Duty to retreat...why?


PDA






bennadatto
March 17, 2010, 01:31 PM
This is a piggy back from another thread going. Mods, I debated putting this in legal or general. Please move if you see fit.

What would be a logical reason that someone would be in favor of duty to retreat legislation? What I am talking about is...if someone breaks in your house, you are legally compelled to flee your residence, or at least hole up in a room to hopefully wait out the break in. What would be the logic in that?

The only thing I can think of is that the State is attempting to keep you safe by having you avoid a potential confrontation with a bad guy.

Can anyone else think of any other logical reasons to support this idea?

PS: Please provide serious answers only.

If you enjoyed reading about "Duty to retreat...why?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
oneounceload
March 17, 2010, 01:48 PM
So you don't kill the BG and thereby give the gov't more reason for higher taxes to arrest, try and incarcerate him? (HEAVY sarcasm)

There are no logical reasons that I can see, only emotional/feel-good ones pushed by folks who think the criminals have more rights than you do to your stuff, and the gov't exists to take care of you

Silent Rifleman
March 17, 2010, 01:51 PM
I think the majority of it is based on the Brady bunch's misinformation.

They honestly think that Castle doctrine means you can shoot someone in the face for looking at you the wrong way.

Owen Sparks
March 17, 2010, 01:53 PM
First of all to understand the context of your question it is important to understand what government is:

Government is a monopoly on the use of force.

Authority tends to see any individualís use of force, even in self-defense as a threat to that monopoly and possession of weapons as a symbol of defiance.

This collectivist mindset is much more prevalent in some places than others. For example, there is no duty to retreat in my rural Southern state as we have a castle doctrine and local law enforcement generally believe in the right of people to keep (but not bear) arms. But this attitude changes dramatically in the larger cities of the North East.

budiceman
March 17, 2010, 01:54 PM
To make a thief's job safer!

rattletrap1970
March 17, 2010, 01:55 PM
I would move out of a state that had a duty to retreat law, just out of principal.

mljdeckard
March 17, 2010, 02:00 PM
Understand that in states with Castle Doctrine, duty to retreat does not apply in your home, only outside your home.

Also understand that regardless of the law, we should all do everything we can to avoid using deadly force. If I can retreat instead of fire, I will do so, regardless of what the law says I MIGHT be able to get away with.

Owen Sparks
March 17, 2010, 02:01 PM
Ever seen the video of police doing door-to-door gun confiscations in New Orleans?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

There were some law enforcement volunteers from my part of the South who went down there to help. Some of them actually refused to participate in unconstitutional searches and were sent home by the federal authorities. The feds simply got another group of cops from up North to do the job. Therefore, I stand by my earlier generalization that:

Authority tends to see your gun as a threat to their monopoly on the use of force and a symbol of defiance.

Certainly not all patrolmen share this attitude; especially those from the rural South and Western states, but a large percentage of police do, especially those higher up on the chain of command. When you look at the upper echelons of law enforcement, police chiefs, state and federal authorities, the FBI etc. this attitude is almost universal.

The Bushmaster
March 17, 2010, 02:04 PM
I wouldn't have the slightest idea. We don't have to "retreat" in Missouri...

supernac
March 17, 2010, 02:11 PM
I wouldn't have the slightest idea. We don't have to "retreat" in Missouri...

We did before the castle doctrine was put in place. Even then, I don’t think it was ever enforced.

Maelstrom
March 17, 2010, 02:11 PM
but a large percentage of police do

What's the percentage? If we're going to invent assumptions then at least humor us with a made up statistic to go along with it so I have something to read while waiting for the dryer to finish up with the towels.

Officers'Wife
March 17, 2010, 02:25 PM
The argument I heard in VA was that possessions were not worth the life of either the homeowner or the attacker. The argument was suspect as the person would not allow rebuttal under 'authority' ergo making it a logical fallacy.

bikerdoc
March 17, 2010, 02:28 PM
Reviewing case law regarding justifiable homicide, reveals phases like.

"having met the duty to make peace and/or retreat"

I dont know your state and would advise talking to the county prosecutor for specific cites and cases. small investment of time for correct info.

Remember every bullet has a lawyer or 2 attached to it.

jimmyraythomason
March 17, 2010, 02:31 PM
Remember every bullet has a lawyer or 2 attached to it.
true that.

Owen Sparks
March 17, 2010, 02:35 PM
The argument I heard in VA was that possessions were not worth the life of either the homeowner or the attacker.

Kind of makes you wonder why we even bother to have law enforcement and a military. If property is never worth a human life, why not just let thieves and foreign invaders take what they want so long as they don't kill anybody?

Officers'Wife
March 17, 2010, 02:35 PM
Remember every bullet has a lawyer or 2 attached to it.

That is one of the most frightening statements I've ever heard.

NMGonzo
March 17, 2010, 02:37 PM
Government is a monopoly on the use of force.


Sir, I applaud you.

Officers'Wife
March 17, 2010, 02:41 PM
I won't go into the whole conversation, the person making the statement was an aide to a democrat representative from the state of Mass. so both his intelligence and sanity must be questioned.

jfh
March 17, 2010, 02:50 PM
Well, there is at least one reason I can think of for a legislator promoting this kind of law. There is an underlying belief in the US that killing someone--justifiable or otherwise--is not a good thing for a society / country to promote. Consequently, legislation such as this reinforces that notion. I'm not sure that belief is such a bad idea. The alternative, perhaps, is what we have seen in certain African nations recently, with their runs on genocide.

Whether or not our society's need for that belief rises to the level of being part of the law is another question.

Jim H.

Zundfolge
March 17, 2010, 02:53 PM
"Duty to retreat" is based on the flawed premise that you do not have a basic human right to self defense. Therefore the state will allow you to practice the privilege of self defense ONLY after you've jumped through their hoops (I'm surprised there isn't some sort of paperwork requirement in "Duty to Retreat" states).

This is an extension of the flawed idea that all rights and privileges are granted by and descend from the state.


