With all the "fake news" in print, I am confused on what old duty-to-retreat really was?

[BigFatKen]

I tried a search but 25 pages came up. What were examples of extreme "duty to retreat Laws"?


A lot of Law was made in 1985-96. Wisconsin allowed the lottery, made marriage a community property state.. more. Big taxes changed. Nothing about carry or duty that other States were doing. I read at the time of what I now think may have been fake-news. I likely read in Milwaukee Journal this story.

A woman in Mass. was charged with some kind of murder/manslaughter who killed her ex-boyfriend or husband. He pounded on front door then kicked it in. She retreated to bedroom. Locked it. Flimsy interior door is kicked in. While hearing pounding on bedroom door, she retreats into closet. No interior lock. She loads .22 rifle in dark and when he opens door, she keeps pumping it, shooting him many times. He finally falls.

This seems unbelievable now but could that have been true in the 1970's?

 

[flphotog]

Not sure what you mean by "old duty-to-retreat", this is a state issue and some states still have a duty to retreat, others do not.

 

[BigFatKen]

Perhaps I should not have inserted the word "old". Consider my question ammended.

 

[AZAndy]

Ohio had that when I was growing up in Columbus. I know of a case where a woman was prosecuted for shooting an intruder in the early 70s. I knew about it because a close friend's family bought the house from her. I don't know what the laws there are like nowadays.

 

[BigFatKen]

In 1979-80 I used Waukesha county builder Bill to rehab my house. Great work. A few years later his wife shot him dead with a 38 until it was empty after a period of abuse. I forget if there was a trial or more details. The shooting was excusable under law but but only thing was she could not inherit the house. House title went to kids.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....A lot of Law was made in 1985-96. Wisconsin allowed the lottery, made marriage a community property state.. more. Big taxes changed. Nothing about carry or duty that other States were doing. I read at the time of what I now think may have been fake-news. I likely read in Milwaukee Journal this story....

Several points:

• News reports are not a good way to try to understand law, in general, nor self defense/use of force law, specifically.
  
  • First, the details matter, but most news reports are pretty sketchy and almost never provide enough information. And in any case reporters seldom understand which facts might have the most legal significance.
    
    
  • Second, there's seldom good follow-up. So while a news report might tell us that someone was charged for the act of violence, we won't necessarily hear that after further investigation the DA concluded it was legitimate self defense and dropped the charges. Alternatively we might be told that "no charges were filed" and never hear the later on the DA took the case to the grand jury and the actor was indicted.
  
  
• The best source of legal information will be the primary sources, i. e., the applicable statutes and decisions of courts of appeal applying those statutes in particular cases.
  
  
• Good sources of legal information also include books or articles written by qualified persons who understand the subject matter and have done the research. See, for example, lawyer Andrew Branca's website, the books of Massad Ayoob, UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
  
  
• There are a few good threads on the subject here at THR, including this thread, this thread, and this thread.

 

[mjsdwash]

just thinking out loud, but many common law countries do the investigation into the crime during the charging stage. So it dosent matter how black and white a crime is, the police don't make the call, it goes to some higher level. Then, you go to trial, and can be found innocent, but they still took you to trial, rather than determine guilt
based on evidence. I don't know of any states that do that, but you never know.

 

[Frank Ettin]

.... the police don't make the call, it goes to some higher level.....

It's not up to the police. The decision whether or not to prosecute is made by a District Attorney (or some similar official with a different title, e. g., County Prosecutor). The prosecutorial official might decide to file charges or to seek an indictment by a grand jury.

.... you go to trial, and can be found innocent,...

No, one is never found at trial to be innocent. One may be acquitted or found "not guilty." That's a very important, technical distinction. What the trier of fact determines is whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving you guilty -- not whether you are legally (and morally) innocent or without fault. This means that an acquittal of a criminal charge is not a defense to a civil lawsuit arising from the same incident.

.... ..but they still took you to trial, rather than determine guilt based on evidence.....

A trial is determining guilt based on the evidence. What else do you think a trial is?

.....I don't know of any states that do that, but you never know.

They all do.

