Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it is important to remember that the investigators, the charging authority, and should it come to that, the triers of fact, will base their findings on what can be assembled from incomplete, piecemeal evidence that may be contradictory and questionable.

There will be no sound stage video carefully taken to show everything that was important.

Eyewitness testimony, should it be available, could be determinative--but no matter how strongly the witnesses believe their own testimony, they could be wrong. Another plug for MAG-20 here: the reasons for that are covered in the course.
 
Hello friends and neighbors // Thank you all, for the well thought out summary.

This is why I recommend taking an advanced defensive handgun class or two,, after obtaining your CWP.
As stated a good instructor has answered these questions at the State/Local level many times. We had Q&A and discussion for well over an hour to begin my first class.

The instructors even gave me their cell numbers and told me to call right after calling my Attorney. A call we both hope never happens.

I'm going to reread this a few times now , thanks again for the time/energy!
 
Haha, noted. :D

I hadn't actually read the first part of the thread for a while.
 
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I'd rather potentially end up in prison for exercising force against a home invader than to end up dead or allow my family to be injured by a potentially dangerous individual.

I'm an atheist and whether you believe in god or not I hope you value your life. If you're like me and you don't believe in an afterlife then you believe that your life must be protected in order to maintain your existence, if you're religious then you've got to accept that if god didn't want you to live then he wouldn't have created you in the first place. Either way your safety is your responsibility.
 
I'd rather potentially end up in prison for exercising force against a home invader than to end up dead or allow my family to be injured by a potentially dangerous individual.

All of us would make the same choice, if that was the only option.

However, the law in every jurisdiction recognizes that you have the right to protect yourself and your family.

What we're discussing here is knowing what constitutes a "justifiable" use of force -- when are you truly shooting to save life -- and what does not.

The law does, and must, recognize that there are many reasons that one person might kill another, and that those vary from murderous criminal aggression on one end of the spectrum, to defense against murderous aggression on the other end. The law is set up to guide us (as a surrogate for morality) that only the most clearly and compellingly defensive uses of lethal force are acceptable. And that, if there are other ways to resolve a potentially violent interaction, they should be exercised.
 
All of us would make the same choice, if that was the only option.

However, the law in every jurisdiction recognizes that you have the right to protect yourself and your family.

What we're discussing here is knowing what constitutes a "justifiable" use of force -- when are you truly shooting to save life -- and what does not.

The law does, and must, recognize that there are many reasons that one person might kill another, and that those vary from murderous criminal aggression on one end of the spectrum, to defense against murderous aggression on the other end. The law is set up to guide us (as a surrogate for morality) that only the most clearly and compellingly defensive uses of lethal force are acceptable. And that, if there are other ways to resolve a potentially violent interaction, they should be exercised.
I don't want to ever have to kill anyone. I just hope that if I'm forced into that situation that the legal system recognizes the need to protect one's life.
 
This is Great summary. I am glad to live in TX where I have a wider latidude than many of the rest of you. Per my Lawyer know Your State and Local laws plus the mindset of the DA.
 
Interesting read, for sure.

As a side note, there is no longer any DTR in Alaska. HB 24 was recently signed into law, removing the duty to retreat requirement from any place you have a right to be.
 
It cannot be overemphasized that everyone's moral duty is to protect all human life.

The most important human lives are one's own and those of the ones he loves, followed by those with whom he is in league or company. Sometimes--very, very rarely--it may be necessary to potentially take a human life from some other category to protect a higher category, and that is how we should approach SD/HD.

I will not shoot another person if there is any other way to protect those in the aforementioned groups from serious harm or death. No statute or legal precedent can justify, for me, taking a life I could have spared without jeopardizing others. There are laws in some states that allow for this, but my moral code stops me from doing it.

My ability to win in court is moot. Even if I take a life and remain out of prison, the monetary and human costs of taking a life that I could have spared without risk of serious harm to myself and others are simply too high.

Someone already said this in slightly different words, but it bears repeating: The question should not be: "What's my minimum criteria for legally shooting someone?" Rather, it should be: "Under what conditions have I been left with no alternative but to shoot someone?" And of course: "How can I avoid getting into that set of conditions in the first place?"

If you truly had no choice, and you shot another person, then what happens in court should be of little matter to you--you chose to take one life to save another, and the life you saved goes on. Your highest priority goal was served. That's what matters.
 
