The Duty to Retreat...

[Lone_Gunman]

I have been thinking about Florida's new stand your ground law, and how it will be applied.

It has been suggested by the media that this will turn FL into the "OK Corral", and I totally disagree with that. But at the same time, I am not sure how useful this law would really be. I envision three scenarios where this law might come into play:

1. You are at home, and a criminal breaks in on you. It is my understanding that most states do not require you to retreat in your own home, and so you can use deadly force to protect yourself. So, the new law doesn't help anything here.

2. You are out in town, and are accosted by a criminal who intends to do immediate deadly harm to you. He pulls a gun or knife and launches an attack. You don't have time or opportunity to retreat, so you use deadly force. I believe in most states using deadly force in that situation would be justified, and Florida's law would not apply. If you don't have time to retreat, and threat of death is imminent, you can use force.

3. Here is where things get fuzzy for me. You are out on the town, and are accosted by a criminal who is threatening you. He is physically threatening in some way, but has not yet attacked. You have time to get away if you want. You think if you stay, he might try to do physical harm to you. Does the new law allow you to shoot this person? To clarify, you feel physically threatened, but have time to escape (you think) if you want. In this situation, is it not morally wrong to retreat if you have the opportunity, even if the law says you can defend yourself with deadly force?

Input is appreciated. Again, I am not against the new law, just trying to sort out how it will be used.

 

[El Rojo]

I think it mainly protects you from unjust prosecution and civil (I am guessing on civil) penalties. Example: A guy with a knife accosts me in any kind of manner. If a slick DA can argue that I could have turned around and ran because I am in better shape than the criminal and I could have outran him, I go to prison on manslaughter or murder charges. Or in the civil case they find me liable because I could have retreated.

I think this thing just serves to protect you from "runaway juries" and overzealous prosecutors. You are not the criminal because you "could" have retreated. Now you can just focus on stopping the threat instead of hesitating in a dangerous situation because you don't want to face criminal or civil charges for doing what you know is right. It gives us the power over criminals instead of making us cower in fear of a unjust justice system.

 

[Standing Wolf]

To clarify, you feel physically threatened, but have time to escape (you think) if you want. In this situation, is it not morally wrong to retreat if you have the opportunity, even if the law says you can defend yourself with deadly force?

No one can answer that intelligently without knowing the nature of the threat, the imminence of the threat, the type of retreat that might be taken, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Are we talking about a football player versus an itty bitty 18-year-old woman, a football player versus another football player, or an 18-year-old woman with a box cutter scaring the socks off a football player?

My hunch is that no two situations are alike.

 

[Byron Quick]

It will prevent a prosecutor from trying to second guess you in front of a jury because you did not retreat.

In duty to retreat states, it does not matter that you had no opportunity to retreat. What matters is if a prosecutor can convince a jury that you had an opportunity to retreat and callously failed to do your duty.

Prosecutors can no longer try that tactic in Florida. This law does not really affect the tactics of a confrontation in most cases. It greatly affects whether or not a prosecutor can bring charges on an otherwise justified shooting.

It cuts down on their weasel room.

 

[thorn726]

os far seems like even in CA you have the right- havent found any actual statutes yet, but this has some interesting statements
http://annika.mu.nu/archives/065195.html
this probably biegn the most useful-
After searching case law, the California Penal Code and the California Jury Instructions - Criminal, I believe that there is no duty to retreat in one's home in California. In fact, California Penal Code section 198.5 reads:

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

Additionally,

"When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein . . . "

Cal. Penal Code section 197.

 

[El Rojo]

Yeah Thorn, you didn't know that? People are so quick to criticize California, but they don't realize we are actually a half way decent state. Sure there are parts that absolutely suck, but we actually have decent self-defense laws and there are still portions of the state that can get a CCW with no problems.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Thorn, both of those apply to situations within the home. That's NOT what the new Florida law addresses. Florida also had no duty to retreat within the home, prior to 1 October 2005. That is what is commonly referred to as a "Castle Doctrine" law.

The new Florida law removes the duty to retreat in the face of the threat of imminent death or bodily harm when NOT in the home.