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 Hillhick I see. It looks like we feel about the same on the issue. It just comes down to semantics. If somebody ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 56 of 56
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: Duty to retreat?

  1. #46
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    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.
    Yeah, I agree, we do feel the same way - gets confusing because people think "retreat" or "avoiding the danger" means "running", which can connote being a coward . I think retreat just means generally opting to retreat from engaging if you have options that would give you safety - could mean running (if you can run, I can't) or a lot of other things.

    I mean, don't know about you, but I'm a sissy, I'll go out of my way to even avoid just walking down a street that looks dark and dangerous - that alone scares me. But like you say, if death is staring me in the face and it's that or my gun - I'll be the first one to use it, or die trying at least. Same if I saw someone else getting killed - if it was that or me intervening - I pray I'd have the courage to try with everything I could to save the person's life. I know that one is controversial, but the law requires you to be careful before you shoot - it doesn't require you to be a coward. If it's time, it's time.

    (And i hope for both of us, that never comes).

    Best

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Member Array Hillhick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Permian Basin
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    Yeah, I agree, we do feel the same way - gets confusing because people think "retreat" or "avoiding the danger" means "running", which can connote being a coward . I think retreat just means generally opting to retreat from engaging if you have options that would give you safety - could mean running (if you can run, I can't) or a lot of other things.

    I mean, don't know about you, but I'm a sissy, I'll go out of my way to even avoid just walking down a street that looks dark and dangerous - that alone scares me. But like you say, if death is staring me in the face and it's that or my gun - I'll be the first one to use it, or die trying at least. Same if I saw someone else getting killed - if it was that or me intervening - I pray I'd have the courage to try with everything I could to save the person's life. I know that one is controversial, but the law requires you to be careful before you shoot - it doesn't require you to be a coward. If it's time, it's time.

    (And i hope for both of us, that never comes).

    Best
    Well, I am probably not as afraid as I should be. I used to drive truck for a living, so I got used to going to some very bad areas. They don't typically build warehouses and factories in nice neighborhoods. It's that old, not in my backyard business. One thing driving a truck did do for me is it taught me about having good SA. I was a rolling target everywhere I went. When you have a reputation of carrying large amounts of cash(truck drivers in general), are driving $150,000 worth of equipment, with all kinds of electronic goodies in the cab, and sometimes millions of dollars of freight on board, it's not hard to see why truckers are targets for BGs. I never really even thought about SD until I drove a truck. When I started driving was when I started thinking that it would be good to get a concealled weapons permit. I never did because I travelled into places where it would have been illegal, places like New York City, Chicago, Canada, California, etc. Now that I no longer drive, it is no longer an issue.

  4. #48
    Member Array Badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I think the thread runs more like must versus should. Avoidance is always the prefered option . . . if available.
    I agree. I am not sure any of what is posted says you MUST, but all seem to say you should. Common sense says if you can do, but also to do what you must and not put yourself in a situation that is more dangerous.
    A word to the wise isn't necessary, save it for the stupid

  5. #49
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by Badbullgator View Post
    I agree. I am not sure any of what is posted says you MUST, but all seem to say you should. Common sense says if you can do, but also to do what you must and not put yourself in a situation that is more dangerous.
    The law being quoted does have a MUST: IF there's a safe way to avoid the situation of having to shoot to begin with and you incur no additional danger to yourself (or others) by doing so, then you must take the safe way.

    Otherwise it's not Self-Defense which means historically: no way out but to use lethal means, do or die etc. (I mean you can't CHOOSE to put yourself into a situation where you have to kill a person when you could have safely avoided the whole thing to begin with and expect it be AOK with the law)

    Anyway, why on earth would anyone WANT to get into a gunfight and either get killed or kill when it's unnecessary. That would be like leaving home to go to work by jumping out the third-floor window instead of just walking out the front door. Who needs it?

