Don't stand your ground, retreat and get shot at!

This is a discussion on Don't stand your ground, retreat and get shot at! within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; That's what "THEY'D" (liberal antis) would have you do... Get shot at anyway... Not for me thanks... Story here: http://m.pjstar.com/jstar/pm_29463/c...tguid=pC4AIGeC Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. ...

Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By msgt/ret
  • 2 Post By shadowwalker
  • 1 Post By StormRhydr

Thread: Don't stand your ground, retreat and get shot at!

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,100

    Don't stand your ground, retreat and get shot at!

    That's what "THEY'D" (liberal antis) would have you do...

    Get shot at anyway...

    Not for me thanks...

    Story here: http://m.pjstar.com/jstar/pm_29463/c...tguid=pC4AIGeC



    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,087
    His mistake was that he ran, according to the anti-self-defense radicals you must curl up in a fetal position and softly whimper, “Don’t hurt me”, if you do that all will be well.
    StormRhydr and blitzburgh like this.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array shadowwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ghost Ridge USA
    Posts
    1,532
    Here's the set up a guy breaks into my house I say its better for both of us if you leave, he says no its your duty to retreat I say can't run because of bad knees and hip also bad heart and you are making me afraid and I may die any minute. Bad guy says to bad for you, I say no to bad for you Bang, Bang,bang. Officer he was going to use stun gun on me and I know that will kill me and I can't run and I had to protect my wife, will he make it. Officer, no sir he did not make it, I say to bad
    manolito and msgt/ret like this.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,458
    Guy should have been armed with a girl friend or wife fully loaded with three bowls of chili and a 12 pack of beer.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    That's what "THEY'D" (liberal antis) would have you do...

    Get shot at anyway...

    Not for me thanks...

    Story here: Journal Star : Shot fired as Peorian flees from armed robber



    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    When there is a legal necessity to retreat, the wording legally is usually, e.g. ".....necessity to avoid the danger unless doing so will place the person (victim) in as much or more danger. So, no, you are not required to even turn your back to someone who is - or even reasonably appears - to have the means to cause you serious injury or death if you do so. Including someone with no weapon but that you Reasonably believe can immediately do great bodily harm or kill you if you turn to run. ("Reasonable" in the legal sense: what a fictitious Every Man would believe if faced with the same circumstances.) .

    I know of no law anywhere that requires you retreat first no matter what.

    Take away that misconception and you have a very good law and one that synchs with the historical principles of Self-Defense we inherited from Medieval England:
    Killing a man as a choice when another choice of safety is available to you that would harm no one and you instead choose to kill is not Self-Defense, it's a choice that is not necessary to take a life. Since it's easy to be wrong in these situations - the man at night who started to pull out a knife from his pocket from 30' away and looked like he could run at you, - instead of just pulling away in your already running car and being safe quickly, you aim at with your gun and hit and kill. And then find out the knife he's pulling out of his pocket is a cell phone: He though YOU were a mugger. and tried to call 911. So, you killed a man you didn't have to but chose to instead of achieving safety by just stepping on your gas pedal - and moreover, you unnecessarily also killed an innocent man.

    For good reason you'd be in deep doo-doo in many places I know, including England 700 years ago with the same circumstances and substituting equivalents from the period for a car and a gun (bow and arrow perhaps). The magistrate would not author a petition based on Self-Defense to ask the King to pardon you - how SD worked in that time.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,100
    Quote Originally Posted by detective View Post
    When there is a legal necessity to retreat, the wording legally is usually, e.g. ".....necessity to avoid the danger unless doing so will place the person (victim) in as much or more danger. So, no, you are not required to even turn your back to someone who is - or even reasonably appears - to have the means to cause you serious injury or death if you do so. Including someone with no weapon but that you Reasonably believe can immediately do great bodily harm or kill you if you turn to run. ("Reasonable" in the legal sense: what a fictitious Every Man would believe if faced with the same circumstances.) .

    I know of no law anywhere that requires you retreat first no matter what.

    Take away that misconception and you have a very good law and one that synchs with the historical principles of Self-Defense we inherited from Medieval England:
    Killing a man as a choice when another choice of safety is available to you that would harm no one and you instead choose to kill is not Self-Defense, it's a choice that is not necessary to take a life. Since it's easy to be wrong in these situations - the man at night who started to pull out a knife from his pocket from 30' away and looked like he could run at you, - instead of just pulling away in your already running car and being safe quickly, you aim at with your gun and hit and kill. And then find out the knife he's pulling out of his pocket is a cell phone: He though YOU were a mugger. and tried to call 911. So, you killed a man you didn't have to but chose to instead of achieving safety by just stepping on your gas pedal - and moreover, you unnecessarily also killed an innocent man.

