Skip to main content

View Diary: The obligation to retreat? (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  duty to retreat (4+ / 0-)

    was blackstone era law.

    what it did was make it very obvious who was escalating a fight.

    say some neighbors squabble.  it starts on the street,
    one retreats back to his lawn. the other follows.
    the other steps onto his porch, the other follows.
    the first opens his door and goes inside, the other follows,
    the first goes into his kitchen the other follows.

    the first grabs a kitchen knife and stabs the other.

    Pretty clear who was aggressing.

    the point of a duty to retreat is to make it obvious
    what are little squabbles, and to cool them down
    and who are big bullies and deserve to go to jail.

    •  Still, I don't agree ... (0+ / 0-)

      that the aggressee should have any continuing duty to "lessen" the squabble.  If somebody starts something with me, then follows me to my yard, I'm not "retreating" any further.  And if they break into my home in the middle of the night, I'm not going to "retreat" at all.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:55:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the idea of duty of reasonable retreat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        was it made it clear who started the fight.

        and "It takes two to Tango".

        if you make it reasonable retreat, then,
        it's a simple thing.

        i had a friend married a gal, her ex showed up
        started beating on the door at 2 AM drunk.
        Steve went outside to tell him to shut up and go away,
        ended up punching him and he died of a heart attack.

        got Involuntary manslaughter and 18 months
        because he didn't need to go outside.

        if the ex had broken down the door, then it's pretty clear.

        but without that, well a man is dead someone must pay.

        had the prosecutors in the Trayvon Martin case
        started at Involuntary Manslaughter, they might have
        made that and let the jury go for that.

        by starting at Murder 2, the jury started saying no

        •  The GZ prosecution was messed up from Day 1. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          patbahn, Wee Mama

          The case should have gone to the Grand Jury first, but no, Angela Corey thought she should circumvent the normal process ... and then wound up WAY overcharging him given the evidence she had.  The State might have actually wound up getting a manslaughter conviction if they'd handled the case differently from the very beginning, but had little chance of getting anything going the route they took.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 12:45:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The duty to retreat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        to me is what bolsters the claim that your life was in danger. If you could have gotten away and chose not to then how am I to believe that you really shot to defend yourself and not out of anger?

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 05:29:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That makes a good case (0+ / 0-)

      Improving enforceability is desirable in a law.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:48:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site