  6. #50
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by Hillhick View Post
    Well, I am probably not as afraid as I should be. I used to drive truck for a living, so I got used to going to some very bad areas. They don't typically build warehouses and factories in nice neighborhoods. It's that old, not in my backyard business. One thing driving a truck did do for me is it taught me about having good SA. I was a rolling target everywhere I went. When you have a reputation of carrying large amounts of cash(truck drivers in general), are driving $150,000 worth of equipment, with all kinds of electronic goodies in the cab, and sometimes millions of dollars of freight on board, it's not hard to see why truckers are targets for BGs. I never really even thought about SD until I drove a truck. When I started driving was when I started thinking that it would be good to get a concealled weapons permit. I never did because I travelled into places where it would have been illegal, places like New York City, Chicago, Canada, California, etc. Now that I no longer drive, it is no longer an issue.
    Never realized the danger truckers face - but now that you explain it, makes perfect sense. Very dangerous, especially upon delivery to a bad area. Thanks for wising all of us up.

  7. #51
    Member Array Badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    The law being quoted does have a MUST: IF there's a safe way to avoid the situation of having to shoot to begin with and you incur no additional danger to yourself (or others) by doing so, then you must take the safe way.

    Otherwise it's not Self-Defense which means historically: no way out but to use lethal means, do or die etc. (I mean you can't CHOOSE to put yourself into a situation where you have to kill a person when you could have safely avoided the whole thing to begin with and expect it be AOK with the law)

    Anyway, why on earth would anyone WANT to get into a gunfight and either get killed or kill when it's unnecessary. That would be like leaving home to go to work by jumping out the third-floor window instead of just walking out the front door. Who needs it?
    What "law being quoted" are you talking about? The OP is from Texas and the only law on this thread that says anything about retreating is a NY law that says

    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

    Even this does not say MUST.
    A word to the wise isn't necessary, save it for the stupid

  8. #52
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    I'd rather be a bigger man and walk away from a possibly deadly confrontation.

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    I'd rather be a bigger man and walk away from a possibly deadly confrontation.
    Sometime the confrontation comes to you and there's no escape. It's got nothing to do with being a "bigger man."
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  10. #54
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by Badbullgator View Post
    What "law being quoted" are you talking about? The OP is from Texas and the only law on this thread that says anything about retreating is a NY law that says

    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

    Even this does not say MUST.
    It says he MAY NOT, which is putting it in the negative - he MAY NOT travel through a red light, is the same as saying HE MUST stop at a red light - or HAS TO or is COMPELLED TO which is phrasing it in the positive. Whatever, it's not a choice but a prescribed legal bar to an action, in this case, shooting instead of taking a safe avenue out of the danger when it exists - (unless one of the three conditions which follow are present. Absent one of those three conditions, he can't legally shoot when he could be safe.)

  11. #55
    Member Array Badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    It says he MAY NOT, which is putting it in the negative - he MAY NOT travel through a red light, is the same as saying HE MUST stop at a red light - or HAS TO or is COMPELLED TO which is phrasing it in the positive. Whatever, it's not a choice but a prescribed legal bar to an action, in this case, shooting instead of taking a safe avenue out of the danger when it exists - (unless one of the three conditions which follow are present. Absent one of those three conditions, he can't legally shoot when he could be safe.)
    The "unless" statement is what I am referring too. "B and C" are pretty good cover all statements along with "reasonably believes". I would bet I could prove a "reasonable belief" for most any of the conditions described (speaking of a true self defense shooting, not a questionable shooting attempting to use SD as a defense). Disproving a "reasonable belief" would be very difficult. Again all pertaining to good defensive shootings. A defendant well versed in "I feared for my live and safety" goes a long way.
    The long and short of it is very few people serve time for good defensive shootings regardless of the wording of the law.
    A word to the wise isn't necessary, save it for the stupid

  12. #56
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by Badbullgator View Post
    The "unless" statement is what I am referring too. "B and C" are pretty good cover all statements along with "reasonably believes". I would bet I could prove a "reasonable belief" for most any of the conditions described (speaking of a true self defense shooting, not a questionable shooting attempting to use SD as a defense). Disproving a "reasonable belief" would be very difficult. Again all pertaining to good defensive shootings. A defendant well versed in "I feared for my live and safety" goes a long way.
    The long and short of it is very few people serve time for good defensive shootings regardless of the wording of the law.
    A "Reasonable Belief" is what anyone would believe under the same circumstances. So, the prosecutor would detail all circumstances that existed that you acted under and ask of the Jury if, given those, your actions seem reasonable.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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.