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.
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.
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.