Now the excuse given is that if you have a "duty to retreat" than you reduce the effectiveness of people using claims of self defense when they commit pre-meditated murder. No, I'm not sure how that works (seems to me if you're going to lie about being threatened you'll just also lie about your attempt to retreat).

Owen Sparks
March 17, 2010, 02:55 PM
There are basically two views of government. One is of government as an omnipotent master over the individual and the ultimate owner of all property. The other is that government is a servant that derives its power from the people.

Under the second view, the individual is sovereign and has a natural right to his life, liberty and property. This includes the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect these natural rights. The state is simply seen as an employee hired to protect those rights and has no more power than that granted it by the individual.

USAFRetired
March 17, 2010, 02:57 PM
This whole concept goes to the heart of the "personal liberty" / "Don't Tread On Me" resurgence we are seeing.

It should be MY decision to stand and fight or get the wife & kids & myself out the back window.

Personally, I REFUSE to be a victim. If I go down fighting, then the BG(s) is/are going to have to get through a locked door and some 00 buckshot to get to the wife & kids.

But that's just me.

Zundfolge
March 17, 2010, 02:58 PM
Well said Owen.

Manco
March 17, 2010, 03:08 PM
I think this is simply the result of favoring a "pacifist" mindset to the point where fighting for any reason is considered repugnant as well as detrimental to everybody involved. In principle, some dream of a society where the vast majority of people are unwilling or unable to fight anymore, and the few who still do will either be criminals or enforcers, with emphasis on "the few." There are those who even abhor violence against criminals no matter how evil their acts or intended acts, which is definitely an extreme case of fearing and therefore hating violence in the most general sense and as a life philosophy. Note that some elected officials who support such laws exempt themselves from them--they'll gladly take our guns and stuff their own holsters. I guess that makes them enforcers, and they can be very practical when it comes to defending themselves, unlike all of us peons who are compelled by law to be helpless.

That's what I think is going on in some people's heads, and there are definitely many things wrong with such a mindset, in my opinion--just as wrong as those who would attempt to use violence to solve every problem. I doubt that I need to go into great detail on this forum about what's wrong with anti-violence (and anti-gun) philosophies and "duty to retreat" laws, but generally the latter places too much of a legal burden as well as danger on the victims of human predators. The bottom line is that people should have the right to decide whether it is better for them to flee or fight from the outset, as attempting to flee can be unnecessarily dangerous for those who can fight, and those who choose to fight should not face unnecessary legal consequences for harming an assailant, as if they owed them something.

Some politicians who put such a legal burden on victims or potential victims of violent crimes may mean well for society as a whole, but are totally wrongheaded in focusing on avoiding violence itself--even against criminals--rather than understanding the real problems and solutions. The same sort of strange abstract thinking is what makes them consider firearms themselves a problem--they think they can reduce gun violence by taking away guns from anybody they can and making violence illegal (or less legal, anyway) for self-defense. In short, they're nuts because in reality there is good violence and bad violence, as well as good uses for guns and bad uses for guns. They don't look at individual people as being responsible for their own actions, and instead blame inanimate things.

Then of course there's the issue of power. Obviously the more helpless and dependent a government's subjects are, in general, the more power a government will have over them.

Hokkmike
March 17, 2010, 03:11 PM
"Duty to Retreat"? an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Also redundant - I would think that using force as a last resort or final option covers it anyway.

Why would they come up with this gem? Failure to understand what is involved, being misinformed (deliberately or otherwise), or just trying to piecemeal away gun rights.

eye5600
March 17, 2010, 03:22 PM
I think the "duty to retreat" is mostly the same thing as "don't shoot unless your life is in immediate danger." After all, if you can run to the bedroom and lock the door behind you (and wait for 911), then your life isn't in immediate danger (according to the DA). You can raise all all the bogeymen about the state wanting to keep all the power, but the folks writing the law are just trying to keep everyone alive.

Not that I agree. I think that as a matter of tactics, you should make your stand when you still have at least one more redoubt to retreat to. You may need it if your gun jams, or (heaven help you) you need to reload. There are only so many "last chances" that it makes sense to squander.

IMHO, if you retreat once from the point of the initial encounter, and the foe chases you, that should suffice for the purposes of the law. I don't know the details of how the laws are written and/or interpreted.

shockwave
March 17, 2010, 03:38 PM
There a wiki entry for this, with a brief summary here:

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

So first off, it seems that when you are in your home you have a great deal of protection even if your state doesn't have an explicit Castle Doctrine. I am not a lawyer, etc., so that's just my take based on the above entry, consult an attorney if you're unsure.

The duty to retreat actually does make sense in a way, insofar as it suggests that if a dangerous situation is developing around you, and you have a clear and readily available means of departing the area, your first option should be to leave for safer ground.

Werewolf
March 17, 2010, 03:51 PM
Philosophically a duty to retreat results from any belief system that holds that a human life is priceless. Thus if one can safely retreat from a situation where the taking of a human life would be necessary otherwise, retreating is necessary as long as it can be done without endangering one's own life.

That's what I've been told anyway. Discussed it with a priest who was a good friend of my father's years ago and was given essentially the same line of reasoning by my favorite uncle who in his 78 years spent many as both a prosecuting and defense attorney.

Total 100% fully processed organic matter deposited by a horse onto the earth IMO.

The reality is that duty to retreat is all about control. By demanding a duty to retreat government makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens by 2nd guessing their self defense decisions which in fact takes the decision to defend one's self away from the individual and puts it in the hands of the state thus making the individual more dependent on the state for his or her personal safety.

pty101
March 17, 2010, 04:05 PM
The most logical reason to have retreat legislation is to prevent confrontation, but that is not always possible, the brady bunch have a lot to do with it, i guess they think with the castle doctrine they think people with start shooting at anyone who passes by which is just stupid :banghead:

Flame Red
March 17, 2010, 04:08 PM
Ha! No more Duty to Retreat here in Florida. Still, I am sure some Libatard DA can bankrupt you with a charge if he wanted to be a turd. So it is not a permit to be Rambo.

wishin
March 17, 2010, 04:25 PM
"Duty to excercise good judgement" should be the new Duty to Retreat.

