This is a discussion on Duty to retreat? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by OldVet Here's one for you with no specific conditions attached. FL 776.013: (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity ...
Well I'm sorry, I'm just to broke down to back down and if some one brakes into my house I don't think they want donations for the red cross. Oregon does not have Castle Doctrine
You have to also realize and some have touched on it via definitions... retreat, does not mean run away necessarily. It means make a tactical move away from the aggressor in such a way that removes you from harm. In some cases it is to both remove you from harm AND put you into tactically superior position.
In Michigan you MUST retreat if you can, safely.. but safely is implied in the definition of retreat.. the Natl Guardsman turned attorney turned county prosecutor at my CPL class went into this in great detail..
Speaking solely for myself, I also have problems with SYG laws. I suggest that we do not confuse what my be legally permissible with what is ethically required. By that I mean that although I may have a legal right to use deadly force in a situation, if I have a completely clear means of escape without any risk to myself and others, I believe I have an ethical duty to so retreat. Just my opinion...
Best way to win a gun fight? "That's easy, don't show up."
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything."
-- Wyatt Earp
Where applicable, you have a duty to avoid the danger if possible, and only if that action of avoidance does not expose you to more danger.
That does not mean "avoiding danger", but "avoiding THE danger", i.e., you don't have to stay home after dark because it's more dangerous at night. But if from 40' away, 5 tough guys yell out "Come down here and we'll kill you" and you can move fast back to a busy street and call 911, well..... do that, don't start galloping towards them yelling "NO YOU'LL DIE TRASH AND SCUM OF THE EARTH COWARDS!"
And, if someone has you in a choke-hold with a knife pressed into your neck, you don't have to try and pivot around to run - because you will increase the chance your throat will be slit in one movement.
It works like that...
I had always understood the 'duty to retreat' idea to mean some type of provable effort to de-escalate a situation by simply moving away from it. (not fleeing, but just moving off or turning away in order to keep the peace). Personally, I don't see how that might help because if you find yourself in a situation where turning away could or should happen, it is most likely already too late for that to work.
The problem revolves around lawyers, cops and courts. We all have to understand that other people (who don't necessarily have our best interests in mind), are going to be looking hard at just what happened in any situation in which our use of a firearm is involved. Right or wrong, self-defense or not, our problems won't end when the gun smoke clears. They are really just beginning, and in some states the 'duty to retreat' will be a big part of the discussion.
Yes, that's it in NY. I don't know about other states but it's phrased as retreating and in a more general way, avoiding the necessity to shoot if you can safely do so without incurring more danger.
If you don't, it's not Self-Defense where there is no choice and someone is there to do you grave harm with no options left to you. If there are other and safe options you could choose but don't and instead choose the danger, well... clearly it's a different horse than SD.
That's fine with me, follows the historical sense of SD back to the Middle-Ages, a last resort.
Why would you want to kill someone you don't have to...
In Virginia I have no idea what I am supposed to do if threatened. We have no castle doctrine and no stand your ground doctrine. I do know that if we are part of the provocation you had better well be getting your butt beat before you defend yourself. The VCDL is trying to write some legislation that puts all of the onus on the bad guy. The problem is who is going to be the first to test new legislation. I frankly do not have a great deal of confidence in the country's jurisprudence anymore so I will always do what I feel is necessary...not that which seems prudent.
In Ohio 2008 we got the castle doctrine. We in no way have to retreat in our home or car. That does not mean in public we don't have to try to get out of harms way. In public we need to prove we tried to get our of harms way and in no way started anything that caused the harm we were worried about happening.
Our House Is Protected By The Good Lord And A gun. You Might Meet Both Of Them If You Show Up Inside My House Uninvited.
"...IF with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating;"
I can't run without becoming exhausted in seconds - so for me that DISPARITY OF FORCE (another legal principal) - plus that clause - holds true. I CAN'T Run without exposing myself to more danger. So, I am not legally required to do so. Nor are you required to do anything you can't do.
However, if someone was far away and started to run at me pulling out a knife and I was a few steps away from a Police Station and instead of just going in I waited til the guy was in my sights and then shot him - well, in that case I CHOSE that, when I could have chosen safety.
It's relatively easy, least from afar, to use the concept of CHOICE. If you have NO CHOICE but to shoot, it's SD. If you have a CHOICE TO MAKE YOU SAFE and instead you CHOOSE TO SHOOT then it's not that you are a victim solely. You become a willing participant. And SD is not for people who decide - even though other and safer options are there - instead to kill.
And what if someone choosing something safer is followed by the BG taking an action that makes his position THEN "do or die" (say he moves into the Police Station and the one officer visible has his gun holstered, doesn't even hear all of what you say before the BG bursts in with a gun in one hand a the knife in another)? - well NOW you have no choice, "do or TWO die" so now it's legally and in all ways: SD.
If people would rather kill when they don't have to well.... remind me to avoid that area or them. They could kill me or someone else who is innocent of anything by mistaking an action of mine - and instead of doing something safe, would kill me. If they had done something available that was safe, they would quickly have found that I was no actual threat. But too late for me if they don't like doing that - I'd be a prone and lifeless body by then.
And as for me being the one doing the killing when I don't have to: