[cool45auto]

I was reading a Massad Ayoob article today and it mentioned the "retreat" law in whatever state the story took place in. I took it to mean if you can retreat that's exactly what you should do instead of sticking around in a situation. Packing.org seems to be down right now and I'd like to know if Georgia has a law like this or not.

[Baba Louie]

cool9

http://www.snesl.edu/codes.htm

Check out GA, Look through Section 16.3.21... link below

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-3-21

You may want to cruise through the remainder of Section 16 as it pertains to criminal justice, etc. and see if any other language exists that might limit your actions for a self defense situation.
Retreat is always a good option to pursue first in any case unless you wear a badge...

The top link is a connection to each states revised statutes and is worth bookmarking if such things interest you.

Hope that helps a little.

Adios

[tetleyb]

I've heard of this "retreat" law in some states. I think its stupid. From my understanding, when confronted by someone who intends to do you or your loved ones bodily harm, you have to retreat to the farthest place away from your attacker in which you can.

Even here, in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia we don't have such stupid laws. If he, she, it is attacking you, intending on doing you serious bodily harm, I say, "Put two bullets in its chest, and two bullets in its head." End of story...

[dfariswheel]

The more liberal states have these things. There have been cases in the Eastern US where people retreated almost all the way to their back door before shooting, and liberal DA's have still made noises about prosecuting for not retreating far enough.

Interesting, the law in Texas used to be, "A man is not required to retreat beyond the air at his back".

[tetleyb]

Liberal states? Nothing personal here, but how much more liberal, in the United States, can you get then California?

[goalie]

Minnesota has a retreat clause, however, one need not retreat in his/her own home, one only needs to CONSIDER retreat.

[Redlg155]

Most states have what is referred to as the "castle doctrine" where you do not have to retreat in your own home. As mentioned previously, there are even some states where you must retreat at all costs. :rolleyes:

Here in FL you are a dead duck if a BG tries a stunt like that.

On the other hand if you are in public and engage in a shooting in a situation where you could have safely disengaged from the situation, then you may be held liable in certain situations.

Ex... A man threatens you with a knife while you are in your vehicle. Instead of driving off you decided to shoot.

In the above situation you could be held liable.

Good Shooting
Red

[Walosi]

I can't find the reference, but a case went before the Kentucky Supreme Court in the mid-late 1800s. The court ruled that a Kentuckian was under no obligation to retreat when threatened. Old-fashioned common sense. Can't beat it.

[Lone_Gunman]

Old fashioned common sense to me would mean to first try to avoid being in a bad situation, secondly trying to get away from a bad situation (retreat) if possible, and lastly, and only lastly, using your gun to defend yourself.

Retreat may not always be an option, but if you can retreat you probably should for several reasons:

It will make you look good to law enforcement and the DA when they try to determine if the shooting was justified. I suspect they will flat out ask you if you could have retreated.

It will make you look good to a jury that you did everything you could to avoid conflict.

You wont have to live with the consequences of having to shoot someone, or being shot yourself.

I really don't want to have to shoot someone unless there is no other choice.

[Walosi]

No intelligent person wants to engage in a gunfight. The outstanding point of the Kentucky ruling is that it removes artificially imposed restrictions. Anyone interested in their own defense has considered their options, whether through "dreams of glory" imaginings or practical planning, etc., etc. The "retreat" requirements, IMO, have been imposed by those who consider themselves capable of dictating actions of others because of the "I am more intelligent, and that is what I would do" syndrome.

[Glock_PhD]

It realy depends on how you interpret retreat. Obvioulsy if you can safel;y extract yourself and anyone else necesary from a situation you are retreating. Hopefully to a positive end. The problem comes when others interpret this to mean that no matter what you have to run away, when sometimes that will get you hurt or dead in a hurry.

[Nero Steptoe]

You don't have to retreat in GA. Suggest that you do some reading by somebody more authoritative than the source that you quoted. (Or talk with a real lawyer, judge, d.a., etc.)

[Hkmp5sd]

Even if retreating is not required by local statutes, you would be wise to retreat if safe to do so. But ONLY if it is safe to do so. Do not put yourself in greater danger in the process.

