CTGUNTALK.COM

A.  Duty to retreat § 53a-19 (b) (1)
(One such / Another) circumstance is that a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.  This disqualification requires a defendant to retreat instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met: 1) a completely safe retreat is in fact available to (him/her); and 2) (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely safe retreat.  The law stresses that self-defense cannot be retaliatory. It must be defensive and not punitive.

The term "complete safety," as used in this statute, means without any injury to the defendant whatsoever.  A person acts "knowingly" with respect to a circumstance described in a statute when (he/she) is aware that such circumstance exists.  <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

It is important to remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to prove that (he/she) could not have retreated with complete safety or that (he/she) didn't know that a safe retreat was possible before (he/she) used physical force against <insert name of other person>.  To the contrary, you may only reject (his/her) defense on the basis of this statutory disqualification if you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) did know that (he/she) could retreat with complete safety.

Exception for dwelling
As a general rule, a defendant is not required to retreat in (his/her) own dwelling before (he/she) may use force.  A dwelling is defined in our law as a place which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night.  "Usually occupied" means customary or routine nightly occupancy.   Thus, occupation for some period of time is required.  In considering whether a house is the defendant's dwelling, consider evidence such as where the defendant's clothes and personal effects were kept.2

[<If the case involves a question of co-dwellers:>  To this general rule there is an exception which you may or may not apply here, which is for you to determine as a question of fact.  That exception is that one claiming self-defense in (his/her) own dwelling has the duty to retreat from a co-dweller before (he/she) may employ force against that co-dweller.  A co-dweller is a person who also is usually lodged in those premises at night.

Accordingly, you must first determine if the state has proved that <insert name of other person> was a co-dweller with the defendant at <insert location>.  If the state has failed to prove that <insert name of other person> was a co-dweller, then you go no further on this issue as the defendant would have no duty to retreat.  If, however, you find that the state has proved that <insert name of other person> was a co-dweller with the defendant, you would then consider whether the defendant had a duty to retreat in accordance with the previously stated rule that a person must retreat before using deadly physical force if (he/she) knows that (he/she) can retreat with complete safety.

If you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant and <insert name of other person> were co-dwellers and that a retreat with complete safety was available to the defendant and that the defendant knew it, but did not retreat, you shall then find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in using deadly force.]

Pepper spray, a baseball bat or metal pipe is probably a better idea, there's no flash and no bang that's going to disorient you in darkened situations while fighting for your life.

I have seen some good arguments about using and not using less than lethal 00 rubber buckshot as a home defense round. Pros: less penetration, still makes a scary sound to chase off intruder, + due to Connecticut horrible retreat laws.  Though?

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.