I'm a strong supporter of Castle Doctrine in your home. Alaska already strips the duty to retreat in public places if you're accompanied by a minor or member of your household, at work, or at home. Alaska law also allows you to stand in the shoes of a third person if that third person would be justified in using deadly force.
So while this is an ok law and I lukewarmly support it, I don't feel super strongly about it. We don't seem to see many baseless prosecutions for legit self defense cases. I also don't think it is a terrible idea to require civilians to try to withdraw from a situation in a public place if there isn't a loved one in the mix.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteYou're correct Alaska is pretty good about not prosecuting in justified cases, the problem with our "duty to retreat" is that it is part of the affirmative justification of self-defense as a defense to a criminal homicide charge.
If it goes to trial the defender in effect has to prove to the jury that they could -not- retreat, and Alaska's law doesn't even give them the benefit of the doubt by saying the retreat must be possible "in perfect safety" as do some others. By removing the duty to retreat from the justification it puts the burden on the prosecutor to prove the entirety of the incident was unjustified as opposed to merely demonstrating that in some theoretical way the defender could or should have retreated and thus even an otherwise "good shoot" was a unjustifiable criminal act.
A more than merely semantic difference.