 

[boatdoc173]

fwiw during our nra basic course a few years ago, they discussed that (In CT) you have a duty to retreat before defending your home or yourself

in other words , if the common man could escape, he would rather than engage the thugs

To me(and I may be wrong here) I interpret this to mean, you do not go looking for thugs in the home(clear the house) you retreat to a safe place an d get the police involved by calling 911 BUT if they are coming to you and you fear for your life( or our loved ones lives), you have the right to defend yourself


on the street-,you already face direct confrontation and sense the danger- the rule always is escape if you can, fight if you can't

I hope NONE of us has to face either of these situations EVER

 

[BigFatKen]

Thank you Everyone except flphotog whose reply was worse than useless. Consider my question answered.

 

[hdwhit]

BigFatKen wrote:
This seems unbelievable now but could that have been true in the 1970's?

Yes, it could have been true in the 1970's.

Flordia now has a reputation as a pretty gun-friendly state, but it was not always that way. In the mid-1970's some thugs invaded a home owned by a retired couple somewhere in South Florida. The man heard the burgulars but decided to pretend to be asleep. When the burgulars entered the bedroom, his wife was disturbed and was awakened. The burgulars panicked and began shooting. The man took a pistol he kept under his pillow and returned fire. The firefight ensued until one burgular was mortally wounded and the other burgulars ran out of ammunition. The man called 911. The burgulars left the house, went to a store, bought more ammunition and returned to the house to take vengance on the man who had just killed their comrade. The second gunfight was recorded on the 911 tape. The wife died. At least one burgular (maybe more) died. The man was arrested, but ultimately not charged. The families of the burgulars sued the man for wrongful death and won. So, yes, something that outrageous could have been true in the 1970's. It might still be true in some place like Massachussets today, but in the intervenig decades common sense regarding firearm use seems prevails in more locations.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The theory behind duty-to-retreat was to discourage unnecessary use of lethal force or situations of mutual combat leading to one party resorting to lethal force. I thought the problem found with the duty-to-retreat laws was that, if you claimed self-defense in use of force, you were obligated to prove that safe retreat was impossible and that you had in fact exhausted every avenue of retreat before using defensive force against an attacker (retreated til literally backed against a wall).

That in effect was obligating the defender to prove a negative -- safe retreat was not possible -- rather than the prosecutor proving a positive -- safe retreat was possible.

The Massachusett case that OP #1 mentions that became a cause celebre:

Ann Jones, Women Who Kill, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1980.
In Massachusetts Roberta Shaffer was convicted of manslaughter for the 1971 shooting of her fiance, John Ferruzzo, who was threatening to beat her and her little boy, as he had done before. She fled to the basement of her house to join her son and daughter, and when Ferruzzo kept coming, she shot him. Massachusetts law, however, requires that the defendant retreat as far as possible to avoid violence; and Roberta Shaffer had only retreated as far as the basement. Shaffer argued that she could not retreat farther with her young children, and she would not leave them behind; but in 1976 the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld her conviction.

As the "battered woman syndrome" became a matter of public concern, the number of women in prison for defending themselves when a safe retreat might not have been possible brought the "duty to retreat" under question (duty of victim to retreat may be emboldening abusers). One might argue it was taken out of context, or details were left out, but the Mass. case was not fake news.


ADDED: Tennessee's reaction was to pass laws that
(a) if you are attacked where you have a right to be, you are not obligated to prove safe retreat was an option, and
(b) anyone who attempts a felony on another's property forfeits their right to sue for any accidental or intentional injuries received as a result.

 

[BigFatKen]

Yes, it could have been true in the 1970's.
....
It might still be true in some place like Massachussets today, but in the intervening decades common sense regarding firearm use seems prevails in more locations.

Thank you. It appears that the Jones case was not the only case or I did not remember it right after 37 years. My memory might be bad or I heard it third hand and the facts moved around a little.

 

[Kleanbore]

Flordia now has a reputation as a pretty gun-friendly state, but...

Do not confuse so called "gun friendliness" with the nature of the use of force laws in a particular jurisdiction.

 

[Wisco]

I was just going to chime in with a good place to start, but the source I was going to use has obviously outdated information posted about Wisconsin, my home state.

If I wanted to know about use of force, I'd go with state statutes and search by keyword. News articles might be a place to start to get the name of the relevant statute, but I wouldn't even read past where I found the stattute and just go read it myself ... or have a lawyer tell me what they think it means, or what's been decided it means.

Some state bar websites have good info to start your search.

So, Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine law - 2011 Wisconsin Act 94: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/94

I've seen a couple other states that have similar databases like Wisconsin's. Makes for some fun reading if you're into that sort of thing.

