Avoidance As A Strategy

[bearcreek]

And once again, to minimize confusion when conversing with an attorney--in use of force law, avoidance is defined as escape.

This seems like a very odd definition. If I avoid an area that has a lot of rattlesnakes, I didn't escape a rattlesnake attack, I avoided experiencing one. Not saying you're wrong (I'm certainly no lawyer) just that that seems to be a rather convoluted use of the word.

 

[bearcreek]

So, Trunk Monkey doesn't go to rest stops because he considers them to be too dangerous. What word (other than avoidance) should we be using to describe that, in attorney speak?

 

[Kleanbore]

So, Trunk Monkey doesn't go to rest stops because he considers them to be too dangerous. What word (other than avoidance) should we be using to describe that, in attorney speak?

I'm not sure that here is a better word to be used in common parlance, but when one is involved in a legal defenses of self defense, a refers to retreat, (edited) which in some jurisdictions, but not all, is required, if it is safely possible, to support a claim of self defense.

The reason for the distinction here is that if avoidance is required and the requirement is not met, the legal defens of self defense cannot be sustained. But having stopped at a rest tsop would not have the came result.

Does that help?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I'm not sure that here is a better word to be used in common parlance, but when one is involved in a legal defenses of self defense, a refers to escape, which in some jurisdictions, but not all, is required, if it is safely possible, to support a claim of self defense.

The reason for the distinction here is that if avoidance is required and the requirement is not met, the legal defens of self defense cannot be sustained. But having stopped at a rest tsop would not have the came result.

Does that help?

Just curious has an “escape” issue in regards to self defense ever made it to the Supreme Court for a decision?

I agree that many jurisdictions have various levels of escape, retreat from you must retreat from everything including your home, to you never have to retreat.

However, Generally speaking... I am wondering how a duty to retreat, escape plays into protection of a 3rd party? Such as you witness someone being attacked such as in a mass shooting? Or someone intentionally running over people with a vehicle? Some states do allow self defense of another. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are states that don’t let you step in to defend others.

I also wonder how a duty to escape retreat is viewed when someone is pointing a gun at you. You could run, but unless your Superman, your not faster then that speeding bullet.

 

[entropy]

Not that logic has anything to do with the law, but if one has effected escape, no self-defense is needed. So, logically, if escape is required, no claim of self-defense need be entered. Why would escape be required to enter/satisfy a plea of justifiable self-defense?

Perhaps you mean attempted avoidance, or attempted escape.

It's kind of like suicide being the only crime that if successfully committed, the perpetrator cannot be convicted for.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Not that logic has anything to do with the law, but if one has effected escape, no self-defense is needed. So, logically, if escape is required, no claim of self-defense need be entered. Why would escape be required to enter/satisfy a plea of justifiable self-defense?

Perhaps you mean attempted avoidance, or attempted escape.

It's kind of like suicide being the only crime that if successfully committed, the perpetrator cannot be convicted for.

Don’t forget self defense of 3rd party, which can include your child or family.

 

[Kleanbore]

Just curious has an “escape” issue in regards to self defense ever made it to the Supreme Court for a decision?

I'm sorry. I misspoke.

I should have said "retreat".

I am wondering how a duty to retreat, escape plays into protection of a 3rd party?

That may vary according to jurisdiction.

I also wonder how a duty to escape retreat is viewed when someone is pointing a gun at you. You could run, but unless your Superman, your not faster then that speeding bullet

The requirement , where it exists, has to do with retreat if retreat is safely possible.

...if one has effected escape, no self-defense is needed

Obviously.

So, logically, if escape is required, no claim of self-defense need be entered.

Huh?

Why would escape be required to enter/satisfy a plea of justifiable self-defense?

Goes way back in the Common Law, but it notolonger applies everywhere.

Perhaps you mean attempted avoidance, or attempted escape.

No.

Read this.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...tand-your-ground-and-related-concepts.873292/

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I'm not sure that here is a better word to be used in common parlance, but when one is involved in a legal defenses of self defense, a refers to retreat, (edited) which in some jurisdictions, but not all, is required, if it is safely possible, to support a claim of self defense.

The reason for the distinction here is that if avoidance is required and the requirement is not met, the legal defens of self defense cannot be sustained. But having stopped at a rest tsop would not have the came result.

Does that help?

Here’s a legal write up for Texas Castle Doctrine, ”Stand Your Ground” (Duty to retreat)

However not all states are the same. Texas has a very good laws on this. They could be better, but it’s a good start.

https://www.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/

 

[entropy]

From the your OP in the thread you posted, Kleanbore;

"Duty to Retreat

The name is self evident; in some jurisdictions, a defender must retreat, or attempt to retreat, if retreat is safely possible," (Italics yours) "before a "[sic] "using force or deadly force in self defense. The requirement, where it exists, applies only when the defender has reason to believe that retreat is safely possible. Historically, one of the difficulties encountered in defenses of justification has been the ability of the defender to provide evidence that he or she had not been able to retreat safely."

Yet in this post, you are attempting to make it sound like a successful attempt to retreat/escape is necessary to successfully defend a shooting as justifiable. (Whether that is your intent or not) .Obviously, this is not so. Indeed, should one fire on and injure an attacker, and then escape (successfully) things will go very bad for the defendant. If one does not challenge the offensive use of force, and then successfully escapes, or retreats, no charges will be filed against the victim.

The words attempted and successful are very important to this point of law, particularly attempted. Omitting them for brevity or 'because it is implied' is never a good idea when discussing the law.

I'm sure Frank will come by shortly and lambaste us all for 'unlegal elocution'.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

So, Trunk Monkey doesn't go to rest stops because he considers them to be too dangerous.

