What is the Universal Rule for Self-Defense With a Gun?

Posted by DWFan: Forcing the victim to attempt retreat before defending themselves implies that the criminal has the right to initiate the action. If that is the case, no criminal can ever be charged with intent.

Click to expand...

It is true that the criminal must take some overt action before one may use deadly force in self defense, but that has nothing to do with a duty to retreat. Also, one may not charged with anything simply because of what is in his or her mind. He or she must do something unlawful before charges can be filed.

It also implies that the criminal's rights supercede the right of the victim to protect their person and property. If that's the case, there is no such thing as property ownership because anyone can force you to leave.

Click to expand...

How so? The right of self defense exists in all fifty states, including those in which there is a duty to retreat. While the right to protect property does not extend to the lawful use of deadly force for that purpose in the vast majority of jurisdictions, that has nothing to do with a duty to retreat.

In reality, unless you know the exact number and location of the individuals you are up against and to what lengths they are willing to go to do you harm, there is no such thing as an absolutely safe retreat nor any way to "measure" the amount of force needed to end the situation; much less reach that judgement in the split second required.

Click to expand...

In general, one may employ deadly force when it is immediately necessary in a situation of imminent danger to prevent death or serious injury. The argument that there may be other potentially dangerous individuals in unknown locations would probably not convince reasonable people that one could not safely retreat from the immediate threat.

Again, without knowing what is in the mind of the assailant/assailants, there is no way to determine what "lesser force" is sufficient.

Click to expand...

That's always the issue. The question will come down to (1) whether there was reason to believe that the threat was imminent and that deadly force was immediately necessary, (2) whether the actor will be able to present sufficient evidence to that effect, (3) the extent to which contradictory evidence may exist, (4) how well the actor will be able to articulate the reasons for his or her belief, and (5), whether, based on (2) through (4), reasonable people considering the case after the fact will agree (a) that the actor did have reason to believe (i) that the threat was imminent and (ii) that deadly force was immediately necessary and (b) that he or she believed those things.

If someone with whom the actor had no prior connections of any kind has entered the actor's dwelling with force in a "castle doctrine" jurisdiction, that should be relatively straightforward. In such places, the fact of the break in provides a presumption that the actor had reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary, and in most of them, he or she is relieved of any duty to attempt retreat. In other jurisdictions, it may well be necessary to show that safe retreat was not possible to convince people acting under the governing jury instructions that deadly force had been necessary.

In scenarios that do not take place within the dwelling or other covered location, that might be a whole lot tougher. It's always best to try to avoid using deadly force if possible--in fact, it is required.

I really don't think there is a useful universal rule. One should at least know the retreat considerations and whether a castle doctrine exists wherever he or she is traveling, and it is really best to try to learn more about the state laws and what they mean.

There are any number of cases where a person already in custody and under restraint has committed murder in an attempt to escape.

Click to expand...

The discussion is about self defense--not trying to restrain someone.

Posted by Deanimator: Maybe [(retreating is a good universal rule, required or not)] in the street, outside of your vehicle. NEVER in my home, and never in my vehicle.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree, and in our particular jurisdictions that's OK.

I'll see your home and vehicle and raise you one--add hotel room.

Now, in practice, my wife's physical limitations will generally preclude effective retreat unless that entails driving away, so what I think is a good idea in theory may not be practicable for us if I'm not alone.

Posted by DWFan:"Duty to Retreat" is the flip-side of "Right to Advance". You can't have one without the other.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you have lost me, I have never heard of a "right to advance." You have the right to go anywhere you can legally go, it that's what you mean, but you may not use deadly force to enforce that right in the event of a hindrance.

It you are referring to a supposed "right" of an alleged attacker, he has no "right to advance" for unlawful purposes, and any duty on your part to attempt retreat does not give him one. His rights, like yours, are the right to due process and the right to not be subjected to the unjustified use of deadly or otherwise excessive force or unlawful restraint.

If the law mandates that the you must look to retreat before taking action, and the perp takes no action to provoke a response from you after forcing your vacating the property, he has still successfully forced you to vacate that property.

Click to expand...

OK. the law--statute, common law, case law, whatever--requires that deadly force be immediately necessary before its use is justified. In some jurisdictions, retreat must be attempted if safely possible before that necessity is acknowledged to exist.

That's a given. Of course, in some places, there is no explicitly stated requirement to retreat per se. However, even in those, evidence that one did in fact take every effort to avoid, deescalate, evade, and escape wuold prove very useful indeed in a defense of justification, particularly if other evidence is not conclusive.

In some places the duty to retreat even applies inside the home, unfortunately.

However, you have lost me again. If you and your loved ones have in fact retreated, whether from your home or not, the perp need take no action to "provoke" you into summoning help. However, there is no action that he can take, other than continuing to come after you while still posing a serious threat of death or serious bodily harm until you have reached the point at which further safe retreat is not possible, that would permit you to employ deadly force lawfully at that time, except under limited circumstances in Texas, where, incidentally, retreat is not required.

Forcing one to vacate their property, for whatever reason or whatever length of time, by definition, is removing that person's right to ownership (possession) of that property.

Click to expand...

Maybe from one standpoint if you stretch it, but you have not lost title to the property, you have just departed, and he hasn't taken your house with him. You'll depart in the event of flood or a haz-mat risk, but you'll still own the property.

However, in most places, deadly force may not be employed to protect property. Has nothing to do with retreat. Nothing at all.

In many places, one does have the right to employ deadly force without retreat in the event of an unlawful entry made with force into an occupied dwelling or automobile. Members of the anti gun community have argued that the codification of that right has been intended to legalize the use of deadly force for the protection of property or even to legalize murder, but they know better.