Duty To Retreat / Deadly Force, while pregnant?

[Sparks2112]

For those of you who don't know, my wife is pregnant right now (we find out the gender on 10/29 :D) and I'm getting more and more protective as she gets larger / more unable to protect herself/the bump.

My question, does pregnancy constitute special circumstances in regards to your duty to retreat, and also what you can consider as deadly force being brought against you?

It would only take someone pushing her over the right way, or hitting her in the belly to not only kill the baby, but possibly cause some sort of internal trauma that would be life threatening to her. So can I consider anyone attacking us, even without weapons, as a deadly threat?

EDIT: We live in Ohio, which does have a duty to retreat in most circumstances.

[hogdogs]

Just bow up in my wife's presence when she was PG and I was on a heightened readiness... Them gals are special and you can't even describe how I felt about my unborn youngins'
Brent

[mkg]

Sparks2112 , It depends on what state you live in .

In TN we have a castle doctrine , We have NO duty to retreat Period.

Since your wife is with child ( congrats BTW ) her ability to retreat is hindered anyway.

Check with your state of residence be absolutely sure .

Again congrats to you,
Mike

[David Armstrong]

So can I consider anyone attacking us, even without weapons, as a deadly threat?
No. You don't get to respond based on any possible outcome, you respond based on reasonable expectations and similar, depending on your state laws.

[Sparks2112]

No. You don't get to respond based on any possible outcome, you respond based on reasonable expectations and similar, depending on your state laws

You don't consider it a reasonable expectation that someone physically attacking a pregnant woman, even if they are unarmed, could cause grave bodilly harm to the unborn child, or the mother?

[skidmark]

I voted Why do you keep posting these stupid polls that make everyone argue and get threads locked?

Why are you seeking "permission" from everyone else to do what it seems you have already decided to do?

Congratulations on the expected new family member. Care and concern for momma and the bundle of joy is going to be hightened - especially if ythis is the first [experience talking]. Your desire to protect them is normal and comendable, but ...

Ask yourself just what threats you are expecting to need to defend from? Why do you think your wife may get punched in the belly - now as well as before you found out she was pregnant? Why do you think anybody is going to attack her at all?

If the life you and your now-pregnant wife lead exposes her to belly punches or other threats, you need to get a new life right away. If you are just an over-protective father-to-be then you need to take a chill pill and learn to relax.

stay safe.

skidmark

[pax]

Sparks,

The below is based on nothing more than a quick skim of the Ohio statutes & some commonly-understood principles of common law in the US. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, so take it for what it's worth.

(A quick stop at www.useofforce.us or www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx would probably be useful here.)

In Ohio, protecting the life of your unborn child would take equal precedence with protecting any other human life (a quick glance through Ohio's murder statutes showed this), and any reasonable person would believe that any significant physical force against a pregnant woman (such as a punch, blow, or shove) could foreseeably result in harm to the unborn child. So she'd be justified in fearing for her life, or the life of her child, if she was threatened with that level of physical force.

Additionally, while you do have a duty to retreat in Ohio, in no case do you have a duty to retreat if you cannot do so in complete safety as judged by the reasonable man standard in the court which will then rule on whether that particular case provided you with a "reasonable" ability to retreat. The individual circumstances, taking into account the entire sequence of events and the surrounding facts, will dictate whether the court finds that retreat was a "reasonable" possibility. In order to get a ruling in your favor, you simply need to show that retreating was not physically possible, or articulate how retreating would have resulted in equal or greater danger to her life or to the life of the unborn child.

In the case of your wife, if the doctor has told her, for example, that she must not run (if she has an incompetent cervix or some other related problem) because running would endanger your unborn child's life, then the court would probably find that she had no duty to retreat if it involved running -- since running would endanger the unborn child, based upon her specific circumstances. Again, it would be very dependent upon the exact set of facts in a given instance, and changing one fact anywhere along the line might change the legal outcome.

The general rule of thumb is that an innocent citizen is not required to do anything that all that would cause a "reasonable" person to believe she was endangering her child's life, nor would she be required to retreat if she couldn't "reasonably" do so.

Hope that helps.

pax

[Sparks2112]

Why are you seeking "permission" from everyone else to do what it seems you have already decided to do?

Just curious to hear everyone's thoughts. There's usually a lot of good discussion here and you never know what some people haven't thought about before, or may find interest in.

