Duty to Retreat

[Dan Gleesak]

You have great threads in the main forum so I've been leaving you alone in OTC

Edit: Sorry, I thought you were @JohnnyGtar

But if I lived in MI, for example, and I'm in my back hard and two thugs jump the fence, one with a knife and one with a baseball bat, I'm supposed to just take it even if my 9m is at my side? Fuck that.

Maybe that is not what you were saying

That’s not really what I’m saying. The way I read it the law states you have to make an effort to get away before you start shooting, which I personally find to be a reasonable expectation. That doesn’t mean get stabbed a few times before pulling your gun out. It means literally the same as stand your ground was explained to me, as using lethal force as a last resort.

I don’t really care If people chime in and say they have an uncle who used to work with a guy who’s brother went to jail for shooting someone. I have no interest in owning a gun and it’s not because of the government.

 

[311boogieman]

That’s not really what I’m saying. The way I read it the law states you have to make an effort to get away before you start shooting, which I personally find to be a reasonable expectation. That doesn’t mean get stabbed a few times before pulling your gun out. It means literally the same as stand your ground was explained to me, as using lethal force as a last resort.

I don’t really care If people chime in and say they have an uncle who used to work with a guy who’s brother went to jail for shooting someone. I have no interest in owning a gun and it’s not because of the government.

Fair enough but as someone stated, thugs who jump a fence with a bat and a knife to take something of mine (in my example) are not going to all of the sudden change their mind if I run to the porch or even point my gun at them. Many studies have shown that criminals will actually keep coming at you because they don't believe you will pull the trigger.

That in of itself is part of this whole problem.

 

[JTyson]

That’s not really what I’m saying. The way I read it the law states you have to make an effort to get away before you start shooting, which I personally find to be a reasonable expectation. That doesn’t mean get stabbed a few times before pulling your gun out. It means literally the same as stand your ground was explained to me, as using lethal force as a last resort.

I don’t really care If people chime in and say they have an uncle who used to work with a guy who’s brother went to jail for shooting someone. I have no interest in owning a gun and it’s not because of the government.

That’s the opposite of stand your ground. It was explained to you wrong.
Gun owners are all for you choosing to not have a weapon. You nor anyone else should be able to choose for the rest of us.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Fair enough but as someone stated, thugs who jump a fence with a bat and a knife to take something of mine (in my example) are not going to all of the sudden change their mind if I run to the porch or even point my gun at them. Many studies have shown that criminals will actually keep coming at you because they don't believe you will pull the trigger.

That in of itself is part of this whole problem.

I guess I just don’t see where in MA law that says you can’t shoot someone who is about to stab you.

 

[311boogieman]

PS: I didn't read the Massachusetts's law, just making a general observation on the general topic of self defense and protecting your property. In Missouri, if two thugs jumped a fence and came at you with a bat and knife - what would you do?

I guess I just don’t see where in MA law that says you can’t shoot someone who is about to stab you.

Sure you do.

... The way I read it the law states you have to make an effort to get away before you start shooting, which I personally find to be a reasonable expectation...

 

[Dan Gleesak]

PS: I didn't read the Massachusetts's law, just making a general observation on the general topic of self defense and protecting your property. In Missouri, if two thugs jumped a fence and came at you with a bat and knife - what would you do?


Sure you do.

If I couldn’t get inside my house before they got to me I would have to fight back. If I had a gun in this instance I would probably take it out.

 

[JackBootedThug]

 

[MadAsAHatter]

@Justin Bailey I can see how in your mind Duty to Retreat and Stand Your Ground laws are the same thing. Practically in both situations you'd do everything you could think before using lethal force on someone. However there is one major difference which makes an impact on if your life is ruined or not for defending yourself. That difference is the burden of proof

Stand your Ground:
Burden of proof is to show you felt within reason that your life or the life of another was in danger enough to use lethal force.
Did you try to negotiate with your attacker? run away? shit all over yourself in hopes you disgust them enough to back off? Inconsequential
You defended someone else like a loved one; why did you intervene? Inconsequential
Did you reasonably feel your life or the of another was threatened/in danger? That's the key question and all that matters. Yes, you felt your life or the life of another was threatened/in immediate danger and it was deemed reasonable. Acquitted of all charges if any were filed to begin with.

Duty To Retreat:
Burden of proof is to show you did everything within your power to not have to use lethal force.
Did you reasonably feel your life or the of another was threatened/in danger? Yes, but that's inconsequential because that's not what's being questioned here.
Did you try to negotiate with your attacker? run away? shit all over yourself in hopes you disgust them enough to back off? You tried to negotiate and run away, but didn't shit all over yourself? Well you didn't do everything did you? Now you're guilty of manslaughter.
You defended someone else like a loved one; why did you intervene? You weren't being attacked. Seems like you shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, ignored the situation and walked away. Now you're guilty of manslaughter.

Hopefully that illustrates the difference between the two types of laws to you.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

@Justin Bailey I can see how in your mind Duty to Retreat and Stand Your Ground laws are the same thing. Practically in both situations you'd do everything you could think before using lethal force on someone. However there is one major difference which makes an impact on if your life is ruined or not for defending yourself. That difference is the burden of proof

Stand your Ground:
Burden of proof is to show you felt within reason that your life or the life of another was in danger enough to use lethal force.
Did you try to negotiate with your attacker? run away? shit all over yourself in hopes you disgust them enough to back off? Inconsequential
You defended someone else like a loved one; why did you intervene? Inconsequential
Did you reasonably feel your life or the of another was threatened/in danger? That's the key question and all that matters. Yes, you felt your life or the life of another was threatened/in immediate danger and it was deemed reasonable. Acquitted of all charges if any were filed to begin with.

Duty To Retreat:
Burden of proof is to show you did everything within your power to not have to use lethal force.
Did you reasonably feel your life or the of another was threatened/in danger? Yes, but that's inconsequential because that's not what's being questioned here.
Did you try to negotiate with your attacker? run away? shit all over yourself in hopes you disgust them enough to back off? You tried to negotiate and run away, but didn't shit all over yourself? Well you didn't do everything did you? Now you're guilty of manslaughter.
You defended someone else like a loved one; why did you intervene? You weren't being attacked. Seems like you shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, ignored the situation and walked away. Now you're guilty of manslaughter.

Hopefully that illustrates the difference between the two types of laws to you.

Thanks for a good explanation. The difference may also come from different points of views to guns and gun violence. As someone with no intention to carry a gun, what my punishment will be for using it is non existent.

I think for anyone that has not taken anyone’s life with a gun, it’s impossible to say for sure what they would do if they were in the situation. But if I had to take a guess on what my thought process would be, it would be that if I was in a position where I needed to pull a weapon to kill someone in defense, the repercussions would not be part of my decision making process. It would be “if I don’t do this I will die”. It’s that simple to me. I’ll get a good lawyer later and hope for the best.

I also do not think civilians should be taking out people who are potentially committing crimes against someone else. That’s just my view. The Wild West is only romantic in movies.

 

[Wayniac3]

You told me what you thought SYG equated to me, I corrected you.

It does make a difference whether it is in my house or on the street cause the law in Massachusetts states there is a difference. Castle something or other

I don’t believe someone who pulls a knife or gun necessarily deserves to die. I also don’t think one person should decide in a split second who deserves to die or not. That is not self defense to me. Law or not, i personally would try to get away from an attacker before killing him. Or retreat if you will.


The way you describe SYG sounds no different to me than how the state of MA described their laws.

The castle doctrine, if applied the same in Mass as in CT, just means you do not have a duty to retreat in your home (or vehicle). Everywhere else - you need to retreat. Outside your home - if you go out to someone breaking into your car - YOU are the aggressor.

HOWEVER - and here's clincher - you are only supposed to use the level of force (reasonable physical force including deadly force) necessary to neutralize the threat to you or your family (Not possessions). Stand your ground just removes the duty to retreat (oversimplifying it here, but that's what it boils downs to)

You can be certain, that even if you feel you had no choice but to pull a trigger inside your house to stop a threat, in CT, you likely will STILL stand trial to prove your innocence.

 

[Wayniac3]

@Justin Bailey I can see how in your mind Duty to Retreat and Stand Your Ground laws are the same thing. Practically in both situations you'd do everything you could think before using lethal force on someone. However there is one major difference which makes an impact on if your life is ruined or not for defending yourself. That difference is the burden of proof

Stand your Ground:
Burden of proof is to show you felt within reason that your life or the life of another was in danger enough to use lethal force.
Did you try to negotiate with your attacker? run away? shit all over yourself in hopes you disgust them enough to back off? Inconsequential
You defended someone else like a loved one; why did you intervene? Inconsequential
Did you reasonably feel your life or the of another was threatened/in danger? That's the key question and all that matters. Yes, you felt your life or the life of another was threatened/in immediate danger and it was deemed reasonable. Acquitted of all charges if any were filed to begin with.

Duty To Retreat:
Burden of proof is to show you did everything within your power to not have to use lethal force.
Did you reasonably feel your life or the of another was threatened/in danger? Yes, but that's inconsequential because that's not what's being questioned here.
Did you try to negotiate with your attacker? run away? shit all over yourself in hopes you disgust them enough to back off? You tried to negotiate and run away, but didn't shit all over yourself? Well you didn't do everything did you? Now you're guilty of manslaughter.
You defended someone else like a loved one; why did you intervene? You weren't being attacked. Seems like you shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, ignored the situation and walked away. Now you're guilty of manslaughter.

Hopefully that illustrates the difference between the two types of laws to you.

Spot on

 

[Dan Gleesak]

The castle doctrine, if applied the same in Mass as in CT, just means you do not have a duty to retreat in your home (or vehicle). Everywhere else - you need to retreat. Outside your home - if you go out to someone breaking into your car - YOU are the aggressor.

HOWEVER - and here's clincher - you are only supposed to use the level of force (reasonable physical force including deadly force) necessary to neutralize the threat to you or your family (Not possessions). Stand your ground just removes the duty to retreat (oversimplifying it here, but that's what it boils downs to)

You can be certain, that even if you feel you had no choice but to pull a trigger inside your house to stop a threat, in CT, you likely will STILL stand trial to prove your innocence.

To be honest, I’m ok with all that. There is no need for someone breaking in to your car to become a violent or possibly deadly altercation. When I lived in NY I would often leave my windows open or doors unlocked to take the “break” out of breaking in. It’s only stuff ya know.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

To be honest, I’m ok with all that. There is no need for someone breaking in to your car to become a violent or possibly deadly altercation. When I lived in NY I would often leave my windows open or doors unlocked to take the “break” out of breaking in. It’s only stuff ya know.

That's making the assumption you're not sitting in your car when the break-in happens; aka car jacking

 

[Dan Gleesak]

That's making the assumption you're not sitting in your car when the break-in happens; aka car jacking

I was just using his scenario. If I was in my car when it was happing I would do everything I can to just let them have the car. But more importantly if I did have a gun and felt I needed to use it, the possibility of legal action after would probably not play a role in my decision to pull the trigger. I think that decision would strictly come down to saving my own life

 

[311boogieman]

... If I was in my car when it was happing I would do everything I can to just let them have the car. ...

^This
=
v That

... Many studies have shown that criminals will actually keep coming at you because they don't believe you will pull the trigger. ...

Honestly, if I was in my truck and someone tried to take it - I'm not sure what I would do, to your point earlier about not ever being in that situation. That, and @Floyd Eye 's point about adrenalin and panic. We have an attorney on retainer. We pay like $600 a year for that. The youngest guy in the firm is big gun/gun rights guy so I'm glad I have him on my side.

Remember, if you shoot someone and they die, then set your gun on the floor, call 911 immediately and do not say anything to the police outside of maybe some basic facts. I have to really keep this in mind as I am very social and conversational and I'm the type who would likely start blabbing on and on about what happened - which will not help me in court.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

^This
=
v That



Honestly, if I was in my truck and someone tried to take it - I'm not sure what I would do, to your point earlier about not ever being in that situation. That, and @Floyd Eye 's point about adrenalin and panic. We have an attorney on retainer. We pay like $600 a year for that. The youngest guy in the firm is big gun/gun rights guy so I'm glad I have him on my side.

Remember, if you shoot someone and they die, then set your gun on the floor, call 911 immediately and do not say anything to the police outside of maybe some basic facts. I have to really keep this in mind as I am very social and conversational and I'm the type who would likely start blabbing on and on about what happened - which will not help me in court.

