however, even with the Castle Doctrine, you can only use deadly force to save a life or to stop an arson.
And I bet there are those who claim self-defense where that legal defense fails in court. How must of a duty to retreat does someone laying on the ground, a victim of a violent assault, actually have?
It does not relevant what the father of Markeis McGlockton believes on the matter, as his son chose to commit an unprovoked, unjustified aggravated assault against another. This particular case is not even relevant to the question that was presented, as there has been no official decision yet as to whether or not charges will even be brought, meaning the matter is still undecided. Perhaps if Michael McGlockton had done a better job of raising his son and teaching him to stay out of trouble, he would still be alive. Try again. Cite actual cases that prove the claims of yourself to be factually correct.
The duty is to -safely- retreat. If you are in a compromised position, where your attempt flee makes you more vulnerable to attack, your duty to retreat is lifted.
I think Duty to Retreat is more about not willingly getting into a fight, not instigating a fight, and walking away from a possible altercation. it is illegal in NY for two or more people to willingly choose to engage in a brawl.
If I am older, slower, less fit or outnumbered by my assailants, I cannot be expected to have a safe retreat.
Or any number of other circumstances - if you have someone else with you who is less physically able than you, for instance.
yes, in that case you are allowed to defend yourself. but not with deadly force unless it is warranted and the sense of a deadly threat is a reasonable one
"NYS Penal Law, Article 35, Section 15, paragraph 2: A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;" Who decides what is complete personal safety?
In NY you have no duty to retreat in your home, car or place of business. You can only use deadly force to defend yourself or another from deadly physical force. the DA decides if your claim that deadly physical force was being used against you or was about to be used against you, or another. even if your indicted, a jury can decide that your claim is justified.
Being shoved to the ground has resulted in the deaths of numerous individuals in the united states. Therefore it constitutes deadly physical force, even if the one who is shoved to the ground does not immediately die as a result of the attack. The argue otherwise would necessitate accepting the notion that being shot does not constitute deadly force if the one who is shot does not immediately die as a result of the attack.
No, duty to retreat means you can't defend yourself when attacked, and must flee. That's why it's called "duty".
And Stand your Ground laws all require that. They simply stipulate that the state does not consider a duty to retreat reasonable.
it should be MURDER to kill someone simply cause you think they are about to push you to the ground or did push you to the ground. i dont know what the **** is wrong with some people that they are just salivating over the possibility of shooting someone to death. go play a video game or something
i guess you didn't read my posts. in NY there is NO duty retreat in your home, your car or your place of business. Your home, your car, your workplace is considered your Castle.
They do not to consider a duty to retreat reasonable, yes. Ie retreat first is not a prerequisite to reasonable force like it is in a duty to retreat state.
It was not a push, it was a shove. It was not an accidental contact, it was felony battery. It was a deliberate, unprovoked attack against another.
What needs to be factored into all this thinking is the age of the person being approached. It might take a fairly heavy threat to make a 28 year old feel like his life was in danger. It would not take nearly as big a threat to make this 84 year old to feel his life was in danger.
and why "reasonable fear" needs to be evaluated by a panel. SYG defense needs to be evaluated by more than just one biased DA
First it must be shown that there is actually a problem with the setup that is in place, and that change is actually necessary.
