Duty to Retreat / Self Defense Case

[Zigner]

Talk to your attorney.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Nothing changed! If you read through the thread, you will see that someone else had asked and clarified that both combatants had no legal right to be there. This is not a new fact.

Sometimes it is necessary to get at the context behind any statute. When the statute says you need not retreat when under attack somewhere if you are not engaged in a criminal act and have a legal right to be there. We cannot say that means that if faced with an unlawful attack that you can only defend yourself if you own the parcel or had a right to be where the attack occurred. None of the case law I have read where self-defense was invoked required proving someone had a legal right to be anywhere. You cant read things out of context.

No where does the statute say you can only invoke self defense if you were somewhere legally. It only says you have a duty to retreat if that were the case.

Even if you were to trespass on a property.. not even the property owner is authorized to take life solely on the basis of trespassing. That dont mean you wont get shot if you trespassed on the wrong property. The property owner has no real duty to try to figure out if you are a robber or some drunk who just stumbled on their property. No one owes you a duty to retreat when they have their safety to worry about.

It will be interesting what the jury finds in this case:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/ny-man-charged-murder-shooting-woman-wrong-driveway/story?id=98655167

 

[Taxing Matters]

No where does the statute say you can only invoke self defense if you were somewhere legally. It only says you have a duty to retreat if that were the case.

Correct. That's why I said in my post that while reliance on the stand my ground law wouldn't be available, as the statute makes quite clear, the defendant may use other defenses that exist. It's not all or nothing here, and that statute isn't the only law on self-defense. It simply takes away one defense if the defendant was located somewhere that he/she had no right be.

Even if you were to trespass on a property.. not even the property owner is authorized to take life solely on the basis of trespassing.

Correct, but in that case there would be no question that the the property owner is in a place he or she has right to be. So he could argue the stand my ground law as his defense, but there is no guarantee he would succeed. but the trespasser could not use the stand my ground law as a successful defense because of the statute we've been discussing.

And by the way, in my state, if the trespasser is inside the owner's residence the homeowner may indeed shoot the intruder on that basis alone.

No one owes you a duty to retreat when they have their safety to worry about.

In some situations they do indeed need to retreat if that's possible. That's why the duty to retreat doctrine exists. If your statement above was accurate there would not be a duty to retreat in the first place.

Each case is judged on its unique facts. It is not possible to predict how most cases will come out should they go to trial. Those are the cases in which the facts don't neatly fit into some statute, regulation, or case law. But if the jury finds that the defendant was located in a place he or she was not permitted to be then the statute is clear the stand my ground defense is not available. However, as I said, it's not all or nothing. The defendant may have other defenses that would be successful.

 

[not2cleverRed]

This is your emotion talking. Read the statute. Whether you are at the scene of an attack "legally" is only relevant in determining whether you have a duty to retreat. Having a duty to retreat does not mean you absolutely did in fact have an ability or means to retreat without putting your life further at risk.

Whether it is feasible or even rational to retreat is an argument you have on a different day. No one can prove or say to you with specificity using some one-size-fits-all approach how you were supposed to retreat or flee from a charging attacker. You cannot assume everyone claiming self defense is some sort of Carl Lewis and could have escaped.

If you don't know exactly what your attacker is armed with, you can't outrun a bullet and I don't necessarily have the time or care to try to figure out what exactly a charging attacker is armed with in the midst of an attack. The attacker here had or has no right superseding the defendant's as to being at the scene of the attack at the time of the attack.

Any jury can determine from any set of facts who the initial aggressor is and if a reasonable person could perceive or deduce that something harmful or deadly is or was imminent from the aggressor's conduct.

Dude, this is not out of emotion; this was my attempt to explain to a semiliterate person how sentential logic works. And one has to have a working knowledge of sentential logic to understand what laws mean. It's pretty clear you are clueless.

If this not a hypothetical, then let the lawyer handle it.
If this is a hypothetical, then take a course in logic and then come back.