The concept of retreat has undergone historic transformation since the English common-law requirement that one "retreat to the wall.". Explain this transformation and how it's altering the stand-your-ground rule and the retreat rule

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The English common law put the burden on defendants to prove they "retreated to the wall" before acting in self-defense. The American majority "stand-your-ground rule" was based on the idea that a "true man" shouldn't have to flee from attack because he'd done nothing wrong to provoke or deserve the attack and the need to protect the family and country, and could stand his ground and kill to "defend himself without retreating from any place he had a right to be.". Current views on how a person may defend him/herself wherever he/she has a "right to be" have paved the way for a multitude of new statutes. There is no duty to retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force. Judges and legislators have generalized the right to self-defense into the majority stand-your-ground rule, namely that if he didn't start the fight, he could stand his ground and kill to "defend himself without retreating from any place he had a right to be" (245). The retreat rule now holds that you have to retreat from an attack, if you reasonably believe (1) that you're in danger of death or serious bodily harm and (2) that backing off won't unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily harm.