addition to retreating as avenues which, if open to the actor but not taken, invalidate justification for the use of deadly force. Deadly force itself is not justifiable unless "the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat." 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 507 allows the use of deadly force if the actor believes there has been an unlawful entry into his or her dwelling and believes that nothing less than deadly force will end the incursion; if the person on the receiving end of the deadly force is "attempting to dispossess [the actor] of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession;" or if deadly force is the only thing that will prevent a felony from being committed in the dwelling. In any of those cases, the property owner must first ask the interloper to desist unless the owner believes that doing so would be "useless," "dangerous," or would result in the property being defended coming to substantial harm before the request to desist could be effectively communicated.
South Dakota "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
Iowa ([36])
Nebraska
New Hampshire (A proposed law was vetoed in 2007.[3])
New Mexico
Virginia
Vermont
District of Columbia