Key Takeaways
- No jurisdiction requires you to retreat before using non-deadly force to defend yourself against an attack.
- In states with a duty to retreat, it applies only before using deadly force outside your home, and only when you can retreat in complete safety.
- Under the castle doctrine you need not retreat from your own home, and stand-your-ground states remove the duty to retreat in public places as well.
If someone threatens you and you could walk away, does the law require you to leave before defending yourself? And does it matter whether you are on the street or in your own home?
In this TalksOnLaw Brief, Joel Cohen talks with Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, the Herbert F. Goodrich Professor of Criminal Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, about the duty to retreat. She explains why the duty is far narrower than many people assume, and where it still applies.
No Duty to Retreat Before Non-Deadly Force
Professor Ferzan begins with a point that surprises many people: no jurisdiction says that if somebody threatens to punch you, you must run away to safety instead of stopping them with force. That rule traces back to what has been called the "true man" doctrine. Critics hear it as a testosterone-laden view of manly men standing up for themselves, but she notes that other scholars trace it to Sir Matthew Hale, for whom a "true man" meant an innocent man. The idea is that right should not give way to wrong: if you are lawfully where you are entitled to be, you should not have to leave rather than use at least non-deadly force.
The Castle Doctrine
There is also no duty to retreat within your own home. Under the castle doctrine, Professor Ferzan explains, if somebody attacks you at home, you do not have to run out of your house; you may stay and defend yourself.
Deadly Force Outside the Home
That leaves one question: whether you must retreat before using deadly force outside your home. Even there, she explains, the duty applies only if you can retreat with complete safety. If turning and running would make you more vulnerable to attack, you are not required to do it. But in a duty-to-retreat jurisdiction, you may not use deadly force if you could have retreated with complete safety. And in a state with a stand-your-ground law, there is no duty to retreat even in this situation.
What to Know Now
The structure Professor Ferzan lays out remains accurate. A majority of states now follow a no-retreat or stand-your-ground rule, by statute or court decision, while a minority, including several in the Northeast, still require retreat before deadly force outside the home when it can be done in complete safety. The Model Penal Code takes the duty-to-retreat approach, with exceptions for the home and, in most cases, the workplace. Federal law has long leaned against a rigid retreat requirement: in Brown v. United States, Justice Holmes wrote that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife," treating the chance to retreat as one factor for the jury rather than a fixed rule. The policy debate continues. Supporters of the duty to retreat say it saves lives by favoring de-escalation, while supporters of stand-your-ground say law-abiding people should not have to yield to wrongdoers. Because the rules vary by state, and because even no-retreat states still require that force be necessary and proportionate, the precise answer depends on where the confrontation happens.
