💕
Criminal Law • Justification
CRIMLAW#014
Legal Definition
The majority view is that there is no duty to retreat, unless one is the initial aggressor. However, under the minority view, one must retreat if it is safe to do so, unless (1) the attack occurs in the victim's home, (2) the victim is a police officer, or (3) the victim is being robbed.
Plain English Explanation
"Duty to Retreat" is the legal term for "you should have run away from the threat." Generally speaking, in a majority of jurisdictions, people have no duty to retreat when they are presented with a threat as long as they weren't the original aggressor. In other words, if you start a fight, you're not allowed to say, "Well, I had no duty to retreat from the threat, so I kept on fighting." Otherwise, when presented with a threat, you're allowed to stand your ground and defend yourself.
However, in a minority of jurisdictions, people are required to retreat from a threat so long as it is safe to do so. In other words, if it's possible to safely run away from the threat, you must do so. You're only allowed to stand your ground if there is no safe way to flee the scene.
Note that there are three exceptions in minority view jurisdictions that do not require you to retreat: (1) If you're attacked inside of your home, you're allowed to stand your ground and fight even if it would be safer for you to flee your house; (2) If you're a police officer, then you are never expected to retreat even if it is safe to do so; and (3) If you're currently being robbed, you're allowed to defend yourself from the person robbing you. We'll talk about what constitutes a "robbery" in other cards, but in short it is when someone takes your property by force or threat of force.
However, in a minority of jurisdictions, people are required to retreat from a threat so long as it is safe to do so. In other words, if it's possible to safely run away from the threat, you must do so. You're only allowed to stand your ground if there is no safe way to flee the scene.
Note that there are three exceptions in minority view jurisdictions that do not require you to retreat: (1) If you're attacked inside of your home, you're allowed to stand your ground and fight even if it would be safer for you to flee your house; (2) If you're a police officer, then you are never expected to retreat even if it is safe to do so; and (3) If you're currently being robbed, you're allowed to defend yourself from the person robbing you. We'll talk about what constitutes a "robbery" in other cards, but in short it is when someone takes your property by force or threat of force.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam knows that Bob hates him and has, on multiple occasions, tried to attack Sam. One day, Sam is out shopping and sees Bob angrily walking towards him while holding a knife shouting, "I'm going to kill you, Sam!" Sam stands there, sips his soda, and watches Bob come towards him. Moments later, Bob is within striking distance of Sam and Sam pulls out a gun and shoots Bob dead. Result: Under a majority view, Sam's actions are completely justified. Even though Sam could have retreated, since he had plenty of time to escape, he was not required to. Under a minority view, though, Sam may not be able to claim self-defense since he had plenty of notice and time to retreat safely and, instead, chose to remain where he was and invite an altercation from Bob.
Hypo 2: Sam knows that Bob hates him and has, on multiple occasions, tried to attack Sam. One day, Sam is outside on the edge of a cliff enjoying the scenic views. When he turns around, he sees Bob angrily walking towards him with a knife shouting, "I'm going to kill you, Sam!" Sam is unable to escape and, when Bob approaches him, Sam pulls out a gun and shoots Bob dead. Result: Unlike Hypo 1, Sam is backed against a cliff. Sure he could try to climb down the cliff, but in a minority view jurisdiction, the law doesn't require him to retreat unless it is safe to do so. Thus, in both a majority view and minority view jurisdiction, Sam's self-defense would be valid as he had no duty to retreat from Bob's threat.
Hypo 2: Sam knows that Bob hates him and has, on multiple occasions, tried to attack Sam. One day, Sam is outside on the edge of a cliff enjoying the scenic views. When he turns around, he sees Bob angrily walking towards him with a knife shouting, "I'm going to kill you, Sam!" Sam is unable to escape and, when Bob approaches him, Sam pulls out a gun and shoots Bob dead. Result: Unlike Hypo 1, Sam is backed against a cliff. Sure he could try to climb down the cliff, but in a minority view jurisdiction, the law doesn't require him to retreat unless it is safe to do so. Thus, in both a majority view and minority view jurisdiction, Sam's self-defense would be valid as he had no duty to retreat from Bob's threat.
