The 2nd Amendment-- The Facts........ Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The 2nd Amendment-- The Facts........

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: TimF	2/26/2018 3:49:19 PM
	of 10167

Duty to Retreat from One's Home, When Attacked by a Cohabitant? Even states that generally impose a "duty to retreat" before using deadly self-defense exclude self-defense in the home -- but what if the self-defense is against a cohabitant? Eugene Volokh Feb. 22, 2018 8:08 pm Wyoming is one of the few Western states that recognizes a "duty to retreat" -- i.e., provides that people lose their rights to deadly self-defense when they can avoid the threat to life or limb with perfect safety by fleeing. But there's an exception to the "duty to retreat" called the "castle doctrine": Even in duty-to-retreat states, people need not retreat if they are assaulted in their own homes. (All this assumes, by the way, defenders who aren't at fault in the original attack, and are where they have a right to be.) Now some duty-to-retreat states recognize an exception to the exception: When people are attacked in their own homes by cohabitants who share the same homes, the castle doctrine doesn't apply, and the duty to retreat kicks back in. In last week's Widdison v. State, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that the castle doctrine does apply (and thus the duty to retreat does not apply) in such a situation:.. reason.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next