So it is with “duty to retreat” laws. A “stand your ground” law is the opposite of duty to retreat. In the absence of a stand your ground law, one likely has a legal duty to retreat before meeting an attack with an effective defense. A duty to retreat empowers an attacker by making it more legally precarious for his chosen victims to defend themselves when attacked. A duty to retreat empowers criminals when they want to attack someone knowing that person has a duty to first run like hell before they can legally defend themselves. A duty to retreat empowers criminals because their victims will likely try to obey the law at the same the criminal is trying to break the law. It is astounding that any sensible person would favor making the vulnerable more vulnerable.
Sometimes retreating might be the best thing to do, it just shouldn’t be a requirement. No one is in a better position to know the safest course of action of anyone who is attacked with a deadly threat than that person themselves. They have the first and best impression of the situation since they also have the greatest stake in its outcome.
It would seem everyone would be in favor of laws and public policies and personal attitudes that protect the weak and vulnerable and would be against all that empowers the strong and rapacious. Quite a few less than everyone think that way, however.