Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “Should You Retreat? Castle Doctrine vs. Stand Your Ground” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/castle-doctrine-vs-stand-your-ground/.
Should You Retreat? Castle Doctrine vs. Stand Your Ground
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
No, I am not in anyway opposed to castle doctrine or armed self defense. I used so called because I am using that term as a catch all phrase to describe something that in the different states is referred to by different names. No duty to retreat, stand your ground, castle doctrine. I hope this answers your question.
Model 457
Alpha
Thank you for your response Mr. Rice. I appreciate the clarification.
powerboatr
Professional
there is no easy answer
fall back to cover and evaluate whats going on
every situation is different
good thing about article is it gets you to thinking about a, b and c scenarios and reminding you to be watchful but not obsessed
Oldmountaiman
Alpha
Good morning,for myself and my wife there is no retreat as we are both disabled. If things go sideways at home or doctor's appointment or getting groceries we must stay put.
HansGruber
Ronin
That’s about as intelligent as saying “If you own an expensive car, don’t drive it, because you might get in an accident and total it”.
If I use a firearm to save my life,I don’t care how much it cost…it’s paid for itself a million times over. If I never see it again, it was still worth every penny.
It’s a ridiculous rationalization to carry a cheap gun.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Recusant
Hellcat
As another member here once pointed out, the best fight to be in is the once you never had. I would almost have to be in a situation where my actions would not be questioned by a jury of my peers. Either way defending yourself can put one a wild roller coaster ride with a questionable conclusion. The best advice is to never trouble trouble unless trouble troubles you!
Belt Fed
Ronin
with the way he's shooting all over, something is going to die for sure.lol
Belt Fed
Ronin
same here, we do have some. you just can't shoot someone OUTSIDE of your home unless you feel threatened or they have a gun, but if they are retreating you can't shoot them in the back. But if they are inside, they are fair game, regardless if they have a gun. same goes wih your car, if they smash window or try to open the door on you.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
bad folks never seem to learn the phrase ..
play stupid games and win stupid prizes
play stupid games and win stupid prizes
Thanks for the link, Mike. Good article.
One thing I have to keep reminding myself is that our elected representatives seem to be always busy writing and passing new laws. With that, and the fact my memory isn’t what it used to be, I have to periodically re-read the statutes to remind myself what current law is. I don’t want to take someone’s life, but I don’t want them taking mine either. And I don’t want to wind up in jail for defending myself. It can get complicated!
One thing I have to keep reminding myself is that our elected representatives seem to be always busy writing and passing new laws. With that, and the fact my memory isn’t what it used to be, I have to periodically re-read the statutes to remind myself what current law is. I don’t want to take someone’s life, but I don’t want them taking mine either. And I don’t want to wind up in jail for defending myself. It can get complicated!
These doctrines have different impact in different jurisdictions.
In many, they create a presumption that the shooter is in the right. You need to recognize that the presumption can be overcome by objective facts that end up making the shoot unlawful.
Example: 2am in your home and you hear someone in the house. You are armed and go see what is going on. In the darkness you see a person moving toward you. Bang probably is OK.
Different facts: 2pm in the afternoon and the same thing happens. You go to confront the intruder in daylight and see a 14 year old kid with no visible weapon who has your TV in his arms. Bang probably is not OK. The objective facts showed no risk of serious bodily harm or death to you and they overcome the presumption that you acted reasonably.
In many, they create a presumption that the shooter is in the right. You need to recognize that the presumption can be overcome by objective facts that end up making the shoot unlawful.
Example: 2am in your home and you hear someone in the house. You are armed and go see what is going on. In the darkness you see a person moving toward you. Bang probably is OK.
Different facts: 2pm in the afternoon and the same thing happens. You go to confront the intruder in daylight and see a 14 year old kid with no visible weapon who has your TV in his arms. Bang probably is not OK. The objective facts showed no risk of serious bodily harm or death to you and they overcome the presumption that you acted reasonably.
Recusant
Hellcat
My son who is a LEO once advised me to keep 100 bill handy and if I found someone loose in my house to offer it to them to leave instead shooting them. He said I’d come out thousands of dollars ahead.
