Talk:Duty to retreat

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What country?[edit]

It's a little unclear just what country's law is being discussed here. Even common law varies from place to place, even among jurisdictions that recognize the notion. For example Florida is a common-law state (in the US, only Louisiana is not) but has statutorily removed the duty to retreat. This needs to be clarified; right now it seems to be written almost entirely from a UK perspective, which would be fine if the title were Duty to retreat (UK). --Trovatore 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not know any other laws so I can only write what I write. I have clearly stated the geographical limitation. It is for others to add. As and when there is a sufficient quantity of material, we can fork by jurisdiction. If you can add for the U.S., please do so. David91 02:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objection to the "English law" section. It's the lead paragraph above it that I think makes points specific to UK law without identifying them as such. --Trovatore 04:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. --Trovatore 05:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin Case[edit]

It is true that some critics have blamed the "stand your ground law" for the tragedy of the Martin case. However, others point out that it is not applicable, based on the facts, which remain unclear. The "stand your ground law" would relieve Zimmerman of the duty to retreat before using deadly force. In this case, however, Zimmerman claimed to have been knocked to the ground, with Martin on top of him, banging his head on the sidewalk. If this is true, then Zimmerman would have had no chance to retreat, and therefore no duty to attempt to do so before using deadly force. Additionally, if we assume that Zimmerman is only authorized to use deadly force in response to deadly force, we must accept that the situation, as described, would have met that standard. Banging someone's head on the sidewalk is a potentially lethal attack, and so Zimmerman, unable to otherwise escape, would have been allowed to use deadly force, even absent a "stand your ground law". ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.191.114 (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, even if Zimmerman was in fact the aggressor (as many people strongly believe), if the available evidence had been adequate to firmly convince the jury of that fact, the presence or absence of a "stand your ground" law still would not have been able to affect the outcome of the trial, because the aggressor (unless he *does* end his attack, retreat or attempt to retreat, and ultimately make it clear to the would-be victim that the threat truly has terminated) has no right to use force in his defense at all -- indeed, he does not even have the *ability* to use defensive force so long as he remains the attacker. Force used by an attacker is offensive, not defensive, and there is no version of the right to defend (whether or not it includes a "stand your ground" component) that extends legal protection to the aggressor's use of force in attacking another person. Duodecimus (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R v bird mischaracterised here[edit]

editor right to say time's a factor but this was an argument for the defendants (un)awareness that she was holding a weapon, not her decision to strike, which was lawful 109.246.48.120 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]