The aftermath of shooting a BG will not be fun and will most likely be very expensive for you.

[Chipperman]

Well, you can't can much more liberal than MA, but they do a few things right.

Mass General Laws
See below:

Chapter 278: Section 8A Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.



:cool:

[answerguy]

Ex... A man threatens you with a knife while you are in your vehicle. Instead of driving off you decided to shoot.

Consider this; you do drive off and the next person the BG confronts gets knifed.

Minnesota has a retreat clause, however, one need not retreat in his/her own home, one only needs to CONSIDER retreat.

I consider recoil to be a form of retreat. Does that count?

The aftermath of shooting a BG will not be fun and will most likely be very expensive for you.

Do you have any proof of that? What percentage of defensive shootings that become legal quagmires for the good guy equals 'most likely'?

[Hkmp5sd]

Consider this; you do drive off and the next person the BG confronts gets knifed.

Has absolutely NO bearing on your actions during a confrontation with an armed BG. If the BG presents an immediate threat, you can either eliminate the threat or exit the scene. What the BG might do in the future is not justification for the use of deadly force by a non-LEO.

Do you have any proof of that? What percentage of defensive shootings that become legal quagmires for the good guy equals 'most likely'?

Living with the fact you shot and/or killed someone is not fun.

If you shoot someone, even if it turns out justified, you will be questioned by the police. It is stupid to allow yourself to be interrogated without having a lawyer present. Lawyers are not cheap, especially one that specializes in self-defense. If fact, it is highly recommended that you keep just such an attorney on retainer just in case you are involved in a shooting.

Even in the event the shooting is ruled justified, you can count on being sued for injury or wrongful death. Someone in the BG's family is going to find an ambulance chaser and go after you. If you read the newspaper regularly, you will see it happening very frequently. Once they get done with you, they are then going after the manufacturer of the firearm you used.

If you desire to ignore the realities of a self-defense shooting and trust in your legal abilities to ensure your rights are protected and you don't make some dumb comment during questioning, so be it.

[DMK]

According to the CCW video I just saw and the test I just took, NC does have a law where if somebody is in your house, you are required to retreat if possible. :scrutiny: You are also required to retreat if possible when attacked out and about.

However, we just had a real case here in Asheville where a pharmacist literally ran out after a guy who tried to hold him up and emptied his revolver at the BG as he ran away. The authorities never did press any charges on him. :confused:

[pax]

Good question for the Legal and Political forum, which is the place for questions about laws & politics.

pax

[answerguy]

Even in the event the shooting is ruled justified, you can count on being sued for injury or wrongful death. Someone in the BG's family is going to find an ambulance chaser and go after you. If you read the newspaper regularly, you will see it happening very frequently. Once they get done with you, they are then going after the manufacturer of the firearm you used.

You state it as fact, but it just isn't true. And besides what it 'might' cost in legal fees should have no bearing on what you should do in a situation like this.

[Gray Peterson]

Even in the event the shooting is ruled justified, you can count on being sued for injury or wrongful death. Someone in the BG's family is going to find an ambulance chaser and go after you.

You act as if every act of self defense is going to net you a wrongful death lawsuit. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Scaremongering like this only makes people second guess pulling the trigger in a self defense gun use situation. That is what can get you, and even worse, your entire family killed.

Look, only lawyers with a POLITICAL AGENDA would go after someone who doesn't have a whole bunch of money. One word that puts the brakes on any legal brouhaha is bankruptcy. Their attempts at trying to take everything you own would be stopped pat.

That being said, the laws do need to be changed to stop the lawyers with a political agenda. There was a bill in Texas intro'd by Rep. Suzanna Hupp to say that unless you were convicted of a crime in relation to shooting someone, you cannot be sued, period.

[Shamaya]

What percentage of defensive shootings that become legal quagmires for the good guy equals 'most likely'?We've tried to pin that down, but it's hard enough coming up with the self-defensive shootings when they happen: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/OpSD/

We DO have more than a few anecdotal stories from real people who've had their lives ruined in the courts after having literally saved people's lives from certain extermination by BG's. Got one in last month from a man who owned a bar. Man came in and shot one of his patrons. He pulled her to safety and shot the BG dead. The woman whose life he saved sued him out of the bar -- because she got shot in his bar. He is still unable to find gainful employment in any kind of bar or restaurant management -- even though he did what had to be done. So it does indeed happen, as hkmp5sd says.

