1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Duty to retreat...why?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by bennadatto, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. bennadatto

    bennadatto Well-Known Member

    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.
  2. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    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
  3. Silent Rifleman

    Silent Rifleman Active Member

    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.
  4. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    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 individual’s 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.
  5. budiceman

    budiceman Well-Known Member

    To make a thief's job safer!
  6. rattletrap1970

    rattletrap1970 Well-Known Member

    I would move out of a state that had a duty to retreat law, just out of principal.
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Ever seen the video of police doing door-to-door gun confiscations in New Orleans?


    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.
  9. The Bushmaster

    The Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't have the slightest idea. We don't have to "retreat" in Missouri...
  10. supernac

    supernac Active Member

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

    Maelstrom Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator

    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.
  14. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Well-Known Member

    true that.
  15. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    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?
  16. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Well-Known Member

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

    NMGonzo Well-Known Member

    Sir, I applaud you.
  18. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. jfh

    jfh Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    "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).

Share This Page