For me personally, the adrenaline and panic is why I don’t carry again and quite frankly why I don’t think other people should either (not saying they should be banned).

but still the simple point behind my feelings is still that the law doesn’t bother me because in that instant, the law would not be what I was thinking about. I believe my only thought will be “how can I not die right now”

Or put another way, potential punishment should not be a deciding factor of whether or not you take someone else’s life. that should be done for one reason and one reason only, to save your own

 

[MadAsAHatter]

I was just using his scenario. If I was in my car when it was happing I would do everything I can to just let them have the car. But more importantly if I did have a gun and felt I needed to use it, the possibility of legal action after would probably not play a role in my decision to pull the trigger. I think that decision would strictly come down to saving my own life

Didn't realize you were replying to just that specific part. Thought you were commenting in general about the castle doctrine.

If someone was breaking in/trying to steal my truck I'm just going to let them have it. No reason to risk my life for something that can be replaced. But at the same time if I hear a ruckus outside I'm probably going to go out to see what the commotion is about. Stumbling upon someone breaking into my truck has a potential to turn violent in an instant if the thief suddenly decides to attack.

That's the thing about these types of situations. There's no telling when something is going to turn violent. How many angry Karen/Chad stories are out there where a simple "I don't work here" turns into beating on a person that was just minding their business. Or some uppity neighbor decides it's their business that your grass is 1mm too long and they must do something about it. You coming home from work turns into them smacking you upside the head as you step out the truck. The situation doesn't have to end in lethal force for the duty to retreat or stand your ground or castle doctrine laws to apply.

Like you said, put in any similar situation you're not going to be thinking about the laws. Survival instinct kicks in and you're doing what you need to defend yourself. If you're not in your home or vehicle castle doctrine won't really apply. Stand your ground; I doubt anyone would contest your fighting back wasn't reasonable. Duty to retreat; now you're on trial for assault, have to justify why that first defensive punch was necessary to begin with, and you didn't just back away.

I know you've said several times that you're fine with the duty to retreat/castle doctrine laws because you wouldn't be thinking about them in that instant. In a innocent situation that suddenly does a 180 and turns violent, I guarantee you'll be thinking about them, wishing your state was stand your ground, and you weren't facing jail time for the simple act of defending yourself from harm.

 

[rsm]

Thanks for a good explanation. The difference may also come from different points of views to guns and gun violence. As someone with no intention to carry a gun, what my punishment will be for using it is non existent.

I think for anyone that has not taken anyone’s life with a gun, it’s impossible to say for sure what they would do if they were in the situation. But if I had to take a guess on what my thought process would be, it would be that if I was in a position where I needed to pull a weapon to kill someone in defense, the repercussions would not be part of my decision making process. It would be “if I don’t do this I will die”. It’s that simple to me. I’ll get a good lawyer later and hope for the best.

I also do not think civilians should be taking out people who are potentially committing crimes against someone else. That’s just my view. The Wild West is only romantic in movies.

well given today's society (that marine in NYC, the other guy that pulled a gun on a guy that was attacking a woman he didn't know, etc.), if I don't know you, if you're an adult, I won't intervene on your behalf; unless you're a minor child being attacked by an adult or an elderly/disabled person.

If you come after anyone I know; different story. FWIW, I'd risk time in prison over knowing I allowed a loved one to be attacked, hurt or worse.

 

[Floyd Eye]

well given today's society (that marine in NYC, the other guy that pulled a gun on a guy that was attacking a woman he didn't know, etc.), if I don't know you, if you're an adult, I won't intervene on your behalf; unless you're a minor child being attacked by an adult or an elderly/disabled person.

If you come after anyone I know; different story. FWIW, I'd risk time in prison over knowing I allowed a loved one to be attacked, hurt or worse.

It’s really not a matter of would you risk prison to save your loved ones life. It’s a matter of why the fuck should you have to risk prison for it.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

well given today's society (that marine in NYC, the other guy that pulled a gun on a guy that was attacking a woman he didn't know, etc.), if I don't know you, if you're an adult, I won't intervene on your behalf; unless you're a minor child being attacked by an adult or an elderly/disabled person.

If you come after anyone I know; different story. FWIW, I'd risk time in prison over knowing I allowed a loved one to be attacked, hurt or worse.

I'm with you on this one.
If it's my family or someone I know being attacked I'm definitely coming to their aid.
If I see something happening and I don't know you my intervention likely would be calling the police to report the altercation. Though it is sad that in today's society the good Samaritan can be turned into the criminal.