# Getting rid of the "Duty to Retreat"



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 23, 2006)

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?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 23, 2006)

I just realized I put this in General Martial Arts, meant to put it in General Self Defense.  Sorry bout that.


----------



## Adept (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## KenpoTess (Mar 23, 2006)

Thread Moved to Gen. Self Defense.

~Tess

-MT Assist. Admin


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 23, 2006)

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?


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 23, 2006)

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?




Not sure, but I'll find out if I can.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 23, 2006)

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.

If interested, here is a link to it:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2006/HE/HE1028.1.html


----------



## arnisador (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## still learning (Mar 23, 2006)

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


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 23, 2006)

still learning said:
			
		

> Having good and smart people to make the laws is a good idea?  Where are they?   ...............Aloha



not working in the legislature.  it seems like our legal system tends to snuff out idealism and right-thinking.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 23, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> "I felt it was unsafe to retreat" is a good reason.
> 
> "I preferred to shoot, rather than retreat" is not.


 
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.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 23, 2006)

'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.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 23, 2006)

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.
> 
> ...


  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."


----------



## Jimi (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 23, 2006)

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.


 
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.


----------



## Jimi (Mar 23, 2006)

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


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 23, 2006)

Jimi said:
			
		

> 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


 
While I agree, here is my biggest fear.

Homeland Security walk into my home and takes it over for investigation without proper process. Yet, if they kick in my door, I am supposed to leave, which makes me look guilty.

So, how do I tell the good guys from the bad guys? When they all have the right to enter my home. No matter what an admendment in the US Constitution states. 

Sorry I had to rant on that for a second, as I have nothing to hide and they can come and inspect my home, with the proper paperwork anytime they want. It just makes you go hmmmm?!? WTF is happening with all of this.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 23, 2006)

Damn "the Man" !!!!


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 24, 2006)

Jimi said:
			
		

> What is to keep criminals from pressing into your home when it is expected for you to retreat into the elements?


 Nothing...

"Just remember, never presume to defend yourself, gosh knows we don't want to you hurting some poor misunderstood product of a 'less than optimal' upbringing. Dial 911 and cower in the closet like a yellow dog until the police arrive (too late to do any good but in plenty of time to stick a tag on your toe). And always remember... "we're here to help."

Sincerely,
Big Brother


----------



## kelly keltner (Mar 24, 2006)

Wasn't there simalar legislation in Florida a few years back.

kk


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 24, 2006)

Yes, from what I've read, Indiana pretty much just picked that legislation up almost verbatim.


----------



## still learning (Mar 24, 2006)

Hello, Again the bad guys has more rights...Why?  is it because they need more protection from us?

Bad guy enters your house "Give me you money or I going kill your family?
and if you hurt me....you going jail and I can sue you?  ...sounds like a happy ending?  ..........Aloha


----------



## Jimi (Mar 25, 2006)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Nothing...
> 
> "Just remember, never presume to defend yourself, gosh knows we don't want to you hurting some poor misunderstood product of a 'less than optimal' upbringing. Dial 911 and cower in the closet like a yellow dog until the police arrive (too late to do any good but in plenty of time to stick a tag on your toe). And always remember... "we're here to help."
> 
> ...


Not attacking your statement, just don't agree. If some poor misunderstood product of a less than optimal upbringing enters my home, I will treat'em just as if they were some hardnose career criminal and deal with 'em as I see fit (Does not mean my intent will be to kill'em). Defending myself in my home is bringing on no more risk than the perp. brings himself. I do not agree with any agruement that says, you must not resisit against criminal agression because you are risking harm to yourself or the agressor. By breaking and entering(Assualt & battery what have you), they are initiating the confrontation (THAT IS CRIMINAL!) Teach citizens to cower and flee from their own homes or to hide when their sancuary is breached makes for easy victims, and benifits no-one but those who commit criminal actions. I realize LEO's are here to protect me and my family, don't trust they can be there for me or everyone else at any given time. How many stories of people being attacked and attempting to retreat end in tradgity?
Krav Maga Instructors love to profess, everyone is born with the natural god given right to defend ones-self and off spring ( As in animals instinct to defend itself). Why would mans law conflict with that? That encourages criminal aggression. There, that's my rant, not a personal attack, had to get it off my chest. By the way , I do agree that if in public, you should try to retreat/escape the aggression. If it chases me to my front door, I must deal with it. I learned that by 3rd grade in the DC Metro area growing up.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 25, 2006)

I'm pretty sure Kenpotex was being sarcastic in making that statement.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 25, 2006)

Dude, look at _any_ of my other posts and you'll realize the sarcasm was practically dripping off that post...

If someone walks into my home univited, it is very likely that he will NOT walk back out...


----------



## Jimi (Mar 26, 2006)

Just got on my soap box too easily. Guess I feel strong about it, huh? Didn't mean to self-defende bible thump too much. It would be better for me to research and understand local laws more than to sound of so easily. PEACE


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 26, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> 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.


 
Actually, we are real close to having the "duty to retreat" law removed. In fact, so close that I will have to check and get back to you - it may have already happened...

Paul


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 26, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Actually, we are real close to having the "duty to retreat" law removed. In fact, so close that I will have to check and get back to you - it may have already happened...
> 
> Paul



Well I have not seen it, but that does not mean it has not been removed. It would be nice if it had been, and I was jsut out of touch on the communication.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 26, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Well I have not seen it, but that does not mean it has not been removed. It would be nice if it had been, and I was jsut out of touch on the communication.


 
Just checked. It is up for vote next session, and it looks like it will pass (knock on wood).

Keep in mind that this stuff doesn't get much press in our state, for whatever reason. So, a lot of people don't know about this stuff. For example, most people don't know that in Michigan we are now an open carry state, just like Texas.

The fact that this stuff doesn't get much coverage is actually a good thing, though. It means that the anti-gun crowd isn't real strong here, therefore most people don't give a F...

Paul


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 27, 2006)

Maybe you should'nt have let the cat out of the bag.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 27, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Maybe you should'nt have let the cat out of the bag.


 
Well, I see no reason to keep this info a secret either...lol...

Paul


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 27, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Just checked. It is up for vote next session, and it looks like it will pass (knock on wood).
> 
> Keep in mind that this stuff doesn't get much press in our state, for whatever reason. So, a lot of people don't know about this stuff. For example, most people don't know that in Michigan we are now an open carry state, just like Texas.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Paul, I hope it passes. You hafve a HR number so if I call someone I can reference it directly?


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 30, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Well, I see no reason to keep this info a secret either...lol...
> 
> Paul


 
Rosie O' is on her way!! Quick get Magnum P.I.!


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 30, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Thanks Paul, I hope it passes. You hafve a HR number so if I call someone I can reference it directly?


 
I'm on a a couple of senators and house of reps e-mail lists, where they just send me updates all the time. Just send an e-mail to the rep. of your choosing and they'll put you on their list and send you updates of what is going on periodically, if you'd like. GLSDA of which I am a part of  also is a good reference for this sort of information, because they have been an advocacy group for sometime on these issues. I am sure when something passes, they'll either send me an e-mail, have something about it on their site, or both.

I'll try to remember to throw a thread up if I get any new information on the subject; that'll keep everyone informed.

Paul


----------



## DeLamar.J (Apr 1, 2006)

All you have to do is make it look like you trying to run away, and let them grab you or attack you from behind in the least harmful way for you, then once you are grabbed or struck from behind you have ful filled your obligation to flee. 
I support the law, but things like the obligation to flee are very bad. If someone attacks you they deserve to pay for it with either the loss of thier life or broken bones.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 21, 2006)

Good Ideas! Kind of like the way Cops told me to step on someone's foot. As they fall their arms reach out hit, and grab you, allowing you to respond.


----------



## James Patrick (Apr 21, 2006)

Great news!

I hope Michigan is soon to follow!


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 21, 2006)

James Patrick said:
			
		

> Great news!
> 
> I hope Michigan is soon to follow!


 
We had our vote in the house on Tuesday; but I don't know the results yet. I am sure that we'll find out soon...

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 21, 2006)

James Patrick said:
			
		

> Great news!
> 
> I hope Michigan is soon to follow!


 
lol....but your in New York half the time anyways! What are their laws like?


----------



## Marvin (Apr 21, 2006)

Here is the latest info, I just got an e-mail from the NRA:



*Michigan "Castle Doctrine" Package Moving Forward!*​*Your Help Is Needed!*​ 
This week the House Judiciary Committee passed HB 5142, sponsored by Representative Tom Casperson (R-108), HB 5143, sponsored by Representative Rick Jones (R-71), HB 5153, sponsored by Representative Leslie Mortimer (R-65), and HB 5548, sponsored by Representative Tim Moore (R-97), which make up the important "Castle Doctrine" package.  

This legislative package will help the citizens of Michigan by clarifying the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others within ones home and/or occupied vehicle and provide immunity from civil liability for self-defense actions. 

*The "Castle Doctrine" package is scheduled to be heard by the full House on *​*Tuesday, April 25.*​ 
*Please contact your State Representative and ask him or her to support *​*HB 5142, HB5143, HB 5153, and HB 5548 *

*as passed by the House Judiciary Committee.  *​
*The general phone number to the House of Representatives is (517) 373-0135.*​ 
If you need help identifying your State Representative please use the​"Write your Representatives" feature at www.nraila.org/.​​​​​​​


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 21, 2006)

Hope it goes through.  I end up going across the border into MI a lot, so that would make me feel a little better.

Jeff


----------



## James Patrick (Apr 24, 2006)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> lol....but your in New York half the time anyways! What are their laws like?


 
I'm not sure; haven't looked into spending the $$ to be able to carry when I am here; plus I couldn't take my firearm back with me through Canada, so it is not practical given that I don't intend to be here for half the year perminently. But I think NY is a little more restrictive then MI. The thing is, when one state passes laws, nearby states often follow, so I root for any state who passes laws like these!


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 24, 2006)

James Patrick said:
			
		

> The thing is, when one state passes laws, nearby states often follow, so I root for any state who passes laws like these!


 
Good point!


----------



## Fu_Bag (Oct 28, 2006)

Hi All,

Just wondering how the Castle Doctrine is affecting crime rates around you? I recently read where home invasions were on the rise due to convenience stores and traditional "marks" increasing their security to the point to where they're not considered good targets anymore. My understanding of this is that there is now a greater chance that someone is either going to be waiting for you when you come home, or that they are going to bust into your home gangbusters and get what they couldn't get at the local Gas N Go.

Would it serve the public well to make this legislation VERY public knowledge? Does anyone think that ensuring violent criminals know that there is a VERY good chance they'll be killed during their attack will act as a true deterrent? I would hope that this would be the case but, when it comes to poor, pitiful, misunderstood, victims of less-than-zippedee doo daah-day upbringings, you never know.....

Anyone have any experience with this legislation?

Regards,

Fu Bag


----------

