Is there a " Duty To Retreat" ?

gizamo

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
866
Location
Maine
Dang, it is hard to know the law. Depends on what piece of Real Estate your upon in any given State of the Union.

Are you responsible to retreat before responding to a imminent threat,.....in your neck of the woods?

Seems like most folks would rather be judged by Twelve, than carried by Six.

Giz
 
Register to hide this ad
In Florida, no. We have Stand your Ground.

In your State of Maine it may be different, It's part of the Castle Doctrine and from what I just read it seems you do not have to retreat in your home but it may be different outside of your home, so best to check your local laws..
 
Last edited:
In OK, legally no, and I wouldn't leave my house or car.

However, when outside and I spot an apparent setup in progress, I can and have maneuvered to get some cover and narrow the approach, which has discouraged the situation being pressed. In other words, the best outcome for me is avoidance if the situation permits. One pair of JDs that appeared to be stalking me were later arrested for assault of another person.
 
Tenn-

"A person has the right to protect his own home and family, to peace, order, and the observance of decent behavior in his own house and in the presence of his family; to eject a drunken, disorderly, and dangerous person from his house; to use all force that may be required for that purpose; and, if resisted and exposed to danger by the intruder, he may exercise his right of self -defense, and is under no obligation to retreat or escape from his own premises to avoid trouble. State v. Foutch, 96 Tenn. 242, 34 S.W. 1 (1896)."
 
Last edited:
There is no need to retreat in Wyoming. Local District atty refused to press charges on a guy here citing it was self defense.

A feller was trying to kick in householder's door. Them two had been in a fracas and soon to be deceased stated he was gonna go get a gun and come back. He did.

House holder shot several times through the door, killing the BG

Interesting side note. Householder is in prison for felon in possession of a gun as a result of the incident. Charges related to the shooting were struck down as the court ruled it was clearly self defense.

I got a sneakin' hunch that mebbe some of our Judges here in Wyoming still wear their spurs to court, but that don't make them all bad.;)
 
Last edited:
Missouri has the Castle Doctrine, which applies to home or vehicle, there is "No Duty to Retreat"
 
Michigan also has Castle Doctrine and this applies to both Home and Motor Vehicle. However, in any Self Defense situation there does have a clearly demonstratable need to use Lethal Force. This means that you cannot shoot a fleeing burglar but if he's moving towards you you are good to go "hot".
 
In Tennessee, outside of the home, yes. Not really a 'duty to retreat' as much as a 'duty to not escalate' (the same as anywhere else, I guess). I imagine that 'not escalating' could easily involve retreat, and I'm quite willing to walk backwards if I can, up to a point. The point would depend on the situation.
 
Dear Giz,

It seems to me that that is almost always the wrong question. Being very self-centered, and having limited respect for the law (after all, if the law were moral or sensible or based on English precedent or Biblical principles or much of anything respectable, it wouldn't vary from state to state, at least in this case), my question would be, "What is best for me and my family, including considering the law?" I believe that in virtually all cases where you can safely retreat, you should do so, whether the law seems to require it or not. I believe that in all cases where it is safer to resist, you should do so, whether the law seems to allow it or not. Usually, particularly when you or your lawyer can properly explain the need AT THE PROPER TIME, you will find that the law DID allow it, although perhaps not under the statute or principle that you may have been reading about.

Regardless, I believe that the choice of running towards danger or away from it should always be a practical decision, and never a legal one. All the law is good for is helping you think about the practical and moral issues involved.

Leastways, that's how I see it.

520
 
Justice may be blind, but she sho' is expensive.

If you think about it from a little outside of the box, retreat generally insights pursuit, especially in animals, and often in humans as well. It's just a common reaction, psychologically, and this point was a central issue, if I remember correctly, in the consideration of the "castle doctrine" in Florida. The application of this "turn around and run" idea fails badly when put into the most basic of deadly confrontation scenarios, it just does not play well in a real situation. Our legal system, as a whole, is badly broken, in my view. There are surely god folks within it, but as an entity, it's busted. As the previous poster said, in the real world, YOU have to make the determination of when a peaceful outcome has been taken out of your hands. While the law makes no accomodation for a moral consideration, I do, and I am compelled to by my way of life, and my values, which stemfrom my relationship with Jesus of Nazareth. Ultimately, I have to be able to reconcile these things when I lie down to sleep, whether it is in a jail, or the comfort of my home. And I will add, that I must be ready to risk the consequences of the law in cases where my actions could be questionable, under the law. If, for instance, I saw someone sweep up a little child, or a woman, off of the street, I would do everything in my power to stop that situation from proceding, and if it turned out that my assumptions were wrong, in the split second I had to make the decision, so be it. It is a large part of why I am armed. Luke 22: 35-36. Flapjack.
 
North Carolina has its' equivalent of the castle doctrine. Until July of this year if deadly force was used to protect a life in your home or car the burden of proof was on the party using the deadly force to prove that they believed their life or the life of another was in danger. Now if someone forces their way into your home or vehicle and you use force to protect yourself you no longer have to prove you believed your life or the life of another was in danger.
 
Indiana you can stand your ground. 3 miles from here in Illinois in the face of eminent danger you're required to stick your head in the sand.
 
Castle Doctrine here in Kansas, too. And it does not matter if you are in your home, in your car, or in the parking lot of grocery store, you have no duty to retreat.
 
The nice thing about "Stand Your Ground" law is that states have included immunity from civil lawsuits as part of the package in all the states that adopted the law. So far that's about 20 states and hopefully the trend will continue. If you have a right to defend yourself society should also protect you from civil suits when you do exercise that right.

Every once in a while the politicians get it right and it's almost like a miracle or something when it does happen isn't it?

Bob
 
In the PRNJ there is a duty to retreat, however they also only recognize the right to defend oneself with a firearm in the home. Unfortunately the PRNJ is only slightly better than IL, to obtain a carrry permit you have prove a justifiable need or be politically connected.
 
In Ohio, you have the duty to retreat IF you're outside of your home or automobile. Contrary to the misconceptions of some, that does NOT mean that you have ANY duty to turn your back on a dangerous assailant and try to run away. You merely need to ATTEMPT to withdraw from a confrontation, if you can do so in PERFECT SAFETY. If your assailant attempts to prevent your retreat, shame on him.

We have immunity from suit for a successful defense. If the shoot is ruled justified, sue all you want. You'll never collect a dime. I imagine it's hard to get a lawyer to file a frivolous suit on a contingent basis if he knows he's never going to get paid.
 
Back
Top