 

[BigFatKen]

Thank you for the reply. I am sorry that I did not say right up front that I escaped from Wisconsin's high taxes some years ago. There was no CC when I lived there too. Game wardens hated gun users in general. A common ticket was to issue a game ticket violation of having a gun in or on a car. So when a hunter would put his deer rifle front site in the crack of the car door/frame to keep it out of muddy road, that was $117 violation.

I was badly injured in Army and have a 100% SC disability. In Florida or Alabama where where I live now, my homeowners tax rate is zero. Respect is given to the military too. I just looked up the land I used to own in an expensive area of Wisc. and the home now there is taxed at (hold your breath) over $25,000 per year.

I just read my copy of April PVA news ( www.pva.org ). An Oregon Air Force paraplegic writes to not trust the NRA, CC may get you killed and if your have never experienced the noise of an active semi-auto shooter inside a mall, it is bad. He qualified with 1911. I qualified too but shot expert.

I do not know of his service but I looked up Oregon property taxes and no relief is given to veterans who receive big disability compensation. I cannot understand why any like veteran would pay these taxes. I have never been in a mall with active shooter but I have been infantry perimeter guard under a 155mm shooting charge seven (max). I think I have heard plenty. Also a 81mm mortar round fell on other side of a fallen tree I was laying next to. Pretty loud too. I have heard an AK-47 up close but the man in front of me took the one hit of the auto burst. Typical NVA spray-in-pray.

What would you advise I reply to this veteran? Can he be converted or just another left-coast Liberal?

Sorry about what is something of a rant but some years I get wierded out as Memorial Day approaches. Many of my brothers last pictures are in the June 1969 Life mag.



see http://time.com/3485726/faces-of-the-american-dead-in-vietnam-one-weeks-toll-june-1969/

 

[old lady new shooter]

The theory behind duty-to-retreat was to discourage unnecessary use of lethal force or situations of mutual combat leading to one party resorting to lethal force. I thought the problem found with the duty-to-retreat laws was that, if you claimed self-defense in use of force, you were obligated to prove that safe retreat was impossible and that you had in fact exhausted every avenue of retreat before using defensive force against an attacker (retreated til literally backed against a wall).

That in effect was obligating the defender to prove a negative -- safe retreat was not possible -- rather than the prosecutor proving a positive -- safe retreat was possible.

The Massachusett case that OP #1 mentions that became a cause celebre:

As the "battered woman syndrome" became a matter of public concern, the number of women in prison for defending themselves when a safe retreat might not have been possible brought the "duty to retreat" under question (duty of victim to retreat may be emboldening abusers). One might argue it was taken out of context, or details were left out, but the Mass. case was not fake news.


ADDED: Tennessee's reaction was to pass laws that
(a) if you are attacked where you have a right to be, you are not obligated to prove safe retreat was an option, and
(b) anyone who attempts a felony on another's property forfeits their right to sue for any accidental or intentional injuries received as a result.

That Tennessee point (b) is excellent, wish it were the law in all states.

 

[pintler]

Disclaimer: 20 year old memories are suspect.

That said, ISTR a case from the 1990's (in MA??) where a family (hubby, wife, kids) was on the second floor of their house when someone broke in. Hubby ended up shooting the intruder. The DA prosecuted based on the theory that they could have retreated by going out a second floor window.

As Frank pointed out above, the news sources didn't report the eventual outcome (on top of whatever misremembering I'm doing).

Anyway, I think the take home message is that, in some jurisdictions, you'll probably be prosecuted regardless of the facts. If you can retreat, you should. If you can't, you balance the risk of a trial against the risk of being dead.

 

[Proinsias]

Can I piggyback on this? What is the current map of defense laws? I checked several sources, some of which I consider credible, and there are big differences in the states they consider duty to retreat? I think it's only a couple states, and then most or all of the territories? Even CA has a castle doctrine.

My only retreat is a drop a story down out the window.

 

[12Pump]

I tried a search but 25 pages came up. What were examples of extreme "duty to retreat Laws"?


A lot of Law was made in 1985-96. Wisconsin allowed the lottery, made marriage a community property state.. more. Big taxes changed. Nothing about carry or duty that other States were doing. I read at the time of what I now think may have been fake-news. I likely read in Milwaukee Journal this story.