Claude Clay
March 17, 2010, 04:25 PM
a lot of good statements--govt/monopoly, lawyers.......

a duty to retreat is misspoke words. as in life one should be observant before an event unfolds. put another way--if i am seeing something that may be becoming a dangerous situtation--than i would already be looking for a way to avoid it from happening. changing my direction--even retracing my steps is a possibility. if retreating did not mitagate the situation before the threat----doubtful it will be of much help after the threat is on you.

being observant helps you in saying to the jury that--i at least tried less lethal before being made to act as i did.

shockwave
March 17, 2010, 04:45 PM
being observant helps you in saying to the jury that--i at least tried less lethal before being made to act as i did.

Right. If, heaven forfend, you find yourself facing a jury and the prosecutor asks you if you tried to leave the scene, and you say no, you may be asked, "why not?" Per the linked article, in some states, Castle Doctrine is interpreted as meaning you do not have a duty to retreat from any place you have a legal right to be. So this is something to understand about your state law.

Even under the strongest legal framework, however, you won't want to be backed into saying that you could have just gotten in your car and driven away, but since you were packin', you decided to administer some street justice.

Owen Sparks
March 17, 2010, 04:55 PM
The state has no duty to retreat. The slightest infraction can be escalated to deadly force if you do not submit. Take the most minor offence you can think of, suppose you get a parking ticket and don’t pay it? Eventually the city will issue a warrant. If you are pulled over for some routine traffic stop it will show up when they run your tag. You will probably be released but you will be issued a traffic court summons. Suppose you don’t show up in traffic court? They will then issue a failure to appear warrant so that next time you cross paths with the law you will be taken into custody. But what if you don’t wish to go downtown? They will then use whatever force is necessary to get you into the back of the cruiser. If you resist effectively enough, you will be shot and killed

All laws are eventually backed up with the threat of deadly force. They have to be or otherwise people willing to break the law will simply ignore them.

Your rights should be no different. You should be able to use whatever amount of force is necessary to protect your life, liberty or property right up to and including deadly force but only if the situation is justified and you have no other option.

The state as a third party has an entirely different perspective on private property than the individual does. You might even agree that human life is more valuable than property, but that changes when it is YOUR property and the only way to keep it is to shoot whoever is trying to carry it off.

Gunfighter123
March 17, 2010, 05:00 PM
Right. If, heaven forfend, you find yourself facing a jury and the prosecutor asks you if you tried to leave the scene, and you say no, you may be asked, "why not?"

What if the ansewer to him is --- " well , he/they were armed and I feared for my life in trying to excape/leave and/or there were other family members who could not leave the area " ?????

I think you may still be charged but would a jury convict you ???

Kleanbore
March 17, 2010, 05:02 PM
Posted by Bennadatto: What would be a logical reason that someone would be in favor of duty to retreat legislation? Forget legislation; legislation per se that explicitly requires retreat is a rare thing. The requirement to retreat really comes down through judicial interpretation and from the precedence of the Common Law. It usually applies unless the state law or case law has established otherwise.

Here's the logical reason, and it's a good one: the judges who developed the English Common Law, which served as the original basis for the law in every one of our states but one, had to establish a way to distinguish between murder, a death resulting from mutual combat gone bad or a duel, and death resulting from an act of justifiable self defense.

At least in the days of edged weapons, if a person who had killed another had retreated as far from the decedent as possible (the phrase was "to the wall"), that fact was considered sufficient evidence that he was an unwilling victim rather than an assailant or willing combatant, and that the decedent had therefore been an unlawful attacker.

Generally, that requirement is not written explicitly into states' criminal codes; rather, the requirement to retreat is implicit in the terms "immediately necessary" or variations thereto, in the codes on defense of justification--if one could have retreated safely, the use of deadly force was not necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. And again, it goes way, way back to the Common Law.

Some states have enacted "stand your ground" legislation obviating the requirement to retreat. In one of them (Texas), the law previously did explicitly prescribe a duty to attempt retreat; that was unusual. In some other states, case law has established that a requirement to retreat does not exist under certain circumstances. However, in all of them, an actor who has employed deadly force will have to present evidence in defense of justification (unlawful entry into a home may suffice in some states), and evidence that the actor had attempted to avoid confrontation would be helpful.

What I am talking about is...if someone breaks in your house, you are legally compelled to flee your residence, or at least hole up in a room to hopefully wait out the break in. What would be the logic in that?

The above discussion was framed around an attack outside of the home. The Common Law also held that a "man's home was his castle" and established the right to use deadly force if necessary to prevent unlawful entry. Because not all courts have recognized that concept, some states have codified a "castle doctrine" that eliminated the duty to retreat within or from an occupied domicile. Some states have not. To find the logic in their inaction, you will have to consult a legal scholar in one of those states. Personally, I don't see any logic at all, but we must realize that castle laws are intended to establish the right of self defense and not to give a homeowner a right to punish, and some states are not as willing as others to acknowledge that a forcible entry into an occupied home establishes a presumption of imminent danger and immediate necessity.

Posted by The Bushmaster: I wouldn't have the slightest idea. We don't have to "retreat" in Missouri...Yes, we do, unless we are facing an unlawful entry into our occupied automobile or domicile.

Manco
March 17, 2010, 05:03 PM
I think the "duty to retreat" is mostly the same thing as "don't shoot unless your life is in immediate danger." After all, if you can run to the bedroom and lock the door behind you (and wait for 911), then your life isn't in immediate danger (according to the DA).

"Duty to retreat" gives assailants an advantage by allowing them to strike the first blow and/or pursue until the victim has no other option than to fight back (either that or risk being identified as the criminal). In contrast, "castle doctrine" gives the victims of a home invasion, for example, the advantage of proactively defending the lives of their families once the initial crime has been committed. The former excuses the actions of criminals up to the point where they may or may not attempt murder, while the latter assumes that the lives of the victims are in imminent danger. I for one choose to favor the victims and couldn't care less about the lives of the criminals.

You can raise all all the bogeymen about the state wanting to keep all the power, but the folks writing the law are just trying to keep everyone alive.

The politicians who vote for such laws, at the very least, believe that government should have all the power. They show it in everything they say and do, not just this--it's hardly imaginary.

Not that I agree. I think that as a matter of tactics, you should make your stand when you still have at least one more redoubt to retreat to. You may need it if your gun jams, or (heaven help you) you need to reload. There are only so many "last chances" that it makes sense to squander.

When my life and those of my loved ones are in imminent danger, I'd much rather shoot first than be forced to run. I'll only run if it's the best thing to do in certain situations. All "duty to retreat" does is give assailants the first crack at taking me out and a better chance of killing members of my family. They couldn't do that if I killed them first. If they broke into my house, then that's what they'll get, it will be richly deserved, and society will be better off for it.

IMHO, if you retreat once from the point of the initial encounter, and the foe chases you, that should suffice for the purposes of the law. I don't know the details of how the laws are written and/or interpreted.

Details are important, but so are the main philosophies, one of which favors the victims of crimes (and potentially of even worse crimes about to be committed) while the other favors criminals.

Outside of one's home, I think it's reasonable that the use of deadly force, even in self-defense, would require that one does not escalate a situation where violence could have been avoided altogether. If that's how "duty to retreat" is defined in a particular district, then it can be reasonable, depending on the details of its definition, but how it's usually defined historically is ridiculous (or at least outdated), and fortunately it doesn't seem very common in the United States in any such extreme form.

Nick5182
March 17, 2010, 05:06 PM
I, unfortunately, live in a state with no Castle Doctrine Law, so if someone breaks into my home and my life isn't in direct danger, I can aim my gun at him and tell him to leave, but as long as he does leave, he can take whatever he wants with him, and I can't pull the trigger. Suuuuuuuuure....makes perfect sense to me!

Old Shooter
March 17, 2010, 05:06 PM
I won't go into the whole conversation, the person making the statement was an aide to a democrat representative from the state of Mass. so both his intelligence and sanity must be questioned.

Question Hell!

Only a low intelligence, insane person would promote the idea that a living, breathing person does not have the right and duty to defend themselves and loved ones from violence.

I'll stop now before my blood pressure goes up and I tell you how I really feel about this subject!


just don't think you'll get away with this in my house.

shockwave
March 17, 2010, 05:24 PM
All laws are eventually backed up with the threat of deadly force. They have to be or otherwise people willing to break the law will simply ignore them. Your rights should be no different.

The issue there is that I am not a sworn officer of the law. I am not entrusted with enforcing all laws up to the point of inflicting bodily injury or death. Now, sure I might be mistaken, but my understanding is that I can only use a firearm to defend myself and others from immediate grievous harm or death. Per Florida law, I can legally intervene to save the life of a complete stranger if that person is at immediate risk. That's pretty good law, you ask me.

However, in the event I see someone trying to steal my lawn mower, I cannot shoot the person because I have other legal remedies available. Of course, I have a great number of excellent weapons around the property, and I might grab a pair of Escrima sticks or similar and have a nice chat with the lawn-mower thief. Heh.

ForumSurfer
March 17, 2010, 05:34 PM
Here's my opinion. Here in NC, we are required to retreat except when within our homes. I'm OK with that.

Retreating within my home, or in anyone's is just insane. Am I to gather my family members from different rooms carefully and quickly while assailants are busting down my door? I don't live in a panic room and my family members are frequently scattered throughout the house. I don't care to get shot in the rear end while I'm screaming for my family members to rush into whatever room I have designated as the OK Corral area.

Your main question: Why retreat within my home? I can't think of a single good, sane reason. Unleashing a hail of gunfire or suppressive fire is a bad idea IMO, particularly if I am unaware of the location of my family members. Taking a safe, clear shot(s) at the BG is acceptable.

Luckily, it is legal within my state to take shots at the guy through my front door if I feel his intent is to cause harm and he is attempting forcible entry. I feel better knowing this and that I am not required to retreat within my house. :cool: Edit: Once they are within my walls, the BG must present a deadly threat in order for me to justify retaliation by deadly force. I'm iffy on that one. Luckily, any good lawyer will argue that any weapon the BG may be holding (knife, hammer, sfork, whatever) IS a deadly threat within 20 feet. My state's laws also state that I can use deadly force to stop an attack on a family member, or anyone else for that matter if their life is threatened. A 200lb BG IS a deadly threat to my 6 year old should my 6 year old (heaven forbid) be between myself and the attacker. I can handle myself, and I feel confident in regards to my retreat, home defense and family protection laws within my state

If I lived in a state that required retreat within my castle, I would still carry and live by the "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" mantra. I choose to defend my family within my walls. I cannot imagine a situation where someone broke into my house while I fled running and screaming to my "safe retreat area", leaving my children to fend for themselves and do the same. Nor do I want to get shot or bludgeoned to death with my own hammer while I am gathering them up for said retreat.

Ed N.
March 17, 2010, 05:44 PM
Shockwave wrote:
> However, in the event I see someone trying to steal my lawn mower, I cannot
> shoot the person because I have other legal remedies available.


I'm not sure that's correct. IANAL, but let's look at the Florida statutes.

From the Florida statues (emphasis added),

776.012 ...However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or ...


776.08 776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.


810.02 ...For offenses committed after July 1, 2001, "burglary" means:

1. Entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter; or ...


It would appear that if the BG has entered your house or storage shed to steal that mower, he has committed the forcible felony of burglary and your use of deadly force to stop him would be justified.

shockwave
March 17, 2010, 05:47 PM
It would appear that if the BG has entered your house or storage shed to steal that mower, he has committed the forcible felony of burglary and your use of deadly force to stop him would be justified.

My my my. Life just got a whole lot more interesting. Thanks for digging that up.

ForumSurfer
March 17, 2010, 05:55 PM
My my my. Life just got a whole lot more interesting. Thanks for digging that up.

I agree!:what:

Not that I condone such a thing. I feel no need to shoot some dude stealing my lawn mower. :rolleyes: I feel that personal property just isn't worth taking someone's life, even if that someone is a dreg of society.

It is interesting to know your options in that situation. I'd definitely like to take that one up with a lawyer to get their opinion.

Onward Allusion
March 17, 2010, 05:56 PM
I can see no reason for such legislation. One's home is their final bastion of safety. To legislate someone out of their home in the event of a home invasion is downright silly.

Would legislation that requires you to submit to the BG make sense? Would legislation that requires you to abandon your home make sense?

Why are you asking this question?







bennadatto (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=65719)

Duty to retreat...why?
This is a piggy back from another thread going. Mods, I debated putting this in legal or general. Please move if you see fit.

What would be a logical reason that someone would be in favor of duty to retreat legislation? What I am talking about is...if someone breaks in your house, you are legally compelled to flee your residence, or at least hole up in a room to hopefully wait out the break in. What would be the logic in that?

The only thing I can think of is that the State is attempting to keep you safe by having you avoid a potential confrontation with a bad guy.

Can anyone else think of any other logical reasons to support this idea?

PS: Please provide serious answers only.

content
March 17, 2010, 05:58 PM
Hello friends and neighbors // Forcible Felony is use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual .

Not stealing a mower, even an expensive one.

Officers'Wife
March 17, 2010, 06:03 PM
Castle Doctrine is interpreted as meaning you do not have a duty to retreat from any place you have a legal right to be.

But as chillingly mentioned in another place, every bullet has a lawyer or two attached to it. Even when the law is clear jury nullification is a factor.

Ed N.
March 17, 2010, 06:06 PM
Content, forcible felony is what the law defines it to be. Might be different here in Florida than it is way up there in SC. That's why I posted the FL statute. A forcible felony is a felony for which force may be used to stop it, and the FL statute puts burglary into that category. Along with carjacking, treason, aggravated stalking (?!) and a whole host of other things.

Read the law.

Werewolf
March 17, 2010, 06:12 PM
Shockwave wrote:
> However, in the event I see someone trying to steal my lawn mower, I cannot
> shoot the person because I have other legal remedies available.


I'm not sure that's correct. IANAL, but let's look at the Florida statutes.

From the Florida statues (emphasis added),

776.012 ...However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or ...


776.08 776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.


810.02 ...For offenses committed after July 1, 2001, "burglary" means:

1. Entering a dwelling, a structure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter; or ...


It would appear that if the BG has entered your house or storage shed to steal that mower, he has committed the forcible felony of burglary and your use of deadly force to stop him would be justified.

Oklahoma law is written almost word for word the same as FL law.

If someone in either state shoots someone for stealing their lawn mower they might get off using those laws as justification but I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut you'd get charged with something else that'd put you in a state run lockup for just as long that you won't be able to weasel your way out of.

Officers'Wife
March 17, 2010, 06:15 PM
It was the habit of one of my teachers to tell me to turn an idea inside out then follow it to the beginning.

In the beginning there is a phrase. 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' Private property must be paid for if placed under the public use.

Would it not follow if the state requires a person to 'retreat' from an outbuilding or other property they are de-facto taking that property by fiat without compensation?

content
March 17, 2010, 06:20 PM
Hello friends and neighbors // I am not a Lawyer but the way it was presented to me is:

In S.C. if a person walks into your living room, smiles while he/she unplugs your TV, picks it up and walks out, with out a word or look. No threat.

You can only call 911.

Same person disables your power/phone(threat #1) and comunicates threats of phyiscal violence(threat #2) while forcibly entering (threat #3) or does an act of violence against a person(threat#4) while stealing TV.. ... huge difference.

Yep I see FL is different 776.08... TY

gym
March 17, 2010, 06:25 PM
That means that if someone comes to your house and says, "everyone out I want your house", you shoud go? "Makes perfect sense", I'll go try that, and report back.

Officers'Wife
March 17, 2010, 06:33 PM
"Makes perfect sense", I'll go try that, and report back.

Please do this experiment in the city, in a rural area you may be unfortunate enough to find the guy with a rifle, a backhoe and 1700 acres.

wishin
March 17, 2010, 06:45 PM
Would it not follow if the state requires a person to 'retreat' from an outbuilding or other property they are de-facto taking that property by fiat without compensation?
Not a whole lot different than eminent domain powers when you refuse the low ball price the government offers for your property!:uhoh:

Kleanbore
March 17, 2010, 06:55 PM
Posted by Nick5182: I, unfortunately, live in a state with no Castle Doctrine Law, so if someone breaks into my home and my life isn't in direct danger, I can aim my gun at him and tell him to leave, but as long as he does leave, he can take whatever he wants with him, and I can't pull the trigger.

Wow, a bunch of things there. Let's address them separately.

I do live in a state with a "castle doctrine" provision written into the law. So: what does it mean?

It means that if someone breaks into my occupied home, it is presumed that my life is in danger, and deadly force is permissible. That's true in most "castle doctrine" states.

However, should he elect to leave, I cannot lawfully use deadly force to stop him. That's true in all states, except under very rare circumstances in a very few.

Should he try to "take whatever he wants with him" I cannot lawfully use deadly force to stop him. I cannot use deadly force to protect property--that's true in all states but one. I can use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony--but once he has broken in, he has already committed burglary, for example, and by definition, I can no longer prevent it.

ArmedBear
March 17, 2010, 07:02 PM
I think that "duty to retreat" is a good example of something that was well-meant initially, and was perverted to the point of becoming a downright evil law.

Once upon a time, dueling was not uncommon. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel. So, there were laws passed to make shootouts over non-life-threatening conflicts illegal. The "duty to retreat" means that each party has the duty to walk away if it's not necessary to use deadly force in self-defense, i.e. not get into a gunfight just for the hell of it, or over some petty disagreement.