Congratulations on the expected new family member. Care and concern for momma and the bundle of joy is going to be heightened - especially if this is the first [experience talking]. Your desire to protect them is normal and comendable, but ...

Thanks! :)

Ask yourself just what threats you are expecting to need to defend from? Why do you think your wife may get punched in the belly - now as well as before you found out she was pregnant? Why do you think anybody is going to attack her at all?

I can think of all sorts of every day activities that can be interrupted by un-ordinary circumstances. Can't you? I'm always curious as to what people who use the "What sort of situation are you expecting?" argument think normal every day people are doing when they're attacked or threatened for no good reason. It happens all the time, all around you pretty much anywhere you live. I don't think anyone would attack her, but there's no reason not to have given thought as to what I would do if I was wrong about that assumption.

Thinking something won't happen is no protection against when god/fate/whatever decides to show you how wrong you can be about something.

If the life you and your now-pregnant wife lead exposes her to belly punches or other threats, you need to get a new life right away. If you are just an over-protective father-to-be then you need to take a chill pill and learn to relax.

See above, but, there are all sorts of people leading all sorts of safe life-styles that end up dead for no good reason. Once again I think the lifestyle argument is a bit flawed, but I appreciate your opinion, and the way in which you presented it. :)

stay safe.

That's the plan! :D

[peetzakilla]

Unarmed people could be cause to reasonably believe imminent threat for someone who is NOT pregnant, man or women.

If your a 5' 2" guy whose being assaulted by a 6' 5" guy you may be justified in use of deadly force.

If you are accompanying a person who can not retreat with reasonable assurance of safety you may be justified in using deadly force.

In NY state the law reads that you have a duty to retreat if it can be done with COMPLETE safety for EVERYONE.

[Sparks2112]

Hope that helps.

pax

As always, your opinion is well formed, and extremely helpful. Thanks! :)

[M1911]

You have a duty to retreat if it is safe to do so. Your ability to extract yourself from the situation is considered. The law does not require an 85-year-old man with two replacement knees to try to outrun an 18-year-old track star. Nor does it expect a woman who is 9-months pregnant to run a mile and vault over fences.

That said, if a perp is standing outside your wife's car with a knife in his hand and she is inside the car, the law would expect her to drive away (effectively retreating), rather than to get out and shoot the cretin.

[James K]

Well, at least the man's concern for the safety of his unborn child is reasonable, unlike some of the "what if I am attacked by a purple zombie" crap that sometimes appears in this forum.

Jim

[Sparks2112]

Well, at least the man's concern for the safety of his unborn child is reasonable, unlike some of the "what if I am attacked by a purple zombie" crap that sometimes appears in this forum.

Jim

Well, in fairness I'd spoken with a purple zombie expert prior to this. He says my Glock of Holy Smiting +3 should do the trick in all but the most severe attacks. Otherwise I would have asked about it.

[grymster2007]

I voted for #4, but have to say you're poll is well thought out enough to give me the option. :)

I think pax nailed the answer for you.

[Sparks2112]

I voted for #4, but have to say you're poll is well thought out enough to give me the option.

As much as I think that everyone must love me because of the huge amount of awesomeness that pours out of my body due to my very existance, I've come to recognize that not everyone appreciates me, or my awesomeness, as much as I'd like. ;) With that in mind, I gave people the option of telling me to just shut up already in a polite way. :D

I think pax nailed the answer for you.

I thought she might. :)

[David Armstrong]

You don't consider it a reasonable expectation that someone physically attacking a pregnant woman, even if they are unarmed, could cause grave bodilly harm to the unborn child, or the mother?
Depends. What is the physical attack? Who is the attacker, and why is the attack goin gon? All sorts of variables that can enter into the game. Preggers wife and her sister get into an argument while sitting on the couch, sister attacks by pulling wife's hair. Think it is reasonable to kill the sister?? There are a lot of physical attacks that do not really lead to any significant danger.

[dabigguns357]

you missed it this time david.My wife gave birth Sept 4th 2007 to my youngest son and you honestly think i was going to let anyone get near my wife.I don't give a rats butt about anything when it came to her and my unborn son.When she wanted to work i gave her a armed escort to and from the car every day.If we were attacked i would have to say i'll do anything to keep her safe.If all i had were rocks i'de find the biggest one and go for the head.oh and if my wifes sister pulled her hair or slapped her or even threaten her in any way,The so called sister would be leaving with boot up her @#$SS.I did every thing for my wife the whole time she was pregnant,cooked cleaned,rubbed feet,all docters visits,armed escort.call me crazy but nothin is to good for my wife.

[Caeser2001]

unarmed people can be a deadly threat to anybody depending on the individual or the multiple individuals.

[garryc]

You get into the discussion of disparity of force, or better described as the disparity of the ability to bring force. It is considered that a woman ,when faced by a man, is already in a disparate condition. Her being in a state of advanced pregnancy even more so.

Then there is the justification for homicide. Generally it is to prevent death or serious physical harm to ones self or a third party. I'd say it could be rationalized that since she is pregnant she faces a greater risk of suffering death or serious physical injury.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, there is the fact that a prosecutor is an elected official. Prosecuting a pregnant woman for what the public might perceive as self defense would be political suicide, at least in most jurisdictions.

[Sparks2112]

Depends. What is the physical attack? Who is the attacker, and why is the attack goin gon? All sorts of variables that can enter into the game. Preggers wife and her sister get into an argument while sitting on the couch, sister attacks by pulling wife's hair. Think it is reasonable to kill the sister?? There are a lot of physical attacks that do not really lead to any significant danger.

Very true, though I think you're intelligent enough to have a general idea of the context in which I was raising the question.


Lastly, and maybe most importantly, there is the fact that a prosecutor is an elected official. Prosecuting a pregnant woman for what the public might perceive as self defense would be political suicide, at least in most jurisdictions.

That's another interesting point that hadn't occurred to me. I think you're probably right as far as MOST prosecutors would not prosecute in that situation as long as it wasn't blatantly unjustifiable.

[Capt Charlie]

We live in Ohio, which does have a duty to retreat in most circumstances.

Not really, Sparks. Ohio now has a castle doctrine. (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWS24/806110446) :)

[Sparks2112]

Not really, Sparks. Ohio now has a castle doctrine.

That only matters if we're in our home or vehicle though, not if we're out and about. :)

[Deaf Smith]

Sparks,

Most Duty to retreat laws allow retreat IF YOU CAN SAFELY DO SO. They do not expect you to turn your back on an obvious danger.

I'd check with a lawyer in your state, but I'm real sure this.

[David Armstrong]

you missed it this time david.My wife gave birth Sept 4th 2007 to my youngest son and you honestly think i was going to let anyone get near my wife.
Sorry, but what you would do or not do has nothing to do with what is considered legal or not, which is the main context of what was asked in the OP. Personal attitudes, while important to the individual, rarely matter to the law.

[dabigguns357]

I will take my lumps with the law later.As i have said before i'm no going to analize a situation to death,while my pregnant wife and i are being assaulted.David if you want to back down and let your wife get assaulted then by all means go right ahead but not me.:mad:

[David Armstrong]

I will take my lumps with the law later.As i have said before i'm no going to analize a situation to death,while my pregnant wife and i are being assaulted.David if you want to back down and let your wife get assaulted then by all means go right ahead but not me.
You won't do your wife and the baby much good if you are in jail "taking your lumps" because you didn't care about the law. And nobody has said a thing about analyzing a situation to death or backing down or letting anybody get assaulted or anything like that. If you can't understand that there are lots of options between backing down and killing somebody, you might want to try looking at things a little more.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think Kathy hit the nail on the head. While you may have a duty to retreat in some states you cannot be expected to do so if you cannot do it safely or reasonably.
I think the sister pulling the hair is not a good example and a bit of a red herring as you would be able to stop that one with your fists. This is of course unless your sister-in-law is Xena the Warrior Princess:D

[dabigguns357]

Ok i'll take out my asp baton and beat their #$%& into submission while my wife calls po-po and waits for the next available officer friendly to show up.There no killing and the said b/g's won't even have the strength to resist arrest.:rolleyes:

[freakshow10mm]

Whoops! Read the title not the question. Change that "no" to a "yes". Also, unarmed attackers can be deadly to anyone regardless of prego or not.

[David Armstrong]

Ok i'll take out my asp baton and beat their #$%& into submission while my wife calls po-po and waits for the next available officer friendly to show up.There no killing and the said b/g's won't even have the strength to resist arrest.
That's cool if that is a reasonable response to the threat. That is the issue the law is going to be looking at. There are all sorts of physical attacks, all sorts of dangers. The response has to be reasonable given the danger the attack reasonably poses.