@lawschoolsarah “Class exercise” was taken literally today #intentionaltorts #lawschool #lawschoolstudent #1L #selfdefense #dutytoretreat #tort ♬ original sound - Law School Sarah
September 28, 2024
Professor vividly demonstrates the problem with the duty to retreat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
I do not see the problem. She caught him, and presumably with her light sabre "killed" him. I mean that is what all of the "duty to retreat" advocates want, right?
Well “duty to retreat” doesnt just mean there’s an avenue to run away. It means there’s an avenue to run away and you can reasonably outrun the attacker, or cause him to abandon his attack. Both the most doctrinaire common law fan and the most rabid self-defense advocate would agree on that, at least in the cold light of the lecture hall.
Of course, neither side thinks about these things calmly when there’s a chance to set an example by convicting or freeing some high-profile defendant.
JSM
Who the hell admitted my ex to law school?
This thread ends here as far as real discussion.
Democrats, both the ones honest about their associations and the ones pretending to be republicans, have made it clear they support criminals in all respects over law abiding citizens.
Yesterday, I watched an old "Wallender" in which he kills an anti-immigrant racist murderer uber-baddie who's in a truck reloading a shotgun pointed the wrong way. Since it's modern detective fiction, W has a months-long nervous breakdown over it.
"Professor vividly demonstrates the problem with the duty to retreat."
A hero who sneezed, abruptly seized
Retreat and reversed it to victory
Now do that for an off-leash attacking pit bull.
We've got off-leash dog problem in our neighborhood. One on-leash dog already mauled by roaming pit bull, while being walked by its senior citizen owner. Pet dog's owner face-planted on sidewalk during mayhem of attack, entangled in leash; his dog required multiple stitches from ER vet, he had two fierce black-eyes and a forehead bruise. And that was nonetheless the "lucky" outcome. Police report filed, but pit bull owner had same dog roaming a block from home this week - I know because I saw it while walking my own small dog.
Buying bear spray, will use it. "Duty to retreat"? Most attackers would just follow you, and cops should not have any duty to retreat from criminal or crime-scene.
Minnesota has taken duty to retreat to a new level.
Via a recent MN Supreme Court case.
Duty to retreat is where the law blames the victims.
I carry a small wrist carrying stun gun for that purpose. You don't even have to stun the dog, just activate when they get close. Bear spray can come back into your face or your dog.
I don't think it as vivid. I guess if we considered that it was the professors lecture hall, and after retreating, he was not allowed to return until the attacker with the lightsaber was done having her way with the lectern. After all, that's the real problem with "duty to retreat", you are required to flee. Oh, but you only have to flee to safety, then you can get help. Except where you were before the attack was safe until the attacker changed the situation. You ceded a place of safety to the attacker.
In a just situation, the attacker being an attacker should be the one ceding safety and face peril.
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants with sexual assault, murder convictions roaming US streets: ICE data
It's an invitation to unmitigated progress. American Civil Liberties Unburdened
As any predator knows, it's easier to run down prey than to be the prey.
In states with duty to retreat you have the responsibility to retreat IF YOU CAN DO SO IN COMPLETE SAFETY. You do not have to retreat no matter what.
Duty to retreat is a common law defense to self defense claims that came to us from a time when edged weapons, like swords and knives, were the rule, and not the exception. Just keep some distance between you and your assailant, and you are reasonably safe. Firearms changed that - crossing the intervening space in a split second.
A bulk of the states have abrogated the Duty to Retreat, mostly through legislation, but sometimes judicially. The big reason was that it was repeatedly abused by prosecutors. When you are put into a Fight or Flight situation, your focus strongly tends to narrow to the threat (while blood rushes into your core from your extremities, etc). You are so focused on the threat, that you may not see a route for retreat or escape. Then, the prosecutor, and his investigators has months to view the scene from different angles, to find possible avenues of retreat - that you may not have seen due to your hyper focus on the threat. What should have been self defense then turns into a conviction for manslaughter, if not murder.
"If someone breaks into my house, they're gettin' shot."
- Kamala Harris
The chase demonstrates the fallacy of 'duty to retreat'.
"Today we were unlucky, but remember we have only to be lucky once, you will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no war"
to retreat, you must stay out of range till the aggressor gives up, he only has to get lucky once
"The chase demonstrates the fallacy of 'duty to retreat'."
Are you under the impression that I don't agree with that?
I guess it wasn't as vivid as I'd thought.
Duty to Retreat is an idiotic intellectual construct that is nothing more than blaming the victim. It is a good thing that many states are getting rid of it by legislation.
Didn't they try it with George Zimmerman (Trayvon Martin case)?
Maybe that was just in discussions, not the actual trial.
From yesterday’s Instapundit:
REPORT FROM THE BLUE ZONES: “Only in Hawaii would prosecutors arrest an armed homeowner who stopped a violent neighbor who had just rammed several cars with a front-end loader, shot and killed three women, wounded two others, and posed an immediate threat to shoot more.”