That that somehow morphed into one having the "duty to retreat" inside one's own home, or even against the back wall of one's own bedroom, before using deadly force in self-defense, is a good illustration of how easily those who wish to oppress the innocent can use any means possible to do so.

Kleanbore
March 17, 2010, 07:15 PM
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel. So, there were laws passed to make shootouts over non-life-threatening conflicts illegal. The "duty to retreat" means that each party has the duty to walk away if it's not necessary to use deadly force in self-defense, i.e. not get into a gunfight just for the hell of it, or over some petty disagreement.Actually, the duty to retreat predates the Burr-Hamilton duel by about five centuries, although dueling was permitted in some places for a long time after the duty to retreat existed. See Post #36 for the underlying concept.

That that somehow morphed into one having the "duty to retreat" inside one's own home, or even against the back wall of one's own bedroom, before using deadly force in self-defense, is a good illustration of how easily those who wish to oppress the innocent can use any means possible to do so.I do not know the history of how the Common Law precept that "a man's home is his castle" ceased to be embodied in legal precedent.

I would be most interested in knowing the history in this country.

However, I do not think it has anything to do with "oppressing the innocent"--it's just a matter of how guilt is to be established.

Officers'Wife
March 17, 2010, 07:24 PM
Hi Wishin,

eminent domain

SIR!!!!!! That kind of language is neither necessary or appreciated!

raz-0
March 17, 2010, 07:28 PM
The problem in understanding obligation to retreat is that so far you are viewing as applying to the home and that being it's intention. For the most part, they are imperfect attempts to codify something that at one point did make sense.

The part that makes sense is that they apply outside the home. By requiring an obligation to retreat, in theory you are making it impossible for someone to start a confrontation simply to cause it to escalate, and thus permitting them to kill someone while skating through a legal loophole.

So for example, I can't fling dog poo on my neighbors house, and when he has had enough and throws something back at me, I can't shoot him saying I thought he was dangerous.

Preventing lethal baiting of mostly reasonable people is a perfectly admirable goal. That's the reasonable kernel of thought in there, but they are overreaching, and not the best way of achieving that goal.

ArmedBear
March 17, 2010, 07:29 PM
the duty to retreat predates the Burr-Hamilton duel by about five centuries

True, but so did other legal principles that were not incorporated into the laws of US states at all. The choice to incorporate the idea into a law is still a choice, whether or not the idea is a new one.

However, I do not think it has anything to do with "oppressing the innocent"--it's just a matter of how guilt is to be established.

You figure that imprisoning people for legitimately defending themselves is not "oppressing the innocent". I do. Putting the burden of proof on a homeowner instead of a burglar is, indeed, oppressing the innocent, and giving power to criminals and the criminal class.

ArmedLiberal
March 17, 2010, 09:00 PM
I think that the reasoning is that defending property does not justify taking a life and that lethal force is only justified to prevent loss of life or great bodily harm.

This is a great subject for debate. I kinda like the fella that posted a while back "Can I shoot a perp if I'm pretty sure he's lying to me?"

An argument for shooting burglars is that someone who has such great disregard for the law and for others well being as to break into their house is likely to also be willing to murder and maim.

mgkdrgn
March 17, 2010, 10:06 PM
Please note that -all- of the people that vote to tell -you- that -you- have a duty to retreat all have their own armed security teams ....

Geno
March 17, 2010, 10:26 PM
Michigan now has legislated Castle Doctrine, wherever one is lawfully, is one's castle. As such, we have no duty to retreat (DtR). It was being claimed that if DtR didn't exist, "blood would run in the streets". :rolleyes: Never seen any crimson rivers yet. I won't go so far as to guess the reasons that some of these laws are passed.

Geno

JellyJar
March 17, 2010, 10:50 PM
I believe that "duty to retreat" is based on the proposition that the taking of another human life, criminal or not, should only be done as an absolute last resort. If there is anything "reasonable" that can be done to prevent the death then that should be done first. To many retreating when possible, even in your own home, is "reasonable".

I disagree with the above.

Onward Allusion
March 17, 2010, 11:00 PM
Bennadatto - Since you're the OP on this, what are your thoughts? You opened up an interesting debate, I think it's only fair that you provide us with your POV.



bennadatto (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=65719)
Member
Join Date: March 27, 2008 Posts: 116


Duty to retreat...why?

xXxplosive
March 17, 2010, 11:05 PM
Seriously then..............welcome to New Jersey.

msb45
March 18, 2010, 12:14 AM
In PA there is a duty to retreat, IF it reasonable to do so within a real chance of harm. I take it as a way to avoid mutual combat. The second you can't do so without risk of harm you have the right to defend with all means available. In your home I doubt that you can easily retreat or collect so your family. It would not be unreasonable to assume it was a violent home invasion and not a property crime.

Steve in PA
March 18, 2010, 01:07 AM
PA's duty to retreat does NOT apply to your home or place of work unless you are the initial aggressor.

chains1240
March 18, 2010, 09:38 AM
Thank goodness Michigan changed this. If someone breaks into your home it is reasonable to believe that they mean you harm.

Government is a monopoly on the use of force.

Authority tends to see any individual’s use of force, even in self-defense as a threat to that monopoly and possession of weapons as a symbol of defiance.

The above quote by another member of the forum states, darn near verbatim, what my instructors and text books state.

SSN Vet
March 18, 2010, 10:00 AM
What would be a logical reason that someone would be in favor of duty to retreat legislation?

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the legislators sympathize with the poor criminal who was obviously driven to crime by the cruel, and discriminatory socio-economic forces of an unjust society, more so than they are the plight of the work a day, tax paying, honest victims of the crime.

In other words, typical liberal dribble and role reversal.... the criminal is really the victim and the victim is really the beneficiary of a corrupt system.

All to be made right by putting more liberal into power.

