Duty to retreat laws

[Waylander]

The "with complete safety" is what I would have a problem with. Sure, maybe they could have locked all the doors at the restaurant and called the police or maybe he decided he wasn't going to be a victim again.

ETA, I'm not trying to excuse him breaking the law, if indeed he did.

[austinN4]

I think this is key, if accurately written: After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.
My take is that the hoodlums were in retreat with him following and that he could have stayed in the store and watch them run.

Great minds think alike!

[Grand58742]

Great minds think alike!

The problem is we don't know. I'm certainly never going to justify someone chasing down an attacker (or other criminal) to extract their pound of flesh as we've seen in cases before. However, normally the media reports such things if they do happen. Which wasn't the case this time so it begs one to ask "why" in reading the article and verdict. You know the media loves to report on crazy people chasing down an attacker. However, the first article did state the fight "spilled outside" so there is that potential for escape for the victim here.

My point of the matter, this case is just an example of, is any state that denies or heavily restricts it's citizens the right to:

A: Bear arms to include pocket knifes (if it was one)
B: Castle doctrine/SYG laws
C: Not use force in an attempted escape

Opens itself up to far more victims than it should. Furthermore, take the individual's background out of this case (with the known though vague facts) and judge on merits alone. Individual was assaulted by "underage youth." Individual fought back. One got stabbed. Individual was arrested, charged and convicted even though the judge believed he was defending himself, but had to follow the law. Such things are not written in stone and a judge very well could challenge such laws based on exigent circumstances. Which this one did not.

What happens when it's a 70 year old woman being assaulted by "underaged youth" and she fights back? Does she have the ability to retreat? Does she go to jail for stabbing someone if it happens? Does she believe herself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm?

[LMT Shooter]

......I'm certainly never going to justify someone chasing down an attacker (or other criminal) to extract their pound of flesh.....

Are you referring to a legal or moral justification? I know a bit about the law on this, probably not as much as some others here, and I know that there is little or no legal justification for chasing down ones attacker after the fact, but morally I have zero problem with it. I don't apply this belief to cases where the victim chases down the wrong person. The world would be a far better place if more victims did this, because the overwhelming majority of criminals do not truly fear the consequences they face in court.

[SteyrAUG]

What did or did not happen is irrelevant to the fact that "duty to retreat" laws get innocent people killed all the time.

Even those who are lawfully armed, who are in a "stand your ground" state are going to leave IF the opportunity presents itself to completely avoid conflict altogether. I can think of few situations where I want to get into a gunfight where I might be killed as a consequence when the opportunity to leave exists.

It's funny how criminals are allowed to attack you and the moment they decide they no longer have an advantage they suddenly become the victim. Same mindset that has people believe they can shoot three cops and the moment other cops arrive they can simply put their hands up and expect to be taken into custody without incident.

Once you cross certain lines there are no "time outs" or "I give." And if the violence and aggression you brought to some innocent person follows you back out the door, you really shouldn't be surprised. Sadly the law of the land in certain states doesn't support such realities.

[SteyrAUG]

I think this is key, if accurately written: After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.

My take is that the hoodlums were in retreat with him following and that he could have stayed in the store and watch them run.

And if it turns out they simply went outside to get a gun so they could return and kill you, then what? And if he locked the doors and they got a gas can out of the trunk and started a fire at the front door, then what?

As for me, I'd rather not have to put my faith in the good intentions of bad people. Once you've done the 3 on 1 assault you've shown you are capable of pretty much anything.

[NYH1]

And if it turns out they simply went outside to get a gun so they could return and kill you, then what?

You following them outside armed with a knife just made their job of shooting you easier. Now they don't have to go back inside to do it.

And if he locked the doors and they got a gas can out of the trunk and started a fire at the front door, then what?

Go out the backdoor.

As for me, I'd rather not have to put my faith in the good intentions of bad people. Once you've done the 3 on 1 assault you've shown you are capable of pretty much anything.

I agree. However, even in stand your ground states. Once contact is broken and then you follow them, you're the aggressor whether we like it or not.

NYH1.

[Renegade]

After being assaulted inside the coffee shop, Sumpter ran outside and stabbed one of the men.

Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes.

[Renegade]

I agree. However, even in stand your ground states. Once contact is broken and then you follow them, you're the aggressor whether we like it or not.

Not in Texas. Texas allows you to pursue criminals in many cases.

[PatrioticDisorder]

What did or did not happen is irrelevant to the fact that "duty to retreat" laws get innocent people killed all the time.

Even those who are lawfully armed, who are in a "stand your ground" state are going to leave IF the opportunity presents itself to completely avoid conflict altogether. I can think of few situations where I want to get into a gunfight where I might be killed as a consequence when the opportunity to leave exists.

It's funny how criminals are allowed to attack you and the moment they decide they no longer have an advantage they suddenly become the victim. Same mindset that has people believe they can shoot three cops and the moment other cops arrive they can simply put their hands up and expect to be taken into custody without incident.

Once you cross certain lines there are no "time outs" or "I give." And if the violence and aggression you brought to some innocent person follows you back out the door, you really shouldn't be surprised. Sadly the law of the land in certain states doesn't support such realities.

I’m glad to see I am not the only one who thinks this way!