Getting rid of the "Duty to Retreat"

SFC JeffJ

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
On Tuesday, March 21, Governor Mitch Daniels(R) signed HB 1028, sponsored by Representative Eric Koch (R-65) making Indiana the third state in the nation to pass "Castle Doctrine." HB 1028, effective July 1, restores Hoosiers' right to self-defense by removing the "duty to retreat" in the face of a criminal attack and provide civil immunity in such situations!



Seems like this is a growing trend. Personally, I like it. Still, getting the heck out of dodge is often the best option.

What are your thoughts?
 
I just realized I put this in General Martial Arts, meant to put it in General Self Defense. Sorry bout that.
 
My first thought is, don't be mistaken in thinking this is a free ticket to escalate an engagement to the point where you need to use lethal force.

If you could have retreated, and didn't, and as a result you were forced to kill someone in self defence, the judge will want to know exactly why you didn't retreat.

I think it's a good idea to remove this restriction, since it allows people placed in situations where they felt retreat wasn't an option, but would be unable to demonstrate why in court, to act sensibly in self defence and be free from legal reparations.

"I felt it was unsafe to retreat" is a good reason.

"I preferred to shoot, rather than retreat" is not.
 
Great points!! Definitely not a lisence to go above what is called for. I think the best thing it does is not penalize the victim of the crime for using any nessecary means to defend themselves. Emphasis on nessecary.
 
I'm sure my feelings on this issue will not surprise anyone. I am very glad that people are finally waking up and passing legislation like this so that people can defend themselves with reduced risk of being crucified in the aftermath. Escape is certainly preferable but I've never agreed with laws that require you to retreat.

Does Indiana's law include the same protection against civil-liability that Florida's law provides?
 
I agree with Adept's points.

In general I see this as a mixed thing -laws which prohibit using REASONABLE force are wrong - not sure to what extent the "duty to retreat" laws did that. But I worry that it can swing too far the other way whereby people feel legally/morally justified in using excessive force to "defend" themselves when rationally there was no need.
 
kenpotex said:
I'm sure my feelings on this issue will not surprise anyone. I am very glad that people are finally waking up and passing legislation like this so that people can defend themselves with reduced risk of being crucified in the aftermath. Escape is certainly preferable but I've never agreed with laws that require you to retreat.

Does Indiana's law include the same protection against civil-liability that Florida's law provides?
Click to expand...


Not sure, but I'll find out if I can.
 
Yes, I also asked myself "Does this law address civil liability, or only criminal liability?" It's one thing to not be sent to jail, but as O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake learned, you can still get sued. Those are bad examples because they were acts of murder, not self-defense, but as a Hoosier I would like to know if a similar thing could happen in self-defense!

The governor has emphasized that this merely codifies current practice and is not a change.

There's a story on it here. There's a link to USA Today putting it in a national context here.
 
Hello, What is the "duty" of the attacker? Doesn't it always seems the law protects the wrong people? (Man-made)

Man make the laws...only man can change them.

Having good and smart people to make the laws is a good idea? Where are they? ...............Aloha
 
still learning said:
Having good and smart people to make the laws is a good idea? Where are they? ...............Aloha
Click to expand...

not working in the legislature. it seems like our legal system tends to snuff out idealism and right-thinking.
 
Adept said:
"I felt it was unsafe to retreat" is a good reason.

"I preferred to shoot, rather than retreat" is not.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Personally, I never understood why this duty to retreat even exists in the USA! The whole concept of self defense involves using reasonable force to neutralize an unlawful threat; requiring the innocent party to retreat if possible presumes an unreasonable amount of reasoning and awareness on the part of said person, and imposes upon her a duty which, as I see it, is morally questionable.

When it is all said and done, the police cannot be everywhere at once. If the State accepts this fact, and if it accepts the fact that individuals may need to defend themselves from unlawful actions without the help of public agents, why impose a generic restriction on such a legitimate course of action? This sounds absurd to me, specially because the concept of self defense already requires a proportional reaction to the aggression.
 
A lot of people live with the delusion it's the police departments duty to protect them. I think it's a belief that has been it has been taught to them by certain segments of our society that wants the individual to totaly rely upon the state for everything. A very Hegelian outlook if you ask me.
 
'hegelian'. now you're just showing off.

but you're right. police come by after the situation has been resolved. it's up to us to make sure the situation is resolved in a way that keeps us and our safe.
 
I never did like the requirement of you must leave you home, including jumping out a second floor window with nothing below it buy rocks. You would be out of the house, and possible with a broken leg, but you had not forced the criminal to act.

Personally I think if they are in my house, they have given up a lot of their rights. Yet, the law is the law in my state. :(
 
JeffJ said:
Here is a sentence from the bill:

No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.


Not sure it that will give you any protection for civil liability or not.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/HE/HE1028.1.html
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like that would include civil liability but who knows. It would have been nice if they had clearly "spelled it out."
 
If an attacker is in your home, that's a different story. You may feel free to defend yourself as you see fit in your own home. The duty to retreat refers to being in public and having to retreat rather than defend yourself. Depending on the situation, if you retreat and are close to home you may very well bring trouble to your front door, then you almost have to fight/defend yourself or risk the attacker entering your home, risking family, personal property, a hostage situation or many other personal safety concerns. The duty to retreat gives criminals the advantage in a public setting. I would gladly back out of a confrontation, but many criminals will not give you that chance. Sometimes you have to stand your ground, public places are not reserved for the criminals.
 
Jimi said:
If an attacker is in your home, that's a different story. You may feel free to defend yourself as you see fit in your own home. The duty to retreat refers to being in public and having to retreat rather than defend yourself. Depending on the situation, if you retreat and are close to home you may very well bring trouble to your front door, then you almost have to fight/defend yourself or risk the attacker entering your home, risking family, personal property, a hostage situation or many other personal safety concerns. The duty to retreat gives criminals the advantage in a public setting. I would gladly back out of a confrontation, but many criminals will not give you that chance. Sometimes you have to stand your ground, public places are not reserved for the criminals.
Click to expand...

Not in the state of Michigan. You still have to try to retreat. There are ways to argue your defense and it is the Castle Doctrine, but you still go to jail and try to prove your case from their.
 
If that is the case in your state, then WOW! Not arguing with you, I just feel if someone enters my home or property they deserve what they get. If any local government feels a citizen must retreat from their own home, that is a crying shame. What is to keep criminals from pressing into your home when it is expected for you to retreat into the elements? If this is the case in my state or where I grew up, then there are a few homes in DC I have my eye on, HAHAHA! PEACE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Hair grabs?

Previous Thread

Self Defense For A Child

Next Thread

Similar threads

Bob Hubbard
  • Sticky
Japanese Sword Arts Faq Version 2.9
Replies
0
Views
26K
Bob Hubbard
Bob Hubbard

Latest Discussions

Back
Top