Duty To Retreat??

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply

Topic author
Crosstimbers Okie
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO USA

Duty To Retreat??

#1

Post by Crosstimbers Okie » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:31 pm

http://eddiebranch.org/?page_id=11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check out all the videos and documents. Think about tactics. The guy who sacrificed his mobility by allowing himself to be trapped in an enclosed area (shower stall), is the guy who died.

Did Eddie Branch have a duty to retreat? This is a federal prison in Louisiana. Federal law applies. Is there a duty to retreat under federal law? If so, it will apply to federal courthouse parking lots, national parks & wildlife refuges, military installations & etc. After watching all of the videos, would you have voted to convict or for acquittal had you been on the jury?
Teach others to fight back when unjustly assaulted; be it on the street or in the courtroom. Self-defense is a normal, moral act. So teach your family, friends, and students practical defense against both physical and legal marauders.-Jerry VanCook

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 25393
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Duty To Retreat??

#2

Post by The Annoyed Man » Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:05 pm

I found this by googling Duty to retreat in U.S. Law (you should try it):

US Supreme Court: United States vs Beard
In Bishop's Criminal Law, the author, after observing that cases of mere assault and of mutual quarrel, where the attacking party has not the purpose of murder in his heart, are those to which is applied the doctrine of the books that one cannot justify the killing of another, though apparently in self-defense, unless he retreat to the wall or other interposing obstacle before resorting to this extreme right, says that: 'Where an attack is made with murderous intent, there being sufficient overt act, the person attacked is under no duty to fly. He may stand his ground, and, if need be, kill his adversary. And it is the same where the attack is with a deadly weapon, for in this case a person attacked may well assume that the other intends murder, whether he does in fact or not.' Volume 1, 850. The rule is thus expressed by Wharton: 'A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, habitation, or property against any one or many who manifestly intend and endeavor to commit a known felony by violence or surprise or either. In such case he is not compelled to retreat, but may pursue his adversary until he finds himself out of danger; and if, n the conflict between them he happen to kill him, such killing is justifiable.' 2 Whart. Cr. Law, 1019.

See, also, Gallagher v. State, 3 Minn. 270, 273 (Gil. 185); Pond v. People, 8 Mich. 150, 177; State v. Dixon, 75 N. C. 275, 279; State v. Sherman, 16 R. I. 631, 18 Atl. 1040; Fields v. State (Ind. Sup.) 32 N. E. 780; Eversole v. Com. (Ky.) 26 S. W. 816; Haynes v. State, 17 Ga. 465, 483; Long v. State, 52 Miss. 23, 35; State v. Tweedy, 5 Iowa, 433; Baker v. Com . (Ky.) 19 S. W. 975; Tingle v. Com. (Ky.) 11 S. W. 812; 3 Rice, Ev. 360.

In our opinion, the court below erred in holding that the accused, while on his premises, outside of his dwelling house, was under a legal duty to get out of the way, if he could, of

his assailant, who, according to one view of the evidence, had threatened to kill the defendant, in execution of that purpose had armed himself with a deadly weapon, with that weapon concealed upon his person went to the defendant's premises, despite the warning of the latter to keep away, and by word and act indicated his purpose to attack the accused. The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

As the proceedings below were not conducted in accordance with these principles, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.
IANAL, and all that... but I hope this helps you.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.


Topic author
Crosstimbers Okie
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO USA

Re: Duty To Retreat??

#3

Post by Crosstimbers Okie » Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:58 am

It does. Very illuminating.

Thanks! :thumbs2:
Teach others to fight back when unjustly assaulted; be it on the street or in the courtroom. Self-defense is a normal, moral act. So teach your family, friends, and students practical defense against both physical and legal marauders.-Jerry VanCook

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”