• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
http://volokh.com/2012/04/03/the-du...to-comply-with-demands-necessity-and-liberty/

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
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:
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
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
Click to expand...

Professor Volokh seems to be a constitutionalist first and foremost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top