Comments on: Duty to Retreat Retreating

By: ben

ben — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:19:47 +0000

Dude, you totally missed Washington State. We’ve always had no Duty to retreat if I recall correctly. And furthermore, here in Washington:

“When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense…”

Show me another state that does that.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:56:48 +0000

What the Times doesn't say is the reason the antis don't like the Castle Doctrine. As Assemblyman David Koon (who sponsors virtually all of the antigun legislation in New York) once said in public, the reason Democrats support gun control is because they view criminals and criminals famlies as their constituents and things like Castle Doctrine and RTC would disproportionally affect their voting block.

By: gattsuru

gattsuru — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:47:13 +0000

I’m going to have to research those two stories. Obviously, the NY slimes aren’t going to tell the whole truth, but usually they’re better than this. Common law still requires the three tiers : ability, opportunity, and intent.

Oh and the “couldn’t he have shot to disable” is laughable. Not only is that a difficult task, but legally, shooting to disable suggests that lethal force wasn’t necessary.

By: Brutal Hugger

Brutal Hugger — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:56:05 +0000

Yeah, I’m not holding my breath that this law comes to the North East any times soon.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:37:08 +0000

�In the South,� he said, �they more or less give the benefit of the doubt to the alleged victim�s account.�

Ayup!