Originally Posted by 44 AMP
And remember that castle doctrine does not remove your moral duty to flee, if possible, what they do is provide legal protection if you cannot.
Note the difference.
First, you are confusing "Castle Doctrine" with "No duty to retreat." I think every state provides a version of the Castle Doctrine, but comparatively few have enacted no duty to retreat laws.
Second: WHAT moral duty to retreat?
No, I'm not confusing anything. But I could have been more explicit. I'll try to be clearer.
I am not confusing moral self defense with a legal requirement. We have a moral obligation to avoid using deadly force, if possible. However I recognize that it is not always possible. And when not possible, it is morally justified.
I grew up in an era when many states actually had a legal requirement for you to flee your home (if possible) before resorting to deadly force. This, I have always felt is morally wrong. Even Jesus stated that one may "smite" a thief who breaks into your home.
Castle doctrine is a good and common sense rule, protecting lawful and moral self defense from prosecution. And, extending it to any place one has a legal right to be is not a bad thing either. If you cannot do anything else, protecting us from prosecution for defending ourselves or others is not a bad thing.
However, too many people seem to be thinking that castle doctrine means that they do not need consider fleeing or avoiding the use of deadly force (if such a possibility exists).
We all want to flatter our self image with the belief that we should always "stand your ground", and in some situations, that is completely necessary. But we should always remember that shooting someone should only happen in "gravest extreme".
I worry that un/under informed people would consider Castle Doctrine as a get out of jail free card, to shoot when it is not absolutely needed.
It may just be internet bluster, but often I hear people saying things like "castle doctrine means if they break in to my house, I can shoot them!" And while that may be legal under castle doctrine (dependant on specific wording of the applicable statute), it isn't the moral choice unless you believe you are in physical danger.
In other words, castle doctrine doesn't mean its moral for you to shoot a burgular making off with your family silver, if they never evidence any threat to your person. On the other hand, if there is a threat, I fully agree one has a legal right, and a moral duty to defend yourself, with deadly force if needed.
That is clear to me, but I'm not sure that I'm being clear explaining my point to you. Have I?