    For good reason you'd be in deep doo-doo in many places I know, including England 700 years ago with the same circumstances and substituting equivalents from the period for a car and a gun (bow and arrow perhaps). The magistrate would not author a petition based on Self-Defense to ask the King to pardon you - how SD worked in that time.
    From: The Self Defense Cases by Kopel. Link

    The law was clear that people did not have to retreat from their own homes when attacked. [FN146] Beard, though, was on his farmland, not in his *307 home. [FN147] The Supreme Court rejected the trial court's distinction between the home and the rest of a person's land. [FN148] The Court reviewed various decisions from state courts, and from British and American legal commentators, all of which said that victims have no duty to retreat. [FN149] Thus, the Court stated:

    [Beard] was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury. [FN150]

    Quoting from leading state supreme court cases, Justice Harlan explained that a man is not obliged to flee from an assailant. [FN151] Indeed, "the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed." [FN152]

    In rejecting a duty to retreat, the Supreme Court was following a very strong trend from Nineteenth Century American state courts - a trend which rejected the medieval English doctrine requiring "retreat to the wall." [FN153] Several years later, the Minnesota Supreme Court suggested that one reason for the abandonment of the retreat doctrine had been the spread of firearms:
    The doctrine of 'retreat to the wall' had its origin before the general introduction of guns. . . . It would be good sense for the law to require in many cases, an attempt to escape from hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs, and even knives. . .while it would be rank folly to so require when experienced men, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or do great bodily harm. [FN154]

    Of course, technological changes were not the only issue. A bold, young nation, sure of its rising power, thought, as the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote, that self-defense was no mere privilege, but rather a "divine right." [FN155] The doctrine of retreat "may have been all right in the days of chivalry, so called," but it had nothing to do with American legal principles.
    Of course the Beard case centered on Beard's own land, but there are other cases where it has been shown that Americans did not cotton to the olde "retreat to the wall" of Britain...

    Most of our states, had no laws of duty to retreat... and then they were enacted, and now they are writing SYG back into the law... Most states, even without "castle doctrine," do not require retreat in one's own home... but elsewhere if one can retreat safely...
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array StormRhydr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Music City, USA
    Posts
    2,866
    The duty to retreat never did work well when it came to guns. If the attacker has a gun, how do you outrun a bullet?
    OldVet likes this.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,100
    Quote Originally Posted by StormRhydr View Post
    The duty to retreat never did work well when it came to guns. If the attacker has a gun, how do you outrun a bullet?

    Only if you have this:

    320px-The_Flash's_Costume_Ring.jpg
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array tdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,545
    Duty to retreat has led to horrific crimes by merciless criminals. When the intended victims defended them and theirs we repeatedly saw over zealous attorney's (Janet Reno comes to mind) victimizing the victims through alternative means. The right of self defense has not been"Dangerously expanded" by SYG it has been restored after DTR has been found to primarily benefit criminal predators and corrupt politicians.

  11. #10
    Ex Member Array detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    buffalo NY
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by StormRhydr View Post
    The duty to retreat never did work well when it came to guns. If the attacker has a gun, how do you outrun a bullet?
    Again, no one in any part of the U.S. (that I ever heard of) has an actual "duty to retreat", althoug the use of that catch-phrase understandably confuses people. You are required to "avoid the danger" if you can do so in safety. Running from someone holding a gun on you, as you rightly point out, would be suicide. So shooting to stop the impending attack would be perfectly legal and true Self-Defense. This "avoiding" was meant for less dire situations than someone already pointing a gun at you.

    Perhaps something like this would illustrate what I mean: Driving along a Thruway in a rural area you pull over to the side of the road and stop, get out of the car to check the tires, you heard a weird sound coming from one. It seems fine and as you walk around to the drivers side to get back in your car, a passing car slows, a man in the passenger seat sticks a gun out of his opened window and fires, misses, and zooms away. Instead of just staying there in safety and calling 911 you see the car exit into a rest stop in the distance; you jump in your car, follow 3 min. behind into the same rest stop, see the car in the lot with two men leaving it, run up and shoot them both from behind. Bad move: wrong car, wrong men. You suddenly see a black car leaving the gas-up area a distance away and roar off back on the highway. You just shot two plain-clothes cops in the back - who happened to be driving a black car very similar to the black car you want, which now, after gassing up, is out sight somewhere down the highway.

    I know that's far-fetched but you get the idea: by not avoiding in safety a perceived attacker you've chosen instead to shoot two people - and here two innocent ones killing one with the other near death. And, In most areas you would now be in great legal trouble but because these are cops the sound of many sirens approaching is the herald of your own "doom".





    /

    Best

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
  •