Posted by DWFan:"Duty to Retreat" is the flip-side of "Right to Advance". You can't have one without the other.
I'm afraid you have lost me, I have never heard of a "right to advance." You have the right to go anywhere you can legally go, it that's what you mean, but you may not use deadly force to enforce that right in the event of a hindrance.
It you are referring to a supposed "right" of an alleged attacker, he has no "right to advance" for unlawful purposes, and any duty on your part to attempt retreat does not give him one. His rights, like yours, are the right to due process and the right to not be subjected to the unjustified use of deadly or otherwise excessive force or unlawful restraint.
If the law mandates that the you must look to retreat before taking action, and the perp takes no action to provoke a response from you after forcing your vacating the property, he has still successfully forced you to vacate that property.
OK. the law--statute, common law, case law, whatever--requires that deadly force be immediately necessary before its use is justified. In some jurisdictions,
retreat must be attempted if safely possible before that necessity is acknowledged to exist.
That's a given. Of course, in some places, there is no explicitly stated requirement to retreat per se. However, even in those, evidence that one did in fact take every effort to avoid, deescalate, evade, and escape wuold prove very useful indeed in a defense of justification, particularly if other evidence is not conclusive.
In some places the duty to retreat even applies inside the home, unfortunately.
However, you have lost me again.
If you and your loved ones have in fact retreated, whether from your home or not, the perp need take no action to "provoke" you into summoning help. However, there is no action that he can take, other than continuing to come after you while still posing a serious threat of death or serious bodily harm until you have reached the point at which further safe retreat is not possible, that would permit you to employ deadly force lawfully at that time, except under limited circumstances in Texas, where, incidentally, retreat is not required.
Forcing one to vacate their property, for whatever reason or whatever length of time, by definition, is removing that person's right to ownership (possession) of that property.
Maybe from one standpoint if you stretch it, but you have not lost title to the property, you have just departed, and he hasn't taken your house with him. You'll depart in the event of flood or a haz-mat risk, but you'll still own the property.
However, in most places, deadly force may
not be employed to protect property. Has nothing to do with retreat. Nothing at all.
In many places, one does have the right to employ deadly force without retreat in the event of an unlawful entry made with force into an occupied dwelling or automobile. Members of the anti gun community have argued that the codification of that right has been intended to legalize the use of deadly force for the protection of property or even to legalize murder, but they know better.