Not in the following states. You would not be authorized to use deadly force in self defense without "retreating". The following states impose some form of duty to retreat before using deadly self defense:
•Arkansas
•Connecticut
•Delaware
•Hawaii (of course)
•Iowa
•Maine
•Maryland (no surprise here)
•Massachusetts(no surprise here either)
•Missouri
•Minnesota
•Nebraska
•New Jersey (the home of anti-gun rino fat boy Christie)
•New York (Duty to help the robber carry your stuff to his car and then stand still to be shot. Self defense is probably the second most serious crime in NY)
•North Dakota
•Ohio
•Rhode Island
•Wisconsin
•Wyoming
When you are being shot at in an enclosed room I’m not sure there is anyplace left to retreat to.
Good info, including some surprises, like WY being on that list. Those of us covered by things like castle laws and no duty to retreat laws need to count our blessings.
Kudos to the store owner but the decision that he needed to keep an under-counter long-gun should be the indication it’s time to consider other measures. I’ve seen high-end watch and jewelry stores that have buzz-in systems so there must be a positive decision to allow somebody in the store.
In TX we understand that some people just need killing.
Not entirely true. True we do have a "retreat" clause in our lawful deadly physical force law, but you have to read the entire law that adds an affirmative defense of "retreat with complete safety" and some exemptions:
Our lawyers say that planting your foot back as you brace, draw your firearm, and assume a shooting stance is about as much retreat needed because you can't outrun a bullet. NO ONE has been prosecuted since the 60s or 70s on our retreat clause and we have 2 AG letters (recommendations to the 75 county prosecutors) NOT to charge on retreat portion of § 5-2-607.
SOURCE: (b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:
(1) (A) By retreating.
(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:
(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or
(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or
(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.
The last one pretty much exonerates the jewelry store owner. We are like AZ, OK and TX " light" on self defense in AR.
If I remember my history, “Duty To Retreat” laws were passed to prevent blacks from shooting back at night riders attacking their house.
Like all bad laws, when the Liberals got into government, they decided such laws applied to all citizens.
He “retreated” to the back room the retrieve his weapon.
Unfair. He supported loosening of gun restrictions, but the RAT dominated legislature would not hear of it.