But Lon's right:Scaremongering like this only makes people second guess pulling the trigger in a self defense gun use situation. That is what can get you, and even worse, your entire family killed.I'd rather be sued into oblivion and left with only the shirt on my back than have my wife or son harmed because I concerned myself with whether or not I might be sued and thus hesitated an extra half second that cost either of their their lives.One word that puts the brakes on any legal brouhaha is bankruptcy. Their attempts at trying to take everything you own would be stopped pat.A proper UCC-1 filing is protection against any kind of lein or judgment. I've got one against my name, in case anyone ever comes after me wrongfully. We just put one against a FEMA officer's name, in the event that he has to plug a BG and gets sued. There ARE protections you can put in place against such things.

The best protection would be to pass laws in each state, or federally, the likes of what South Carolina AG Condon did when he "declared open season on home invaders":
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=1804

He basically said, paraphrased, "blast any scumsucking bottomfeeder who invades your home, and his family can't try to sue you for ridding society of a piece of human crap". I may have embellished a bit, but that's my interpretation, anyway. ;)

[gunsmith]

A proper UCC-1 filing is protection against any kind of lein or judgment
that sounds real interesting!
can you please tell us (me)
what that is?
I never heard of it...

[Hkmp5sd]

And besides what it 'might' cost in legal fees should have no bearing on what you should do in a situation like this.

I agree totally. I am merely of the opinion that IF you have the option of shooting OR leaving and it does not place you in any extra danger, leaving is the better choice. Besides, there is the possibility that the BG is a better shot than you. In which case, "I consider recoil to be a form of retreat." will make a nice quote on your headstone.

You act as if every act of self defense is going to net you a wrongful death lawsuit. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Not at all. I simply think it is important to know what can happen following a shooting and be prepared for it. You plan ahead and own, carry and practice with a firearm just in case you may need to defend yourself someday. Why would you not prepare for your legal needs in the event it happens?

And while I am no means an expert on the subject, Massad Ayoob has stated in several books and articles that even if you are 100% justified in a self-defense shooting, you are still looking at upards of $50,000 in legal fees. Given that he is a court recognized expert on the subject and testifies as an expert, I guess he should know.

[fish2xs]

Hkmp5sd and Lone_Gunman are right on the money.

Retreat clauses are for outside the home (and in most cases outside your privately owned business).

Inside the home, once you have determined a BG is the one making the bump-in-the-night, unleash the buckshot - especially if they have a visible weapon of any sort. An (occupied) home invasion takes brass ones (no pun intended). You cannot expect to reason with someone who does that.

[Andrew Rothman]

Inside the home, once you have determined a BG is the one making the bump-in-the-night, unleash the buckshot - especially if they have a visible weapon of any sort. An (occupied) home invasion takes brass ones (no pun intended). You cannot expect to reason with someone who does that.

None of us is a lawyer (I think) but this is not entirely true in every state.

For example, in MN, there is no duty to retreat in the home, but the rest of the limitations apply:

You must be in a situation that would
(A)
...(1)cause a reasonable person to believe that you or someone else was
...(2)a reluctant participant in
...(3)imminent risk of
...(4)GBH or death, or
(B)preventing a FELONY in your home. (B&E is not a felony in MN).

So if a drunk neighbor, an Alzheimer's patient or a teenager looking for kicks breaks down your door in MN, and you shoot `em, you might go to jail.

An excellent -- nay, essential -- book to read if you carry in Minnesota is "Everything you need to know about (legally) carrying a handgun in Minnesota" by Joel Rosenberg. http://www.ellegon.com/features/data/orderingthebook/

Even after taking a state-sanctioned class, I got this book and learned a TON more.

Matt

[Cosmoline]

It's absurd to stand your ground, out in the open, unless there is no other choice. Assuming you have a chance, you should always take the opportunity to get behind cover and in a better killing poisition.

[cool45auto]

Thanks for everyone's replies! Lots of good info from everyone.

BTW: Sorry Pax, I should have put it here in the first place.:rolleyes: