Alaska has "Stand Your Ground"

[MicroBalrog]

This is a red herring - there are "duty to retreat" statutes and cases, but they don't require individuals to take any opportunity to avoid self defense possible.  Volokh has some good commentary on it:http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/03/the-duty-to-retreat-the-duty-or-not-to-comply-with-demands-necessity-and-liberty/

Statutes necessarily change what courts "on the ground" are doing, and it's risky to do so when the courts are viewing self defense favourably.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/02/im-going-to-stab-you-niggers-a-duty-to-retreat-case/

Here is an example.

Again, the question was: Did the victim’s “I’m going to stab you n---” require defendant to give up the right to be where he was, or else be legally stripped of the right to defend himself with deadly force if he stayed?

This should not be surprising, because duty to retreat laws, historically, were supported by racists.

[Hawkmoon]

Are there, or are there not, laws that impose a duty to retreat in some states?

Since De Selby has ducked your question, I'll answer it. Yes, there are some states whose statutes allow the use of deadly force in self defense only if the victim cannot retreat. Some of these laws (but not all, IIRC) further confuse that by saying that deadly force may be used "if the actor cannot retreat in complete safety."

[De Selby]

http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/02/im-going-to-stab-you-niggers-a-duty-to-retreat-case/

Here is an example.

This should not be surprising, because duty to retreat laws, historically, were supported by racists.

Again, the example (which, as Volokh notes, is in the minority of jurisdictions that even have this rule) makes explicit that a duty to retreat is not an absolute duty - turning to the facts of the case, the victim was stabbed in his own front yard by a person who actually turned to someone else to get the knife before going on to stab the victim.   Those facts would have you in just as much trouble in a SYG jurisdiction.  Imagine this defense to a Texas grand jury:  "My life is in danger - better stay in this crazy guy's front yard and ask my friend for a loaner knife, in case something happens and I need to defend myself from the householder!"    

Note Volokh's statement in the article I linked previously about model penal code jurisdictions (which incidentally is the next self defence posting in the series):

Incidentally, note that a half dozen or so states have adopted the MPC rule that I quote above, but I haven’t found even a single case that applies the provision that a defender can’t use lethal self-defense if he “knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety ... by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action.” I’ve looked hard, because I wanted to see how this provision plays out in practice, and yet I found nothing.
 

Some further reading here http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-defense-the-quantum-of-proof-the-duty-to-retreat-and-the-aggressor-exception/

First, most American states rejected the duty to retreat even before the recent flurry of new “Stand Your Ground” laws....

Second, the duty to retreat has always been, at least in principle, a narrow doctrine.

...

The duty to retreat, then, is a much less important factor in self-defense cases than many seem to assume, partly because it’s a minority rule and partly because it applies only a narrow set of cases.

[De Selby]

Since De Selby has ducked your question, I'll answer it. Yes, there are some states whose statutes allow the use of deadly force in self defense only if the victim cannot retreat. Some of these laws (but not all, IIRC) further confuse that by saying that deadly force may be used "if the actor cannot retreat in complete safety."

Correction:  there is no jurisdiction that requires you to retreat if there's a risk to your safety.

But hey, what would Eugene Volokh's analysis and research count for against a popular belief that these cases happen!?  If it saves just one life it's worth it!  It's for the children!

And now you see why I'm so skeptical of SYG laws - the arguments made in favour of them have little do with the evidence and everything to do with "just one case!" Arguments.

[HankB]

Here's a question for our APS legal eagles in regard to SYG . . .

Does SYG legislation have any civil lawsuit implications in states that have some variation of the "Castle Doctrine" which confers protection from civil lawsuits in the absence of criminal charges or in the case of acquittal in criminal court?

 

[Jamisjockey]

Correction:  there is no jurisdiction that requires you to retreat if there's a risk to your safety.

But hey, what would Eugene Volokh's analysis and research count for against a popular belief that these cases happen!?  If it saves just one life it's worth it!  It's for the children!

And now you see why I'm so skeptical of SYG laws - the arguments made in favour of them have little do with the evidence and everything to do with "just one case!" Arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland#Duty_to_Retreat_and_the_Castle_Doctrine

http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/02/im-going-to-stab-you-niggers-a-duty-to-retreat-case/

Here is an example.

This should not be surprising, because duty to retreat laws, historically, were supported by racists.

This one has me scratching my head.  It says that a fight erupted between the victim and the 3 guys in the yard.
At least here in Texas, mutual combat resulting in the application of deadly force is not justifiable.  You must disengage completely and make it clear that you've done so.

[Hawkmoon]

Here's a question for our APS legal eagles in regard to SYG . . .

Does SYG legislation have any civil lawsuit implications in states that have some variation of the "Castle Doctrine" which confers protection from civil lawsuits in the absence of criminal charges or in the case of acquittal in criminal court?

