Duty to Retreat Retreating
The NYTimes does a piece on the disappearing duty to retreat. It’s a fairly factual story that illustrates what has changed and then quotes a bunch of people saying the change is bad. For example, they quote Sarah Brady saying “In a way, it’s a license to kill.”
They give a few examples of real life killings that would have been illegal but are now probably not prosecutable. A woman took a man’s gun (he had been threatening her) and, although she could have safely left, shot him instead. A cabbie used a stun gun to get a drunk passenger to leave his cab, then shot the guy instead of just driving off. In each case, the Times downplays the threat and casts the story as a killing of questionable justification.
The 15 states that have relaxed the duty to retreat are Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Ayup!
August 7th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Yeah, I’m not holding my breath that this law comes to the North East any times soon.
August 7th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
I’m going to have to research those two stories. Obviously, the NY slimes aren’t going to tell the whole truth, but usually they’re better than this. Common law still requires the three tiers : ability, opportunity, and intent.
Oh and the “couldn’t he have shot to disable” is laughable. Not only is that a difficult task, but legally, shooting to disable suggests that lethal force wasn’t necessary.
August 7th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
What the Times doesn’t say is the reason the antis don’t like the Castle Doctrine. As Assemblyman David Koon (who sponsors virtually all of the antigun legislation in New York) once said in public, the reason Democrats support gun control is because they view criminals and criminals famlies as their constituents and things like Castle Doctrine and RTC would disproportionally affect their voting block.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Dude, you totally missed Washington State. We’ve always had no Duty to retreat if I recall correctly. And furthermore, here in Washington:
“When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense…”
Show me another state that does that.