A woman in Mass. was charged with some kind of murder/manslaughter who killed her ex-boyfriend or husband. He pounded on front door then kicked it in. She retreated to bedroom. Locked it. Flimsy interior door is kicked in. While hearing pounding on bedroom door, she retreats into closet. No interior lock. She loads .22 rifle in dark and when he opens door, she keeps pumping it, shooting him many times. He finally falls.

This seems unbelievable now but could that have been true in the 1970's?

I'm in Wisconsin and I remember hearing about that being the law here not long ago. Then they finally came out with "Castle Doctrine" which got that turned around.

 

[Cannibul]

I do not know of his service but I looked up Oregon property taxes and no relief is given to veterans who receive big disability compensation.

Oregon does give a partial exemption to all Veterans with at least a 40% disability.

https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/forms/FormsPubs/veteran-spouse-exemption_310-676.pdf

It's not much but it's there.

The fact that Texas gives 100% property tax relief to 100% disabled Veterans was one of the reasons I moved here.

 

[BigFatKen]

The Disability Compension the VA pays is more than 185% of poverty level.

However, there is an income limit. In the year before the exemption year, your total gross income can’t be more than 185 percent of the annual Federal Poverty Level Guidelines.

 

[Cannibul]

The Disability Compension the VA pays is more than 185% of poverty level.

I lived in Oregon and received the small amount of property tax relief and did so while I was working and making over $50k a year BECAUSE I'm rated at 40% by the VA,

Also you're reading things into the law that are not there.

How do I qualify for a $20,763 exemption? First, you must meet one of these requirements: •
Be a veteran who is officially certified by the United States (U.S.) Department of Veterans Affairs or any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces as having disabilities of 40 percent or more; or • Be a veteran who served with the U.S. Armed Forces and is certified each year by a licensed physician as being 40 percent or more disabled. However, there is an income limit. In the year before the exemption year, your total gross income can’t be more than 185 percent of the annual Federal Poverty Level Guidelines. Total gross income includes pensions, disability compensation, and retirement pay received for your military service. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publishes new Federal Poverty Level Guidelines every February. The updated current year guideline is used for that exemption year. You can see these guidelines online at aspe.hhs.gov; or • Be a veteran’s surviving spouse/partner who hasn’t entered into a new marriage or registered domestic partnership (partnership). You may file a claim for the exemption even though your spouse/partner wasn’t disabled or never filed a claim for the exemption if disabled. (See the definition under “Who is a veteran?” to determine your eligibility as the surviving spouse/

Note the ONE and OR. If you're rated 40% by the VA you receive the exemption. OR if a DOCTOR, not the VA certifies you're 40% disabled you fall under the income limit.

To make it simple you'll get the exemption IF

1. You're Veteran rated at 40% or more through the VA

OR

2. A doctor says you're 40% disabled and you are within the income limits

OR

3. You're the spouse/partner of a qualified Veteran.

 

[BigFatKen]

Thank you for the correction. Your are right. I put into my mind must meet ALL conditions.

This is as good a thread as anything.

Is there a good line of reasoning in some posts of how a standing Army, even with tanks and aircraft, cannon defeat an armed citizen militia using guerrilla or asymmetrical warfare tactics?

 

[gillmeister692]

Several points:

• News reports are not a good way to try to understand law, in general, nor self defense/use of force law, specifically.
  • First, the details matter, but most news reports are pretty sketchy and almost never provide enough information. And in any case reporters seldom understand which facts might have the most legal significance.
    
    
  • Second, there's seldom good follow-up. So while a news report might tell us that someone was charged for the act of violence, we won't necessarily hear that after further investigation the DA concluded it was legitimate self defense and dropped the charges. Alternatively we might be told that "no charges were filed" and never hear the later on the DA took the case to the grand jury and the actor was indicted.
  
  
• The best source of legal information will be the primary sources, i. e., the applicable statutes and decisions of courts of appeal applying those statutes in particular cases.
  
  
• Good sources of legal information also include books or articles written by qualified persons who understand the subject matter and have done the research. See, for example, lawyer Andrew Branca's website, the books of Massad Ayoob, UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
  
  
• There are a few good threads on the subject here at THR, including this thread, this thread, and this thread.

This is an outstanding response, Mr. Ettin ! A-plus for organization, spelling, syntax and visual appeal. It's so nice to see good writing on display--for all of us to study and learn from. Thank you.