Last edited:
Good summary.

The various laws on defense of others is also a commonly misunderstood subject, if you are looking for another topic to write on!
 
Posted by henschman: The various laws on defense of others is also a commonly misunderstood subject, if you are looking for another topic to write on!
Maybe when the opportunity presents itself.

Here's an appetizer: one may use deadly force to defend others only when that person would be justified in using deadly force to defend himself or herself. And in one state (I cannot remember which one), it is not sufficient to have reason to believe that the person would be so justified. You have to be right.

How do you like them apples?

Two things to always keep in mind:
  • Things are not always what they appear; and
  • the private citizen is not indemnified, and civil liability can be enormous.
 
Maybe when the opportunity presents itself.

Here's an appetizer: one may use deadly force to defend others only when that person would be justified in using deadly force to defend himself or herself. And in one state (I cannot remember which one), it is not sufficient to have reason to believe that the person would be so justified. You have to be right.

How do you like them apples?

Two things to always keep in mind:
  • Things are not always what they appear; and
  • the private citizen is not indemnified, and civil liability can be enormous.
Thank the Lord for Texas. Know your state's laws what Joe Horn did down here could get you 20 to life in other states.
 
Posted by Deltaboy: Thank the Lord for Texas. Know your state's laws what Joe Horn did down here could get you 20 to life in other states.
A law enforcement officer told the Grand Jury that he witnessed Horn shooting two individuals who were attacking him in what appeared to be a necessary act of self defense.

There is no reason to believe that defense would not have prevailed in any US jurisdiction.

Later, Texan Horn said that he deeply regretted the shooting.

Horn himself apparently did not know the law--he told the 911 dispatcher that he intended to defend a neighbor's property, apparently unaware that he would have to present evidence that he had been asked to do so. His attorney reportedly did not intend to try to claim justification under Section 9.42.

The man was lucky.
 
Great summary!

I would add only that some states are statutory law only, meaning that common law holds no authority. This may be a distinction without a difference, I admit.
 
DTR to me is not an issue at all! I will only shoot if I have to in order to protect life. It should NEVER be can I shoot but do I have to shoot. Many people have shot some one. been charged, tried and later cleared of the charges. But they did NOT win. they spent a fortune in legal fees, some have lost their house and job as well. They spent months of stress dealing with wondering if they could go to jail. They were found not guilty but did not win. That's the way it is. You are found to be innocent but it cost you everything you have. I will ALWAYS retreat if I can.
 
. we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely," Holder said. "By allowing -- and perhaps encouraging -- violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.

Attorney General Eric Holder
 
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...
Quote:
. we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely," Holder said. "By allowing -- and perhaps encouraging -- violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.
Attorney General Eric Holder
__________________
 
Translation:

We want to repeal laws that prevent us from prosecuting people who defend themselves. Guns are bad. Mm-kay?
 
I got that much out of it but I think my brain wasn't working all the way yesterday :banghead:. I personally don't see how retreating out of ones home could prevent an escalation in public. The phrasing just seems awkward to me.
 
The phrasing is awkward because their logic is equally tortured. He's saying self defense on the street, not in the home, but we know that's just the first step. If they get what they want this time next will be self defense anywhere. On the road to total disarmament and a helpless peasantry.
This a continuation of their attack on the second amendment.
 
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...
Quote:
Quote:
. we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely," Holder said. "By allowing -- and perhaps encouraging -- violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.
Attorney General Eric Holder

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept behind SYG laws per se, however they are probably poorly named and in addition, parties hostile to the 2nd Amendment and RKBA are intentionally muddying their intent further and politicizing the issue, very probably with the hope they can exploit the later chaos for political gain.

Sick.

As has been said, the use of deadly force should be the absolute, last ditch option. No crap, the only other choices are death or serious bodily harm (and in NC, sexual assault). Always seek to de-escalte. Associate only with good people, and do not intentionally put yourself into stupid situations. In a life in death encounter, there are no winners, even for the good guy who lives. He/she just looses less than they would have otherwise. In essence, employing deadly force in self defense is choosing one heaping pile of excrement (possibly taking another life) over a much larger pile of excrement (loosing your own or the life of a loved one).

I'd rather avoid having to make that choice if it all possible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top