Should citizens have a duty to retreat in public?

I accept. I will argue that citizens have a duty to retreat in public.

Duty to Retreat: the defendant is not legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself if the jury concludes that he could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating.

Another point to be made about New York legislature is they also uphold a Castle Doctrine. Which states, within the home, the law authorizes deadly force as long as the defendant is not the initial aggressor.

An example of a case for Duty to Retreat is Joseph Walker (Maryland-Duty to Retreat State)
http://legalinsurrection.com...

During a bout of road rage, The soon-to-be-victim pulled over. Walker pulled over as well and a short worded altercation ended with a gunshot to the victim.

Both cars were were swerving at each other, objects were thrown at each others moving cars. This is an altercation that could easily be considered a self-defense argument. Walker could have been fearing for his life behind the wheel (regardless of his road rage as well) but he had the opportunity to keep driving. Instead he pulled over, fought with the victim further, and ended up killing him.

If there is no 'duty-to-retreat' Walker could claim self-defense and get away with this Crime. Instead the State has built a sufficient case against him that will most likely end in a prison sentence.

New York, along with other states who enforce a 'Duty to Retreat' also have the Castle Doctrine. Which simply states: in your home, you have the right to use deadly force to prevent crime against you. (Not necessarily in the peril of bodily harm or death)

The Duty to Retreat law prevents the death of both parties if possible, but still allows you to defend your own life if you have NO other choice.

Extend Arguments.

You get one last shot Pro. Try to find some court cases to support your claim!