Trunk Monkey doesn't go to rest stops because he's determined that the risks outweigh the rewards

 

[Texasgrillchef]

From the your OP in the thread you posted, Kleanbore;

"Duty to Retreat

The name is self evident; in some jurisdictions, a defender must retreat, or attempt to retreat, if retreat is safely possible," (Italics yours) "before a "[sic] "using force or deadly force in self defense. The requirement, where it exists, applies only when the defender has reason to believe that retreat is safely possible. Historically, one of the difficulties encountered in defenses of justification has been the ability of the defender to provide evidence that he or she had not been able to retreat safely."

Yet in this post, you are attempting to make it sound like a successful attempt to retreat/escape is necessary to successfully defend a shooting as justifiable. (Whether that is your intent or not) .Obviously, this is not so. Indeed, should one fire on and injure an attacker, and then escape (successfully) things will go very bad for the defendant. If one does not challenge the offensive use of force, and then successfully escapes, or retreats, no charges will be filed against the victim.

The words attempted and successful are very important to this point of law, particularly attempted. Omitting them for brevity or 'because it is implied' is never a good idea when discussing the law.

I'm sure Frank will come by shortly and lambaste us all for 'unlegal elocution'.

This is exactly one reason I am sure that Texas has no duty to retreat providing your legally allowed to be in the location that your currently located. There are of course exceptions. But even when you have no duty to retreat, that does not automatically justify the use of deadly force, or even of non-deadly force. Certain other conditions must be met to justify the use of non-deadly force or of deadly force.

Another note... in certain instances, drawing your weapon. But not discharging the weapon is considered the use of non-deadly force, and NOT the use of deadly force. Again certain conditions must be met of course, and there are exceptions. This applies if it’s used for self defense of yourself, or of another, and in limited circumstances in defense of property as well.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yet in this post, you are attempting to make it sound like a successful attempt to retreat/escape is necessary to successfully defend a shooting as justifiable.

No.

Obviously, one who has retreated may not lawfully use deadly force for self defense. He would have no lawful reason.

One who is in his domicile need not retreat before defending himself.

In many states, one who is in any place win which he has a legal right to be need not retreat before using deadly force to defend himself, though in some of those he must not have been engaged in any kind of unlawful activity at the time.

In all jurisdictions, one must meet all of the other applicable requirements for a legal defense of self defense.

There are some states in which one would not be privileged to employ deadly force in self defense [edited] outside of one's "castle" in a circumstance in which retreat was safely possible and the defender did not retreat.

The words attempted and successful are very important to this point of law, particularly attempted. Omitting them for brevity or 'because it is implied' is never a good idea when discussing the law.

The law says noting about an attempt to escape. It hinges entirely upon whether retreat in perfect safety was possible.

Others determine that after the fact, based on the evidence.

Does this help?

 

[entropy]

Yep. Since the thread was about avoiding trouble in public places, you could see where one could become cornfused when Castle Doctrine is tossed into the mix....

There are some states in which one would not be privileged to employ deadly force in self defense in a circumstance in which retreat was safely possible and the defender did not retreat.

True. There was one case that found a woman guilty of manslaughter because she did not crawl out a basement window. I believe it was a wrongful conviction do to the fact that there was no safe manner of retreating out that window.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Yep. Since the thread was about avoiding trouble in public places, you could see where one could become cornfused when Castle Doctrine is tossed into the mix....



True. There was one case that found a woman guilty of manslaughter because she did not crawl out a basement window. I believe it was a wrongful conviction do to the fact that there was no safe manner of retreating out that window.

I remember reading about that case somewhere. That's why I questioned it when somebody said that no state in the Union has a duty to retreat in your own home

 

[bearcreek]

Trunk Monkey doesn't go to rest stops because he's determined that the risks outweigh the rewards

Seems like basically the same thing as "too dangerous" Anyway, I'm still confused about the legal terminology. It sounds as if Kleanbore is saying that the words "escape", "retreat" and "avoid" are used interchangeably in lawyer speak, which doesn't make a bit of sense (not that it needs to in order to be the way that it is). Kleanbore, do I understand you correctly? Do those three words mean exactly the same thing in legalese?

 

[Kleanbore]

It sounds as if Kleanbore is saying that the words "escape", "retreat" and "avoid" are used interchangeably in lawyer speak,

No.

I misused the word "escape".

And in use of force law, the word "avoidance" means retreat.

Avoidance (retreat, if safely possible) is required of civilians in some states, when they are not in their "castles".

Some state laws and superior court decisions have eliminated the duty to retreat--but not necessarily in all circumstances.

Many centuries ago at Common Law, the defender was required to "retreat to the wall". That distinguished him from the common murderer.

This thread is not about a legal requirement for avoidance--the legal duty to retreat. It is about avoiding risks.

Got it now?

 

[23tony]

This seems like a very odd definition. If I avoid an area that has a lot of rattlesnakes, I didn't escape a rattlesnake attack, I avoided experiencing one. Not saying you're wrong (I'm certainly no lawyer) just that that seems to be a rather convoluted use of the word.

It's probably defined in some statute, or in case law somewhere.

Event with Kleanbore's update ("retreat" vs "escape") it still seems a convoluted definition of "avoidance", but that's legalese for you I guess.

 

[Kleanbore]

The point, one more time, is that the thread is not about a duty to retreat, which is what one refers to when discussing the legal obligation for avoidance in use of force law..

 

[Trunk Monkey]

The point, one more time, is that the thread is not about a duty to retreat, which is what one refers to when discussing the legal obligation for avoidance in use of force law..

I am completely okay with you locking this thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

Okey dokey.