627PCFan
March 18, 2010, 10:07 AM
There is an easy out with Duty to retreat as one of my LEO buddies filled me in on. (MD Police)

Speaking with the police (lawyer present).- the attacker broke in. I attempted to retreat to a locked room. I sprained my ankle and could not retreat farther. I was in fear for my life. Done done and done

Occam's Razor
March 18, 2010, 11:40 AM
Understand that in states with Castle Doctrine, duty to retreat does not apply in your home, only outside your home.

Also understand that regardless of the law, we should all do everything we can to avoid using deadly force. If I can retreat instead of fire, I will do so, regardless of what the law says I MIGHT be able to get away with.In South Dakota you have no duty to retreat from anywhere, even outside your home if you are there lawfully.

Your second statement is golden. People should take some comfort from the Castle Doctrine hopefully being there to protect them in the event they absolutely, positively, no way around it have to shoot somebody. Anybody who is hoping to use Castle Doctrine as an excuse to shoot somebody needs to do some serious soul searching.

Kleanbore
March 18, 2010, 12:44 PM
Posted by SSN Vet: In other words, typical liberal dribble and role reversal.... the criminal is really the victim and the victim is really the beneficiary of a corrupt system.

There's some point to that sentiment--if you are talking about a duty to retreat in the event of an unlawful entry, particularly one with force, into one's home or automobile.

If, however, one is discussing an incident involving deadly force that occurs outside, the issue is, and always has been, one of determining just who is the criminal and who is the victim.

See Post #36.

Also see this (text cannot be copied and pasted):

."..homicide in a sudden affray is not excusable on the ground of self defense unless the accused retreats a far as he safely can in order to avoid the violence of the deceased and the necessity to tale his life." Blackstone

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh0-AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA401&lpg=RA1-PA401&dq=blackstone+on+duty+to+retreat&source=bl&ots=97On6p2daa&sig=Emj0sdnZZ2yNGODhrpHZrJndeDI&hl=en&ei=jzqiS4m8N47MNe3VwIYJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CAkQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=blackstone%20on%20duty%20to%20retreat&f=false

Blackstone's writings go back centuries before the term "liberal" as it is now used came into the language.

Of course, at least two things have changed: the advent of firearms has affected the effectiveness of retreat, and with modern medicine, there is a very high likelihood that the attacker will not die and will be able to present his side of the story.

Consider this: the use of deadly force against another person is a crime, and should be, unless it is excusable or justifiable--and the user of such force otherwise is, by definition, a criminal.

So, when is the use of deadly force justifiable?

On the street, deadly force is justified in fifty states if it is immediately necessary to employ such force in the face of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and under other limited circumstances in some jurisdictions. If retreat is safely possible, how can the use of deadly force be necessary? Also, as an aside, if there are no witnesses who can and will say that the act was one of necessary self-defense, how would the actor convince anyone that he had been the innocent party, unless he could show that he had made every attempt to avoid the use of force, including evasion and avoidance? Consider also the possibility that the other person and/or his accomplices may present an entirely different account of what happened. Evidence of an attempt to retreat by one who is physically able might go a long way toward sorting out the guilty from the innocent.

The problem is that the courts in many places have established that the same principles apply inside the home. That flies directly in the face of another age-old tenet of the Common Law--that a person may employ deadly force with impunity if his home is breached or attacked by an arsonist. That concept, by the way, goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, but I have been told that in those days, deadly force was only clearly permitted in the event of a break in that occurred at night--that if the resident had sufficient light by which to see, he was expected to use other avenues if possible.

Very fortunately, the legislatures in a number of states have established in various words that the fact of unlawful (sometimes "tumultuous" or "with force") entry into an occupied home (or other location) establishes a presumption that imminent danger exists and have stated that in such scenarios there is no duty to retreat.

Some states have extended the "no retreat" rule to the outdoors. That might help protect someone from unjustified charges, but it does not relieve anyone from the requirement to present evidence that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary.

Manco
March 18, 2010, 12:46 PM
If someone breaks into your home it is reasonable to believe that they mean you harm.

Right, if they just wanted my stuff, then they would have broken in when the house was empty. If they have some other practical reason for breaking into an occupied home aside from harming people, then that's their problem, not mine--my assumption will always be that they intend to murder.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 18, 2010, 02:02 PM
Snowflakes in Hell (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/11/20/duty-to-retreat-in-common-law/) has a great piece about the English common-law origins of the duty-to-retreat and the important distinctions between how it was originally understood and how it has been twisted over the years.

Blackstone distinguished among three different types of self-defense - the defense of your home (no duty to retreat), defense against forcible crime (no duty to retreat), and a "sudden affray" where "a man may protect himself from an assault or the like, in the course of a sudden brawl." In the third situation, English common law required a duty to retreat, if you could do so safely.

This duty to retreat simplified difficult cases of claimed self-defense in fights during an era that predated CSI considerably.

Like a lot of other doctrines and ideas though, people fail to appreciate the subtle distinctions and it gets twisted slightly here and there until several hundred years later, it is being applied in situations that it originally never covered.

Kleanbore
March 18, 2010, 02:48 PM
I have seen the Snowflakes in Hell piece; it is a good one and it sets forth one person's view some aspects of an important distinction.

The writer places the emphasis on "sudden affray" rather than on "self defense". I'm not sure he's entirely on point. If one is attacked and must defend himself, the "affray" is likely sudden.

Some things have changed due to new realities. In those days the Common Law provided for the use of deadly force in instances in which it is not justified in many jurisdictions today. You won't get far in your defense in Colorado if you shoot an arsonist unless the structure is occupied, but you could put an arrow through him in Blackstone's day. If your grain stores were destroyed, starvation was a likely result. Not so today, and the law is more restrictive.

You could also slay a fleeing felon. There were logical reasons for that, also: they couldn't put in place roadblocks by making a radio call then, and there were no helicopters; the fleeing felon, unless killed or seized, was as good as gone. Also, setting back an odometer wasn't a felony in those days.

No, retreat was not required, but those applications of force did not constitute self defense per se.

However, in my lay opinion, the real issue today has to do with the requirement in many jurisdictions that deadly force be "immediately necessary." It seems to me that in a case of self defense, if avoidance or escape is in fact safely possible, the use of deadly force simply cannot be considered necessary to prevent death or serious injury.

