Reply #92: A duty to retreat is irrelevant to determining 'reasonableness'

[AtheistCrusader]

otherwise, most states are defective.

Where I will agree with you, is cases of the Castle Doctrine, which is only in effect in a few states, wherein there is nearly a wall preventing investigation of anything but a clearly suspicious DGU.

I like Washington's law better.

A duty to retreat places the burden of proof on the victim (alleged) to establish they had no choice.
Castle Doctrine places a barrier that actually hinders investigation of potential criminal foul play masked as self defense.

Washington has neither, so the investigating law enforcement is free to investigate, and the burden of proof is on the investigators to find criminal malfeasanse on the part of the alleged victim. Alaska is evolving to what we have now.

By all means, keep up the fight against Castle Doctrine, it is an extreme law with broad potential for mis-use. But lacking a duty to retreat is a good thing for the (alleged) victims, and no barrier to investigating law enforcement. It should be encouraged.