Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine

[jutinlee]

The reason I choose to apply for my Illinois CCL is to defend myself, my loved ones and those who cannot defend themselves. If I fear my life, then logically, those around me will be on danger as well- and likely, defenseless if I have been harmed or killed. Therefore, I will not hesitate to defend myself should I feel it necessary.
As my instructors heavily stressed, shoot to stop the threat, we never shoot to kill. I value life. All life.
Given that the danger has passed, I will use my knowledge of first aid to attempt to rescue my very attacker if I feel secure in doing so- and, if my stress induced mind is clear enough to do so.
I suggest each member here adopt the same philosophy. As my instructors said, the jury or public opinion and civil law will way much more heavily in your favor if you had no choice and then did everything in your power to prevent the death of your very attacker.
May none of us ever be confronted by the issue in practical application.

 

[taliv]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/...back-to-prison-for-fatal-strip-club-stabbing/

 

[Snejdarek]

This is an enlightening read indeed. Here in Europe many look down/up on US self-defense laws thinking, that if you are slapped in face in US, you are justified to shoot in face back, if someone breaks into your house, you are justified to hang the bastard on a tree in front of the house (if I take it a bit to the extreme).

We have similar situation when it comes to stand your ground (no duty to retreat), however even if you can stand your ground, the law still requires you not to use "force that would be manifestly disproportionate to the manner of attack", which makes it a bit murky even for those who know judicial rulings on the topic very well. There are some parliamentarians trying to push through laws in the direction of castle doctrine it will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[USNCPO]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...

Joe -- I think I'm late to the party (by a lot) in replying to this, but if you read what Holder said carefully it makes sense. He's saying that we should continue with the "Duty to Retreat" laws when *outside the home* when it's safe to do so. The phrasing isn't so awkward if you replace the the phrase ,outside the home, with *when outside the home* (which, if you look at it from a purely English-teacher perspective, is what it actually means).

I'm fairly certain he's referring to the Zimmerman trial/fallout given the date of the quote. I read that as "inside the home, there is no duty to retreat."