Within the home or car, however, the question would seem to be (1) how safe is it for multiple persons to all escape safely at once and (2) escape to where? If the home is not the safest place available and cannot be so maintained, there is no safety--which was set forth in more lofty tones by Blackstone.

earlthegoat2
March 18, 2010, 03:23 PM
Most will say because you dont want to kill someone if you dont have to,

I say if they want to run up on me I will throw a little chlorine in the gene pool and sleep better for it at night.

Where legal of course.

Cosmoline
March 18, 2010, 03:25 PM
My old college professor Richard Brown wrote a book called "No Duty To Retreat" that looked at the common law origins of this rule and how it came to be modified in the US.

http://www.amazon.com/No-Duty-Retreat-Violence-American/dp/0806126183/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268936727&sr=8-1

Ed N.
March 18, 2010, 03:27 PM
These things will vary quite a bit from state to state. Here's a recent Florida example:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/keyword/deadly-force

=========================================================
Homeowner justified in shooting death of prowler

By Stephen Hudak, Orlando Sentinel | February 23, 2010
TAVARES – A Lake County homeowner who shot and killed an unarmed prowler in his backyard in November fired lawfully, though the fatal wound hit the intruder in the back, prosecutors said Tuesday. Shane Beil, 41, will not face criminal charges in the Nov. 19 shooting death of Brett Lee Canada, 23, of Mount Plymouth, who had served a pair of prison stints for burglary, grand theft and other property crimes. Assistant State Attorney Bill Gladson cited Florida statutes and supporting court decisions including the so-called "castle doctrine," which says a person may use deadly force to protect life or home or to prevent a "forcible felony."
=========================================================

Kleanbore
March 18, 2010, 03:31 PM
Thanks, Cosmo, it's on order.

lions
March 18, 2010, 04:39 PM
Too many people want to live in a rainbows and butterflies world where we all just get along and violence and death are long forgotten plagues of the past. They can't have the poor disadvantaged criminals being killed but the criminals don't seem to want to stop doing things that should get them killed.

So how do they make their utopia a reality? Pass laws directed at law-abiding citizens (because we are the only one that follow them) and maybe someday everyone will see how nice it is to not have people killing each other.

I don't want to advocate violence, but the fact remains, sometimes some people need to have violence enacted upon them. Especially if they break into occupied houses with evil intentions. Sorry for ranting.

armoredman
March 18, 2010, 05:23 PM
AZ, title 13. Note, this was on file BEFORE we enacted Castle Doctrine, which we do have now as well. Emphasis added.
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.



BTW, 1st degree burglary is armed burglary, 2nd degree is burglary of an occupied structure, including attached garage.

Gouranga
March 18, 2010, 06:14 PM
I think to rationally decide that duty to retreat is a good idea you have to make assumptions. Some seriously deranged assumptions (these will sound familiar):

1. All gun owners WANT to shoot someone.
2. Nobody can be trusted to use good judgment as to when to the use of lethal force is necessary (in part because of #1 and also because we cannot think without the government).
3. There is always a non-violent way out of any situation.

If you can force yourself to believe these assumptions then you will believe gun owners will shoot randomly at anything and everything within and close to their homes, that we are not capable nor are we entitled to use our own judgment to ascertain the proper way to deal with a threat in our own homes.
You have to remember these are the same law makers that do not see Illegal Immigrants are breaking laws, they see criminals as poor souls who need to be helped, they are victims of poverty and they don't really want to be in your homes, pointing guns at your kids.

If you can swallow those assumptions then yeah, requiring us to retreat makes perfect logical sense.

Kleanbore
March 18, 2010, 06:24 PM
There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.[Arizona statute on the use of deadly force in crime prevention]Good thing, too! I would like to have someone explain to me with a straight face just how one would go about using deadly force, which is permitted under Arizona law when it is reasonably believed to be immediately necessary, to prevent another's commission of arson of an occupied structure, burglary in the second or first degree, kidnapping, manslaughter, second or first degree murder, sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, child molestation, armed robbery, or aggravated assault, if one were in fact required to retreat!

Just musing, here: for the legislature to have perceived a need to put that no-retreat provision in the law immediately following Subsection A, there must have been some very strange arguments put forth by prosecutors in the past. Just how does one retreat while preventing arson of a occupied structure?

By the way, the stand-your-ground provision also applies to self defense in Arizona.

That's also good, but I can tell you that I personally would try to avoid, de-escalate, evade, or escape, if it were possible to do so, before using deadly force. Strengthens the justification defense, and makes life a whole lot simpler afterwards if it works.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 18, 2010, 08:52 PM
The writer places the emphasis on "sudden affray" rather than on "self defense". I'm not sure he's entirely on point. If one is attacked and must defend himself, the "affray" is likely sudden.

He emphasized that to make the point more easily understandble; but he is really talking about the mostly obsolete distinction between justifiable homicide and excusable homicide under the common law.

andrewstorm
March 19, 2010, 01:36 AM
Not in michigan,although a drunken man might not be a true threat to the point of use of deadly force,sometimes theres very little time to reason,thank god ive never been in this perdicament,:)POLICE EXERCIZE UNBELIVEABLE RESTRAINT,AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE YOU CAN TO,I KNOW IF YOU MAKE YOURSELF A SHEEP THE WOLVES WILL EAT YOU,BUT MAKE SHURE ITS A REAL WOLF.

Vinny
March 19, 2010, 01:47 AM
Dear Homeowner,
We intend to enter your home this Saturday from 7pm until 10pm. Please vacate the premise for your personal safety as it is your Duty to Retreat. Do not attempt to contact authorities prior to 10PM as we have friends and family who know where you live and will revisit your domicile without prior written notice and retreat will not be possible. We thank you for your cooperation in insuring a safe weekend for all.

Thank you

bdickens
March 19, 2010, 11:17 AM
Remember every bullet has a lawyer or 2 attached to it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Duty to retreat...why?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!