 

Depends on the state.

[MicroBalrog]

Correction:  there is no jurisdiction that requires you to retreat if there's a risk to your safety.

But hey, what would Eugene Volokh's analysis and research count for against a popular belief that these cases happen!?  If it saves just one life it's worth it!  It's for the children!

I have actually linked you to his article about a case like this.

Does this law infringe on anyone's freedom? No.

Why should there be any kind of provision for a duty to retreat?

[Matthew Carberry]

I take issue with the "negative consequences" claim. The built in assumption is that bad guys will "get away with murder" if the duty to retreat is removed, but unpack that.

There are a pile of factors that are the burden of the defense to assert and defend to justify the use of force, much less deadly force, under standard self-defense law. All SYG does is remove an utterly subjective assertion about whether or not the defendent could have retreated. It leaves every more factual, more "either/or" objective factor untouched (initiated conflict, course of crime, disparity of force, etc).

Saying that "duty to retreat" is necessary, when all those other factors are available for challenge by the prosecution if they exist, does not speak well of the prosecution's case.

If the -only- fact of the case the prosecution feels they can effectively challenge is the most subjective, they simply should not be putting a presumptively innocent citizen through the time and expense of an indictment, much less trial, particularly given the well-known potential for even a successful defense to utterly ruin the life of the acquittee.

[MechAg94]

IMO, the main issue with duty to retreat ideas is the subjective nature makes it more difficult to defend against in civil suits since the rules are a bit different.  It probably scares law abiding citizens more for the civil defense aspects than the criminal.  As I said before, there was a lot of fear about "escalation of force" and "retreat" years ago in Texas.  Instructors would go into all sorts of ways to "escalate" use of force on the part of the victim so a lawyer couldn't argue against you and teaching people to back away even if not that far so they could argue they did try to retreat.  I am glad those issues are not prevalent today.  It added a lot of complication for most people and took away from the critical discussion of what is a good shoot versus bad shoot.

Honestly, I think these issues were settled in the courts as much as the legislature.  And again, the most important part of the standard SYG legislation is the civil lawsuit protection.

[De Selby]

I agree with Matthew about not needing to introduce a duty to retreat - My point here is that self defense laws should not be changed because they've generally served America well, not that they need the minority retreat rule (although due to the long history of recognising self defense it works well even in those states where it exists). 

American states have a long and well settled history of self defense law that I see no point in disturbing, and that applies as much to states with no duty to retreat.  The point is to avoid confusing and accidentally disturbing a system of self defense law that works well at present.

My point about not needing to change the minority of states (like MD, cited above) with a duty to retreat is that in practice, the duty only applies to facts that would have you convicted anyway in an SYG state.  Jamis, you'll note in the MD wiki that the law recognises the rule explained by Volokh - the personal safety exception essentially means that in lethal force cases, the duty to retreat never applies unless you were already in the wrong.

[SteveS]

Here's a question for our APS legal eagles in regard to SYG . . .

Does SYG legislation have any civil lawsuit implications in states that have some variation of the "Castle Doctrine" which confers protection from civil lawsuits in the absence of criminal charges or in the case of acquittal in criminal court?

 

Michigan has a civil lawsuit shield. You can still be sued, though. The plaintiff (or their estate) would just argue that your defense was not lawful. It does make it harder to win and you can recoup attorney's fees.

As for SYG, here it didn't really change anything except for some procedural things. The only situation where there was a duty to retreat was from a mutual affray. I suppose one benefit is that it prevents a court from expanding this some time in the future.

[RevDisk]

I agree with Matthew about not needing to introduce a duty to retreat - My point here is that self defense laws should not be changed because they've generally served America well, not that they need the minority retreat rule (although due to the long history of recognising self defense it works well even in those states where it exists). 

American states have a long and well settled history of self defense law that I see no point in disturbing, and that applies as much to states with no duty to retreat.  The point is to avoid confusing and accidentally disturbing a system of self defense law that works well at present.

My point about not needing to change the minority of states (like MD, cited above) with a duty to retreat is that in practice, the duty only applies to facts that would have you convicted anyway in an SYG state.  Jamis, you'll note in the MD wiki that the law recognises the rule explained by Volokh - the personal safety exception essentially means that in lethal force cases, the duty to retreat never applies unless you were already in the wrong.

Then it shouldn't be a problem if duty to retreat is removed, as long as "if you're committing a crime, you don't get coverage under this law" is tagged to any SYG or Castle doctrine law. Correct?

Pennsylvania passed Castle doctrine. Duty to retreat was removed, civil immunity is automatic unless you are not criminally convicted, not a defense if you are committing a crime. It strengthens the presumption of innocence. Maybe a bad guy or two will skate.  But better ten bad guys skate than one innocent man go to jail or pay tens of thousands of dollars to a scumbag's family.