...
In looking at 464(b), it almost looks like a stand your ground law, but farther down under 464(e)(2)
The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform.
Is this part the reason it is not a stand your ground law?
Yes.
And does this mean that I would have to give my wallet to someone if they demand it?
my interpretation is if the surrender of possessions can be done in "complete safety" which, in today's environment, is unlikely.
I'd like to hear more opinions on this subject.
Okay gang, time to try and clarify § 464, et seq. The duty to retreat is absolute everywhere except for (1) your own home, and (2) your place of business so long as you are not the first aggressor.
Now this is all going to be super simplified, but here goes:
In the context of the home defense (and place of business so long as you are not the first aggressor):
If you have an intruder in your home and you have a reasonable fear that you or someone else in your home will be killed or gravely harmed by the intruder, you may use deadly force to repel the anticipated attack. That said, if you fire and hit the intruder, s/he falls, and it becomes apparent that you and others are no longer in danger, your continued use of force against the intruder is no longer merited. Likewise, if you fire and miss, but the intruder begins running for the door, your continued use of force is no longer justified and continuing to use force at this point will create a whole world of problems for you. In regard to the fear or apprehension that you or others will be gravely harmed or killed, it's a subjective standard that a jury will apply to the facts presented to them.
In the context of self defense everywhere outside the home or place of business:
The same subjective fear of harm is applied, however, you now have the duty to retreat to contend with. In the statute, the phrase that pays is "with complete safety". Whether or not you were able to retreat in complete safety is a question for a jury at trial. If you are suddenly threatened with a deadly weapon, very slight evidence is sufficient to justify a jury finding that there was no time or opportunity to retreat, and the assault apprehended so fierce and imminent as not to allow you to yield a step without manifest danger of life or great bodily harm, then you , in your defense may stand your ground and kill your assailant instantly. See eg, Quillen v. State 110 A.2d 445 (Del. 1955). Even though that standard was laid out in 1955, it's still the prevailing rule that applies to self defense. Having said that, use of deadly force is only appropriate when faced with deadly force. Basically, if you're in a situation where you are the victim of a strong arm (i.e. no weapons presented) robbery, you may not use deadly force. The bottom line is that use of deadly force outside the home is always a last resort, not a first response.
Something else to consider, if you are being tried for acting in self defense, odds are you got something wrong. The Department of Justice has enormous leeway in deciding whether or not to charge an individual. If the DOJ makes the decision to charge you with a crime for defending yourself, odds are that something doesn't add up to justifiable use of deadly force. What I can tell you is that there are a lot of cases dealing with use of deadly force in self defense dating back as far as the late 1890's. In each many of those, the case was brought by the State because there was a requirement that the person relying on the self defense justification meet the objective reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death. That standard has since been supplanted in 1983 by a subjective reasonable belief. In the time since, there's really not much on the books in regard to folks having used deadly force to act in self defense. The most recent case that I found dates to 2015 where an individual used a pump shotgun to kill two men who were at a party with him. The killing occurred while the two decedents were waiting for an elevator. The defendant there had the shotgun, and upon seeing one of the decedents reach for his waistband, fired multiple shots killing both individuals. The defendant there testified at trial that because of the reputation that the decedents had for violence, he feared for his safety and that of other party guests. It is noteworthy that no weapons were found on the decedents. See Spence v. State, 129 A.3d 212 (Del. 2015).
Another recent case, Stevenson v. State, 2013 WL6798899 involved a burglary. In that case, it is actually one of the defendants who was shot. The two defendants broke into the home of a married couple, struck the husband with a crowbar and threatened the wife with a gun on the deck. When the husband had a safe window, he got to his gun, fired a number of shots, striking one of the defendants who was later arrested after going to Crozer Chester hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound. The husband was not charged in that situation. Furthermore, taking this case as an example, it is a good illustration of stopping once the threat has abated. Here, once the defendants began to flee, shots stopped. Had shots continued as the defendants were fleeing, I assume we would have a different outcome.
Bottom line, use you best judgment. Do as we all do, don't go looking for trouble, but IF trouble does happen to find you, act judiciously.
Be safe out there.