Duty to retreat: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:15, 14 January 2024

In law, the duty to retreat, or requirement of safe retreat,^[1]^: 550 is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a threatened person cannot harm another in self-defense (especially lethal force) when it is possible instead to retreat to a place of safety.^[1]^{: 549–554} This requirement contrasts with the right in some other jurisdictions to stand one's ground, meaning being allowed to defend one's self instead of retreating.

It is a specific component which sometimes appears in the criminal defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if criminal defendants are to prove that their conduct was justified. Depending on the state the criminal defendants have to prove a minimal time period of safe retreat.

United States law

Most U.S. jurisdictions have a stand-your-ground law^[2] or apply what is known as the castle doctrine, whereby a threatened person need not retreat within his or her own dwelling or place of work. Sometimes this has been the result of court rulings that one need not retreat in a place where one has a special right to be.^[3] In other states, this has been accomplished by statute, such as that suggested by the Model Penal Code.^[4]

In Erwin v. State (1876), the Supreme Court of Ohio wrote that a "true man", one without fault, would not retreat.^[5] In Runyan v. State (1877), the Indiana court rejected a duty to retreat, saying,^[1]^: 551–2^[5] "the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against" a duty to retreat.^[5] The court went further in saying that no statutory law could require a duty to retreat, because the right to stand one's ground is "founded on the law of nature; and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society."

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 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.^[6]

Carrying weapons

As to carrying weapons in anticipation of an attack, Evans v Hughes 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.^[7] Similarly, in Taylor v Mucklow 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.^[8] More dramatically, in AG's Reference (No 2 of 1983) Lord Lane held that a defendant who manufactured ten petrol bombs to defend his shop during the 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.^[9]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1]
^ "States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw". Retrieved 14 August 2018.
^ State v. Allery, 101 Wash. 2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984).
^ § 3.04(2)(b)(ii)
^ ^a ^b ^c No Duty to Retreat:Violence and Values in American History and Society 4030 (1991)
^ R v Bird (1985) 1 WLR 816
^ Evans v Hughes (1972) 3 A ER 412
^ Taylor v Mucklow (1973) CLR 750
^ Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1983) (1984) 1 AER 988

Wheatcroft, Melissa (Winter 1999). "Duty to Retreat for Cohabitants – In New Jersey a Battered Spouse's Home Is Not Her Castle". Rutgers Law Journal. 30: 539.
Beale, Joseph H. (June 1903). "Retreat from a Murderous Assault". Harvard Law Review. 16 (8): 567–82. doi:10.2307/1323119. JSTOR 1323119.
Ashworth, A. J. (2009). "Self-Defence and the Right to Life". The Cambridge Law Journal. 34 (2): 282–307. doi:10.1017/S0008197300086128. S2CID 146561102.
Epps, Garrett (Winter 1992). "Any Which Way but Loose: Interpretive Strategies and Attitudes Toward Violence in the Evolution of the Anglo-American 'Retreat Rule'". Law and Contemporary Problems. 55 (1): 303–31. doi:10.2307/1191769. JSTOR 1191769.
Brown, Richard Maxwell (1979). "Southern Violence — Regional Problem or National Nemesis?: Legal Attitudes Toward Southern Homicide in Historical Perspective". Vanderbilt Law Review. 32 (1): 225–50.
Brown, Richard Maxwell (1991). No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ross, Luevonda P. (Fall 2007). "Transmogrification of Self-Defense by National Rifle Association-Inspired Statutes: From the Doctrine of Retreat to the Right to Stand Your Ground". Southern University Law Review. 35: 1.
Suk, Jeannie. (2009). At Home in the Law: How the Domestic Violence Revolution is Transforming Privacy. (New Haven: Yale University Press).

[CL-1] Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1]

[2] "States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw". Retrieved 14 August 2018.

[3] State v. Allery, 101 Wash. 2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984).

[4] § 3.04(2)(b)(ii)

[NDR-5] No Duty to Retreat:Violence and Values in American History and Society 4030 (1991)

