Duty to retreat vs stand your ground and castle laws: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

[TPaine7]

13. I'm not sure I take your meaning.

If you do not yield to the criminal, if you defend yourself from an unjustified assault and kill or injure him, you will face charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment.

In a "duty to retreat" jurisdiction, you must yield to the criminal. In a "stand your ground" jurisdiction you will not face charges simply because you failed to yield to an assailant.

Of course your apprehension of danger must be reasonable. But the type of argument that can be used against you changes. In "duty to retreat" jurisdictions, for example, if an older person charges you with a knife and you shoot him the prosecution can argue "but you were 10 years younger, why didn't you simply outrun him?" A jury may find that plausible and your counterargument--"I wasn't sure I could outrun him and if I turned my back and he was faster than he looked I could have been killed"--convincing.

Failing to yield to criminals is not itself a crime in "stand your ground" jurisdictions. That was my point in the first sentences.

Even if you did not see a safe escape path, your judgment will be second-guessed by a safe, warm, comfortable jury. “Stand your ground” prevents relaxed, Monday morning quarterbacks from sending you to prison because they can, with their 20-20 hindsight, work out a theoretical escape route or strategy.

I am talking about a jury second-guessing whether you can flee. In stand your ground jurisdictions, there is no duty to flee, so the issue of whether you can flee should never arise.

If I'm missing your point, please elaborate.