Duty to retreat

[ElGato]

My question is...why wouldn't you retreat? If it's safe to do so, by all means retreat.

That was not the question asked. The question asked was do I have to. That answer is no.

My opinion is there IS a duty to retreat if you can do so without further indangering yourself or another innocent third person.

I would like to see this changed next year.

[longtooth]

Me too.

[bauerdj]

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated

To me this means there IS a requiremnet to retreat.

Dave B.

[Glockamolie]

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated

To me this means there IS a requiremnet to retreat.

Dave B.

I'd say there's a requirement to ATTEMPT to retreat, even if the attempt consists of figuring out that you CANNOT retreat.

So, you're in a Stop-and-Rob at the back of the store trying to figure out if you want a Diet Coke, or a Diet Coke with lime. A guy comes in, whips out his gun, and tries to rob the place. He sees you struggling with your beverage selection, and tells you to get over there and get on the ground with your face down, just as he has instructed the shopkeep. He's between you and the only door, and you fear that he's going to execute you both. Do you have to try to jump through the window? Do you have to run by him to retreat? I don't think so. You figured out that isn't an option. Of course, it would all come down to judge and jury, but if you could articulate WHY a "reasonable person" could not have retreated, your used of deadly force should be OK.

Again, I am not a lawyer.

[bauerdj]

Thats where the "reasonible person" part comes in. With your store scenario retreat would only seem to be a possibility after your magazine is empty.

Dave B.

[txinvestigator]

My question is...why wouldn't you retreat? If it's safe to do so, by all means retreat.

That was not the question asked. The question asked was do I have to. That answer is no.

That is NOT the answer. The answer is "it depends." If a reasonable person would have retreated, then so must you, as in the examples I gave.

[txinvestigator]

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated

To me this means there IS a requiremnet to retreat.

Dave B.

I'd say there's a requirement to ATTEMPT to retreat, even if the attempt consists of figuring out that you CANNOT retreat.

So, you're in a Stop-and-Rob at the back of the store trying to figure out if you want a Diet Coke, or a Diet Coke with lime. A guy comes in, whips out his gun, and tries to rob the place. He sees you struggling with your beverage selection, and tells you to get over there and get on the ground with your face down, just as he has instructed the shopkeep. He's between you and the only door, and you fear that he's going to execute you both. Do you have to try to jump through the window? Do you have to run by him to retreat? I don't think so. You figured out that isn't an option. Of course, it would all come down to judge and jury, but if you could articulate WHY a "reasonable person" could not have retreated, your used of deadly force should be OK.

Again, I am not a lawyer.

No, you don't have to attempt to retreat. In the above situation, you don't have to attempt to. If you were required to attempt to retreat, then y9ou could not use DF until you had exhausted an attempt.

Look at the scenarios I gave.

Here is another scenrio I use in guard training;

You are NOT a guard and open the front door to a store to get a diet coke, or perhaps a diet coke with lime . You see a guy at the back door with a shotgun, and he says, "come in here and get down". I would simply step back and close the door, then move away and call 911. I believe THATis what a reasonable person would do. To run in and try to confront him would NOT be resonable.

[bauerdj]

Here is another scenrio I use in guard training;

You are NOT a guard and open the front door to a store to get a diet coke, or perhaps a diet coke with lime . You see a guy at the back door with a shotgun, and he says, "come in here and get down". I would simply step back and close the door, then move away and call 911. I believe THATis what a reasonable person would do. To run in and try to confront him would NOT be resonable.

Just out of curiosity what would the proper response be if you WERE a guard?

Dave B.

[txinvestigator]

Here is another scenrio I use in guard training;

You are NOT a guard and open the front door to a store to get a diet coke, or perhaps a diet coke with lime . You see a guy at the back door with a shotgun, and he says, "come in here and get down". I would simply step back and close the door, then move away and call 911. I believe THATis what a reasonable person would do. To run in and try to confront him would NOT be resonable.

Just out of curiosity what would the proper response be if you WERE a guard?

Dave B.

I was afraid someone would ask. If the guard was hired to protect that store, then it might not be reasonable for him to retreat. He has a contractual obligation to protect the people there.

His actions at that point are a matter of tactics, but his legal requirement to retreat may not exist.

Make sense?

[one eyed fatman]

2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated

So... what is reasonable? What if I have a headache and don't feel like being reasonable? And is there a law that tells me what being reasonable is or am I once again left to figure out the law myself? I think I'll go have a beer (or many) and ponder this dilemma.

[bauerdj]

I was afraid someone would ask. If the guard was hired to protect that store, then it might not be reasonable for him to retreat. He has a contractual obligation to protect the people there.

His actions at that point are a matter of tactics, but his legal requirement to retreat may not exist.

Make sense?

Yes, it does.

[ElGato]

2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated

So... what is reasonable? What if I have a headache and don't feel like being reasonable? And is there a law that tells me what being reasonable is or am I once again left to figure out the law myself? I think I'll go have a beer (or many) and ponder this dilemma.

The grand jury or the jury will define reasonable in each case.

[one eyed fatman]

Well if you made that far you must have lived.

[txinvestigator]

2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated

So... what is reasonable? What if I have a headache and don't feel like being reasonable? And is there a law that tells me what being reasonable is or am I once again left to figure out the law myself? I think I'll go have a beer (or many) and ponder this dilemma.

If you don't know what is reasonable in regards to using deadly force please stop carrying a gun. Your repeated statements here that you can't figure this stuff out really concerns me.

If you think that having a headache means jack squat then you need some serious remedial training.

I am sorry that I am being harsh with you, but this is a pattern for you. Flame away if you will, but I think the level headed, mature posters here will agree with me.

[one eyed fatman]

txinvestigator you need an attitude adjustment. I was just kidding. ElGato had it right. "The grand jury or the jury will define reasonable in each case". It does not matter how me or you define the law it will be the Grand jury's decision. All we can do on this forum is blow smoke and keep asking questions. If you can misunderstand me you can misunderstand the law. It's just that simple. I took no offense at your post. The law will drive you crazy if you let it. I choose not.