[6] R v Bird (1985) 1 WLR 816

[7] Evans v Hughes (1972) 3 A ER 412

[8] Taylor v Mucklow (1973) CLR 750

[9] Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1983) (1984) 1 AER 988

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Legal requirement}}
+{{Redirect|No retreat|the film|No Retreat, No Surrender}}
+{{Primary sources|article|date=January 2022}}
+[[File:Stand-your-ground law by US jurisdiction.svg|thumb|275x275px|Stand your ground law and duty to retreat by US jurisdiction
+{{legend|#008000|Stand-your-ground by statute}}
+{{legend|#00cd00|Stand-your-ground by judicial decision or jury instruction}}
+{{legend|#0000A0|Duty to retreat except in one's home}}
+{{legend|#ADD8E6|Duty to retreat except in one's home or workplace}}
+{{legend|#00FFFF|Duty to retreat except in one's home or vehicle or workplace}}
+{{legend|#FFFF00|Middle-ground approach (DC, WI)}}
+{{legend|#000000|No settled rule (AS, VI)}}
+]]
 {{Criminal defenses}}
+In [[law]], the '''duty to retreat''', or '''requirement of safe retreat''',<ref name=CL>''Criminal Law - Cases and Materials'', 7th ed. 2012, [[Wolters Kluwer Law & Business]]; [[John Kaplan (law professor)|John Kaplan]], [[Robert Weisberg]], [[Guyora Binder]], {{ISBN|978-1-4548-0698-1}}, [https://law.stanford.edu/publications/criminal-law-cases-and-materials-7th-edition/]</ref>{{rp|550}} is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a threatened person cannot harm another in [[self-defense]] (especially lethal force) when it is possible instead to retreat to a place of safety.<ref name=CL />{{rp|549–554}} This requirement contrasts with the right in some other jurisdictions to ''[[stand one's ground]]'', meaning being allowed to defend one's self instead of retreating.
-In the [[criminal law]], the '''duty to retreat''' is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defence of [[self-defense (theory)|self-defence]], 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 [[burden of proof]] is on the defence 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]].
+It is a specific component which sometimes appears in the criminal defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if criminal defendants are to prove that their conduct was [[excuse|justified]]. Depending on the state the criminal defendants have to prove a minimal time period of safe retreat.
+==United States law==
-In the form "duty to retreat as far as possible", it has also been called '''retreat to the wall.'''
-{{quotation|The ancient common law rule in homicide was denominated "retreat to the wall." This doctrine makes it the duty of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is justified in meeting force with force.|[http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1917/oct1917/gr_l-12963_1917.html Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-12963, October 25, 1917]}}
+Most U.S. jurisdictions have a [[stand-your-ground law]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html|title=States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw|publisher=|accessdate=14 August 2018}}</ref> or apply what is known as the [[castle doctrine]], whereby a threatened person need not retreat within his or her own dwelling or place of work. Sometimes this has been the result of court rulings that one need not retreat in a place where one has a special right to be.<ref>''State v. Allery'', 101 Wash. 2d 591, [https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1984/49674-9-1.html 682 P.2d 312] (1984).</ref> In other states, this has been accomplished by statute, such as that suggested by the [[Model Penal Code]].<ref>§ 3.04(2)(b)(ii)</ref>
-==American Law==
-Some American 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 victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984).  The [[Model Penal Code]] § 3.04(2)(b)(ii) 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.
+In ''[[Erwin v. State]]'' (1876), the [[Supreme Court of Ohio]] wrote that a "true man", one without fault, would not retreat.<ref name=NDR>No Duty to Retreat:Violence and Values in American History and Society 4030 (1991)</ref> In ''[[Runyan v. State]]'' (1877), the Indiana court rejected a duty to retreat, saying,<ref name="CL"/>{{rp|551–2}}<ref name=NDR/> "the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against" a duty to retreat.<ref name=NDR/> The court went further in saying that no statutory law could require a duty to retreat, because the right to stand one's ground is "founded on the [[Natural law|law of nature]]; and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society."
-Many states employ "[[stand your ground]]" laws that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force.
 ==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-defence. It might be different if the defendant sees an enemy approaching and decides to stand his ground. The answer may depend on where the threat is recognised. In a public place, where there are many other people present, a judgment must be made on whether an attack is imminent. As a matter of policy, no-one should be forced out of the streets because of fear, but prudence might dictate a different answer at night when the streets are empty.{{Original research|date=November 2007}}
+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'' 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.<ref>''R v Bird'' (1985) 1 WLR 816</ref>
 ===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 [[Toxteth riots]] could set up the defence of showing that he possessed an explosive substance "for a lawful purpose" if he could establish that he was acting in self-defence 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.
+As to carrying weapons in anticipation of an attack, ''Evans v Hughes'' 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.<ref>''Evans v Hughes'' (1972) 3 A ER 412</ref>  Similarly, in ''Taylor v Mucklow'' 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.<ref>''Taylor v Mucklow'' (1973) CLR 750</ref> More dramatically, in ''AG's Reference (No 2 of 1983)'' [[Geoffrey Lane, Baron Lane|Lord Lane]] 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.<ref>''Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1983)'' (1984) 1 AER 988</ref>
 ==See also==
+*[[Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions_in_the_United_States|Castle doctrine in the United States]]
-*[[Castle Doctrine]]
+*[[Stand-your-ground law]]
+*[[Trespasser]]
+==References==
-===Related sayings===
+{{reflist}}
-*[[wikt:go to the wall|go to the wall]]
-*[[wikt:have one's back to the wall|have one's back to the wall]]
+==Further reading==
+*{{cite journal |first1=Melissa |last1=Wheatcroft |date=Winter 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 |date=June 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=282–307|s2cid=146561102 }}
+*{{cite journal |first1=Garrett |last1=Epps |date=Winter 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}}
+*Brown, Richard Maxwell (1991). ''No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society''. (New York: Oxford University Press).
+*{{cite journal |last1=Ross |first1=Luevonda P. |date=Fall 2007 |title=Transmogrification of Self-Defense by National Rifle Association-Inspired Statutes: From the Doctrine of Retreat to the Right to Stand Your Ground |journal=Southern University Law Review |volume=35 |pages=1}}
+*Suk, Jeannie. (2009). ''At Home in the Law: How the Domestic Violence Revolution is Transforming Privacy''. (New Haven: Yale University Press).
 [[Category:Criminal defenses]]
+[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]