Duty to retreat? - Page 3

Duty to retreat?

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 ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: Duty to retreat?

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,851
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    Here's one for you with no specific conditions attached.
    FL 776.013:
    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    There is no mention of having to make any attempt to evade or avoid, although a prudent person would hopefully take the opportunity to do both before having to pull a trigger.
    Everything's subjective when viewed from the lens of the "reasonable man" standard, of course. Those are conditions, determinable after the fact, and subject to change over time as the community changes. Hopefully a person's sufficiently in-tune with his/her community's mind on such things. Nothing's perfect. The "reasonable man" standard's about as good as it gets, presuming it's also surrounded by stout "castle" protections.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array shadowwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ghost Ridge USA
    Posts
    2,167
    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

  3. #33
    Member Array JasonJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    263
    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..

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    669
    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...
    Ogre likes this.
    Best way to win a gun fight? "That's easy, don't show up."
    --Wyatt Earp

    "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything."
    -- Wyatt Earp

  5. #35
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    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...

  6. #36
    Member Array AngryBadger417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Good ole West Virginia
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    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...

    ^^this is exactly how I interpret the duty to retreat clause, even though my state does not have one I think anyone who carries a gun should always try to do this, even if it isn't required by law
    detective likes this.

  7. #37
    Member Array billstaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    203
    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.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. #38
    Member Array romansten9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by dbglock View Post
    That's just ignorant. You have absolutely no grounds to make such a statement.
    He has plenty of grounds to make such a statement! And I would guess that the vast majority of like minded gun owners on this website would agree with such an obvious and PROVEN statement. Many liberals, democrats and the UN are not exactly willing to accept the right to keep and bear arms.

  9. #39
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by KyTopGun View Post
    While researching Massad Ayoob's version of the Frank Magliato case, I found the NY statute concerning deadly force. This is part of it, bolding of text is mine:

    2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
    under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
    (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
    about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
    actor 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:
    (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
    (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
    officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
    section 35.30; or
    (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
    or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
    sexual act or robbery; or
    (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
    or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
    the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
    section 35.20.

    Notice "with complete personal safety". I read that to mean if one is able to safely avoid using deadly force, he must do so.
    Well, do or die - that's what it's saying, that's the predicament you have to be in to claim legal SD. The choice becomes that.

    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...

  10. #40
    Ex Member Array lizjimbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    157
    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.

  11. #41
    Member Array Hillhick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Permian Basin
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Well, do or die - that's what it's saying, that's the predicament you have to be in to claim legal SD. The choice becomes that.

    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...
    Well, that's all fine and dany but I'm not about to retreat if there's a BG in my face and morally and ethically it is still SD. My original post was more about whether there is any wiggle room for duty to retreat in places that require it. There are alot of us that don't have that option. No reasonable person can expect those of us that have disabilities to run away from a BG. Places like NY are not known for having reasonable laws, or any other place with a duty to retreat. Thank God, I am from Texas. I can put up a decent fight, but running is out of the question. I do good to walk. I will always avoid trouble when I can, but there will be no running away if I am on foot. Bottom line is that for people with disabilities, we are going to have to have way more SA than other people because we can't run and if that disability is obvious it will make us a more attractive target to the BGs. I, for one, refuse to be anybody's victim. They want to come after me, they better be prepared to fight. I will fight to win, and I won't fight fair.

  12. #42
    Member Array minimalbrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    370
    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.

  13. #43
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    a
    Quote Originally Posted by Hillhick View Post
    Well, that's all fine and dany but I'm not about to retreat if there's a BG in my face and morally and ethically it is still SD. My original post was more about whether there is any wiggle room for duty to retreat in places that require it. There are alot of us that don't have that option. No reasonable person can expect those of us that have disabilities to run away from a BG. Places like NY are not known for having reasonable laws, or any other place with a duty to retreat. Thank God, I am from Texas. I can put up a decent fight, but running is out of the question. I do good to walk. I will always avoid trouble when I can, but there will be no running away if I am on foot. Bottom line is that for people with disabilities, we are going to have to have way more SA than other people because we can't run and if that disability is obvious it will make us a more attractive target to the BGs. I, for one, refuse to be anybody's victim. They want to come after me, they better be prepared to fight. I will fight to win, and I won't fight fair.
    Yes, you're right, and I have a disability too. But that clause says:

    "...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.

    No thanks.

    And as for me being the one doing the killing when I don't have to:

    No thanks.

  14. #44
    Member Array Hillhick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Permian Basin
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    a

    Yes, you're right, and I have a disability too. But that clause says:

    "...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.
    I see. It looks like we feel about the same on the issue. It just comes down to semantics. If somebody is too far away from me to hurt me, then are they a danger to me or just a potential danger? If I then go a different direction to avoid them, say like into s police station, isn't that danger avoidance and not retreating at that point? My thought is that it isn't retreating until you are in immediate danger and you try to get away, at which point it would become impossible for me to run. Of course in your scenario I would try to avoid him by stepping into the police station. I no of nobody that actually wishes to kill another human being, thank God. I certainly don't. I would rather avoid a situatiob where I might have to, but if I ever am in that situation I will do what I have to.

  15. #45
    Member Array Hillhick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Permian Basin
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Hillhick View Post
    I see. It looks like we feel about the same on the issue. It just comes down to semantics. If somebody is too far away from me to hurt me, then are they a danger to me or just a potential danger? If I then go a different direction to avoid them, say like into s police station, isn't that danger avoidance and not retreating at that point? My thought is that it isn't retreating until you are in immediate danger and you try to get away, at which point it would become impossible for me to run. Of course in your scenario I would try to avoid him by stepping into the police station. I no of nobody that actually wishes to kill another human being, thank God. I certainly don't. I would rather avoid a situatiob where I might have to, but if I ever am in that situation I will do what I have to.
    Sorry about the spelling. Fat fingers on a little phone screen....

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

chicago duty to retreat
,
cwp laws sc duty to retreat
,
do peace officer have the duty to retreat new york
,
does ri conealed carry law require a duty to retreat
,
duty to retreat burden
,
duty to retreat burden of proof
,
duty to retreat recent cases
,
duty to retreat wisconsin
,
exception retreat handicap
,

how many states have duty to retreat

,
retreat possible without incurring further risk
,
retreat without incurring further risk
Click on a term to search for related topics.