Florida statutorily eliminated duty to retreat several years ago.
It may be more fun, but I'm not sure it's easier. The prey usually escapes.
Duty to retreat is silly, just like folks who suggest police and other people responding to a deadly threat with a firearm should aim for a leg or shoulder or whatever part of the body they imagine would disable without killing the person. I think both stem from a lack of empathy. Some people are unable to put themselves in the shoes of the other person whose life is threatened and understand just how dangerous, scary, and uncertain a situation like that is at the time it occurs. Maybe the prevalence of cameras everywhere and footage for so many things has contributed to a decline in the ability of people to self-insert. People seem stuck in third-party observer mode. Though both ideas predate the prevalence of cameras.
The first problem with duty to retreat, as demonstrated in the video, is that you must, at some point, turn your back to your armed would- be assailant. Every martial art counsels against doing that.
Didn’t Joe Biden say that he would fired at them with a shotgun through his front door?
Yes. Very well stated.
Situational awareness is a great thing to develop as a standard state of being.
The chase demonstration shows the duty to retreat should at least be limited to "if you can slink-out unnoticed or hold the person at bay with the weapon you have for self-defense."
THIS example doesn't even begin to get into the overlapping philosophical question of "Castle Doctrine". If the professor at HIS lectern in HIS classroom with the in loco parentis responsibility for HIS students is in a state recognizing HIS "castle" ... he doesn't need to retreat. In fact he has a duty to defend himself, the space, and his dependents. If that same speaker was on a soapbox in a public park surrounded by peer citizens, he generally has a right to speak but does have the duty to retreat, to de-escalate. In particular he can't utter "fighting words" intended to provoke an attack. Unless a slightly more speaker-friendly doctrine of "Stand Your Ground" law has been established. ...
Have you ever tried to outrun a bullet?
I just read the Opinion issued on that Minnesota Duty to Retreat case. I think the facts are mixed and the Court might not have intended to make the duty to retreat as broad as people (rightly) fear may now have become the standard. In this case, the defendant unsheathed a machete in response to a clear spoken threat to "slit his throat" with a knife held by a man who had advanced on him somewhat. Defendant then advanced on the knife-wielder and his two friends, swinging the machete around. They backed off a bit and the other dude put his knife away; defendant continued to stand there and swing the machete around for about a minute.
The Court returned again and again to the point where defendant advances on the initial assailant, swinging/brandishing the machete. I think it's possible that the Court would have ruled otherwise if defendant had simply unsheathed the machete and continued to stand there. See for yourselves:
https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2024/a22-0432.html
First of all, it was a Non-Precedential Opinion so it may not be cited in any future cases. Secondly,
I would imagine my grandmother might have said "Duty to Retreat" is the name of my lupara.
Criminals should understand that they're profession carries the risk of sudden death- whether it be purse snatching or assault with a deadly weapon. Wait- is a purse really worth someone's life? Well, the criminal makes that choice. Anyone who stops him, even if with deadly force, has protected the innocent.
Why did they use to hang horse thieves, the equivalent of autos today? They were a person's livelihood. The horse thief wasn't killing the victim immediately, but slowly.
their profession, not they're.,..
From reading Andrew Branca on several self-defense related cases the advance by the machete wielder serms to be the real error. My understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you make what a reasonable person would view as aggressive moves if the initiator backs down.
Hence the 'if you can do so in complete safety'.. if you cannot retreat that way.. you don't have to retreat.
Whatever happened to stand your ground?
Duty to retreat is Rules of Engagement for Israel. Bibi keeps saying Never Again.
Bullshit
"Duty to retreat" means the DA gets to destroy your life for not letting someone rob / rape / murder you. In means they get to arrest you, investigate you, and make your life a living hell while they decide whether or not "you should have retreated".
The point of "Stand Your Ground" laws is that you, as the law abiding person, have an absolute right to self defense.
What the "Duty to Retreat" is about is valuing the lives of criminals above the lives of their would-be victims,
It's evil
Some folks jest needs a good killin.
I just googled my comment above because I thought to myself that I'd heard that sentimnt before, but where? To my surprise, tinged by chagrin, it was something that weirdo candidate Mark Robinson said at a church in NC two months ago. I'm certain that I have had this thought many times, long before Mr. Robinson emerged on the scene. I tend to have this thought in the context of those who, without justification, have chosen to create an imminent risk of serious personal harm. I believe that the hypothetical residue of the malefactor's life is worth far less than the avoidance of the serious personal harm about to be inflicted.
Ampersand said: Some folks jest needs a good killin
In the South, at least, "He needed killing" is an ancient and honorable ( if not officially recognized) defense to a charge of murder.
Not seriously. Martin snuck up on Zimmerman, sucker punched him, knocked him to the ground, climbed on top of him, and pummeled him MMA style. He bashed Zimmerman’s head into the concrete walkway, and tried to strangle him. At what time during that timeline was Zimmerman able to retreat? There wasn’t one, since Martin was on top of him, pummeling him MMA style
Post a Comment