Need help with a debate...Other states that do NOT have a "duty to retreat"?

[K-Romulus]

here's an example from Virginia

I couldn't find an online opinion by the VA Supreme Court on the issue (but it exists, and has been the law there since the time of The War Between the States), so here is a sample from the Court of Appeals:

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/2527971.txt

FRED BYRON GILBERT v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Record No. 2527-97-1 NOVEMBER 10, 1998

**The distinction between justifiable and excusable

self-defense claims is well established. "Justifiable homicide

in self-defense occurs where a person, without any fault on his

part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another

under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to

himself." Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96, 104 S.E.2d 28,

31 (1958).

When the accused is free from fault in bringing on

the fray, the accused "need not retreat, but is permitted to

stand his [or her] ground and repel the attack by force,

including deadly force, if it is necessary." Foote v.

Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 61, 67, 396 S.E.2d 851, 855 (1990).
*****

And one more (from Westlaw):

Foote v. Commonwealth
11 Va.App. 61, 396 S.E.2d 851, Va.App.,1990.
Sep 18, 1990

***In Virginia, homicide (or attempted homicide) in self-defense is classified either as justifiable or excusable. Justifiable self-defense arises when the defendant is completely without fault. Perkins v. Commonwealth, 186 Va. 867, 876, 44 S.E.2d 426, 430 (1947). In such a case, the defendant need not retreat, but is permitted to stand his ground and repel the attack by force, including deadly force, if it is necessary. McCoy v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 771, 775, 99 S.E. 644, 645 (1919). ***

It is worth noting that the McCoy case is a Virginia Supreme Court case from 1919

 

[BowStreetRunner]

no duty to retreat in GA
BSR

 

[Gray Peterson]

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

No duty to retreat, per State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003), decided by the Washington State Supreme Court. Unlike Oregon's Supreme Court, Washington State doesn't try to read "retreat" anywhere in the statute where it doesn't exist.

Also notice that there's no "reasonable ground" requirement in actual resistance to a felony to yourself or in your presence.. For example, in Washington State, assaulting a bus driver is a Class C felony. I've seen bus driver being assaulted in other states, but never in this state, though reportedly it can happen.

When a driver gets assaulted on a bus, especially when it's moving, the assaulter puts the lives of EVERYONE on the bus in danger.

Washington State also has a reimbursement law that states that if you are charged, and you are acquitted, or charges dropped, you get loss wages and attorney's fees paid for by the state. Also, the statute provides an absolute defense to getting sued civilly.

 

[geekWithA.45]

You'll have to note that there is a BIG difference between duty to retreat @ home, and duty to retreat on the street.

Most states deal with each case differently, and also have a different set of exceptions.

NJ, for example, has a duty to retreat while in the home, unless the encounter was sudden, but does not require you to retreat FROM your home.

ALSO, most states that have any sort of duty to retreat language have an exception for defending others, because requiring you to retreat from the others you're defending simply doesn't work. So, if you're wife & kids are nearby, it's a different ballgame.

 

[Rezin]

I have to admit when I first heard PA was a "retreat first" state, I was shock, since, for the most part, we are a very pro-gun state.

Hmmm. Maybe some letters or such would help. Goinna see who I should write to.....

 

[geekWithA.45]

Whether PA is a retreat state is a little ambiguous, as the statutes require a decoder ring.

It really comes down to how caselaw has dealt with the "complete safety" modifier to the retreat clause, as in, "lethal force is not justified if the actor can retreat in complete safety"


Running past, or turning your back on an attacker is certainly not completely safe.

 

[Erinyes]

Tennessee statutes say explicitly that you have no duty to retreat, without any reference to location (in your home, or on the street).

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

California has no silly 'duty to retreat' anywhere.

Yep. CA law only mentions fear of loss of life and or bodily harm.

 

[wingnutx]

ARIZONA law clearly states that you do not have a duty to retreat from your home.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

If you can walk away from a situation, that means
it is not a level of imminent threat of death or bodily
harm; if it is a case of imminent death or bodily harm,
retreat is not an available option.