View source for Duty to retreat

{{Criminal defenses}}
In the [[criminal law]], the '''duty to retreat''' is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of [[self-defense (theory)|self-defense]], and which must be addressed if the [[defendant]] is to prove that his or her conduct was [[excuse|justified]]. In those [[criminal jurisdiction|jurisdictions]] where the requirement exists, the [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually [[use of force|using force]].

==U.S. law==
Some U.S. jurisdictions require that a person retreat from an attack, and allow the use of deadly force in self-defense only when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack.  The duty to retreat is not universal, however.  For example, police officers are not required to retreat when acting in the line of duty.  Similarly, some courts have found no duty to retreat exists when a victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home.<ref>''State v. Allery'', 101 Wash.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984)</ref>  The [[Model Penal Code]]<ref>§ 3.04(2)(b)(ii)</ref> suggests statutory language that also recognizes an exception to the usual duty to retreat when the victim of the attack is in his or her own dwelling or place of work. It is common to exempt a person's home or car from the duty to retreat, known as the [[castle doctrine]].

Many states employ [[stand your ground law]]s that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force. The [[Washington State Supreme Court]], for example, has ruled "''that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.''"<ref>137 Wn.2d 533 State of Washington v. Studd; Decided 1999/04/01.</ref><ref>150 Wn.2d 489 ''State of Washington v. Reynaldo Redmond''; Decided 2003/12/06.</ref>

==English law==
In [[English law]] the focus of the test is whether the defendant is acting '''reasonably''' in the particular situation. There is no specific requirement that a person must retreat in anticipation of an attack. Although some withdrawal would be useful evidence to prove that the defendant did not want to fight, not every defendant is able to escape. In ''R v Bird'' (1985) 1 WLR 816 the defendant was physically attacked, and reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to retreat. Had there been a delay in the response, the reaction might have appeared more revenge than self-defense.{{citation needed|date=April 2012}}

===Carrying weapons===
As to carrying weapons in anticipation of an attack, ''Evans v Hughes'' (1972) 3 A ER 412 held that for a defendant to justify his possession of a metal bar on a public highway, he had to show that there was an imminent particular threat affecting the particular circumstances in which the weapon was carried. Similarly, in ''Taylor v Mucklow'' (1973) CLR 750 a building owner was held to be using an unreasonable degree of force in carrying a loaded airgun against a builder who was demolishing a new extension because his bills were unpaid. More dramatically, in ''AG's Reference (No 2 of 1983)'' (1984) 1 AER 988 Lane CJ. held that a defendant who manufactured ten petrol bombs to defend his shop during the [[1981 Toxteth riots|Toxteth riots]] could set up the defense of showing that he possessed an explosive substance "for a lawful purpose" if he could establish that he was acting in self-defense to protect himself or his family or property against an imminent and apprehended attack by means which he believed to be no more than reasonably necessary to meet the attack.

==See also==
*[[Castle Doctrine in the United States]]
*[[Stand-your-ground law]]
*[[Trespasser]]

===Related sayings===
*[[wikt:go to the wall|go to the wall]]
*[[wikt:have one's back to the wall|have one's back to the wall]]

===References===
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite journal |first1=Melissa |last1=Wheatcroft |month=Winter |year=1999 |title=Duty to Retreat for Cohabitants – In New Jersey a Battered Spouse's Home Is Not Her Castle |journal=Rutgers Law Journal |volume=30 |pages=539}}
*{{cite journal |first1=Joseph H. |last1=Beale |month=June |year=1903 |title=Retreat from a Murderous Assault |journal=Harvard Law Review |volume=16 |issue=8 |pages=567–82 |jstor=1323119 |doi=10.2307/1323119}}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S0008197300086128 |title=Self-Defence and the Right to Life |year=2009 |last1=Ashworth |first1=A. J. |journal=The Cambridge Law Journal |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=282}}
*{{cite journal |first1=Garrett |last1=Epps |month=Winter |year=1992 |title=Any Which Way but Loose: Interpretive Strategies and Attitudes Toward Violence in the Evolution of the Anglo-American 'Retreat Rule' |journal=Law and Contemporary Problems |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=303–31 |url=http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol55/iss1/16 |jstor=1191769 |doi=10.2307/1191769}}
*{{cite journal |first1=Richard Maxwell |last1=Brown |year=1979 |title=Southern Violence — Regional Problem or National Nemesis?: Legal Attitudes Toward Southern Homicide in Historical Perspective |journal=Vanderbilt Law Review |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=225–50}}

[[Category:Criminal defenses]]
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]