Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Duty to retreat v. right to use lethal force in self defense

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    North Chesterfield VA

    Duty to retreat v. right to use lethal force in self defense

    This, I think, highlights the point I noted in my earlier post on the duty to retreat: Even under a formulation such as the MPC’s, one doesn’t lose the right to lethal self-defense just because one could avoid the need for lethal self-defense with complete safety. Rather, one loses this right only when one could avoid the need for lethal self-defense with complete safety and without undue sacrifice of one’s liberty.
    Even the MPC doesn’t require one to give up one’s liberty not to hand over the wallet, or one’s liberty not to beg, as a condition of lethal self-defense. The MPC duty to retreat is thus not just an application of the “use deadly force only when necessary” requirement. Rather, it embodies a judgment that requiring someone to leave a place where he has the right to be is not an undue sacrifice of one’s liberty — even though requiring someone to comply with a demand for money, or a demand that he beg for his life or renounce his apostasy, is an undue sacrifice of liberty.
    That's what I think is the money quote. The article - and the earlier one linked in the above quote - really needs to be read in its entirety so that you do not miss the nuances that must always be addressed. Volockh is not setting up a free pass argument for folks stuck in a "duty to retreat" state, and he is not suggesting that "stand your ground/make my day" has no limits. As always, the devil is in the details and I highly recommend that even if you do not consider yourself a legal scholar you go click the links and read both articles.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"

  2. #2
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Thanks. It would be good if all of our pundits were as wise and well 'spoken' as is Professor Eugene Volokh. He is UCLA professor of law.

    Don't miss the comments following his article.

    He cites the Model Penal Code. I am familiar with the Uniform Vehicle Code from my work with NCUTLO, but not before of the MPC. It is ALI copyright and closely held. It costs $40
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 04-04-2012 at 07:28 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    White Oak Plantation
    Read all three if you need a nap.

    Duty to Retreat (April 3) then My earlier post (April 2) and finally ...the outcome of any... (March 24)

    Tangentially n Guilty Men (1997)

    More from Eugene Volokh

    Gun Control missives from Professor Volokh

    "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights," Justice Jackson wrote in the 1943 flag-salute case, "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Words to live by, it seems to me.
    Who's Right on Second
    Professor Volokh seems to be a constitutionalist first and foremost.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Professor Volokh seems to be a constitutionalist first and foremost.
    Thank goodness. The only alternative is progressivism and libertarianism (spit).

  5. #5
    Regular Member ncwabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    rural religious usa
    excellent read...appreciate the direction to the site...


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts