It’s well understood that if someone is using force, whether it be a fist or a gun, and you are in immediate danger, that you can use force to protect yourself.  However, do you have a duty to retreat or avoid the harm by running away?  The courts seem to be split on this issue.

Some courts hold that the defendant has no duty to retreat.  They can stand their ground and even use deadly force against an attack.  Even if they could’ve easily moved to safety, they don’t have to retreat.  Courts often call this giving priority to the “dignity and sense of honor of the individual.”

Other courts hold that the defendant has a duty to retreat.  The person must retreat is they are able to do so safely.  The reasoning is based on the importance of human life rather than honor.  There is one exception to the duty to retreat rule, and that is where the person is attacked in their own home.

Can You Use A Gun If You’re Robbed At Home?

For many, the idea that a robber may break into their home in the middle of the night, tie up individuals and steal every item, is a nightmare.  Because of this, many homeowners purchase guns or keep baseball bats next to their bed.  However, they may not always be able to use a gun, even if they are being robbed.

There are several rules governing self-defense, even in ones own house.  For example, even if a homeowner is robbed at gunpoint, they may not shoot the robber if there is another, less deadly, way of disposing of the threat.  However, if there is no other way to prevent the robbery, the homeowner may use a gun and shoot the burglar.  The reason for this is because deadly force may be used to prevent most felonies, even if the person is not directly attacked.  This allowance extends even to innocent third parties (like a neighbor injured by a ricochet shot).

What do you think?  Should a person have to run away?