Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

Does an Armed Citizen have a Moral/Ethical Duty to Retreat (complete safety)

  • Yep, at all times

    Votes: 30 13.9%

  • Nope, Never

    Votes: 92 42.6%

  • Yep, but only on the street, not in the Home/Business

    Votes: 63 29.2%

  • I'm not ansering because I dont want to seem either wimpy or bloodthirsty

    Votes: 15 6.9%

  • I'd rather have pic of you and Spiff iwearing spandex loincloths lard wrestling in a baby pool.

    Votes: 16 7.4%
  • Total voters
    216
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wildalaska

Moderator
Most progressive states have some form or another of Castle Doctrines, which eliminate the Legal Duty to Retreat in ones home, and frequently a place of business.

Many other jurisdictions have extended that Doctrine into Stand your ground laws applicable to areas outside the home.

There fore, the armed citizen, under these laws, has no legal duty to retreat, even if he can do so in complete safety.

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does. Vote and discuss.

Please note: The poll question is: Retreat with COMPLETE SAFETY

WilditscloudytodayinAlaska ™
 
Moral is between you and your God.
Click to expand...

Those that don't believe in god still have morals.

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does.
Click to expand...

I think only that person can answer that, also its a borderline rhetorical question.
 
Complete safety is the clincher. I would suggest that it is most often not possible to be certain of complete safety during retreat.

For instance, if I have to run then how do I KNOW that I can outrun the aggressor?

Certain situations wherein I can get behind locked doors quickly might be an example of safe retreat but would be considerably more rare, I would surmise.

If a situation allows for retreat with unquestionable absolute safety then I think it would be morally repugnant to shoot someone. The shoot in that case would be entirely "because I could".


Those that don't believe in god still have morals.
Click to expand...

True, but such morals can only be based on the law. "Personal morals" are an oxymoron. Charles Manson and Hitler had personal morals.
 
I'm here to muddy the waters, as usual. You have oversimplified the situation. There are some of us who recognize that humans operate under more than one set of conditions, which sometimes overlap and which sometimes contradict.

You may be under a legal obligation to do or to not do something.
You may also be under a moral obligation to do or not to do something but you should do the right thing regardless of the consequences, if possible, which sometimes must be determined instantly.
And you may be honor bound to do something or not to do something, irregardless of the consequences.
And for all I know, you may be weighed down with even more obligations, written or unwritten. And I suppose a thinking and rational person could rationalize any response to any situation.

But only correctly responding to your legal obligations will keep you out of jail, assuming the facts are known by the right parties. And furthermore, police departments sometimes employ special squads or departments to enforce morals. So watch it!
 
Morals are subjective and vary from person to person. That's why this poll, to get a general feeling of the "average" moral.

Duty to retreat outside of your property at all times unless you are protecting the lives of others. I believe in castle doctrine. I would do everything I could to convince assailant to leave without resorting to deadly force. My version of a home invasion would include me holing up in the bedroom, firing warning shots in the deck before perp ever reached the bedroom, and yelling commands to leave. That's as safe for both parties as I know how to make it. If perp continues on to bedroom after all that, then he's probably after me personally and not any "stuff". If that's the case, I would rather make my stand in my house, with my tactics, my rules, and my hardware, on my turf.
 
if as what you say it is complete safety meaning no other threat to me or anyone I am with for the rest of the night/day/until cops come/help comes, then yes, I would retreat.
Problem is, you can't guarantee nothin of the sort. How would I the person even know that if I retreat it is safe. Because its a public place he won't do anything? I won't take that bet.
But again to answer your very simplified question, yea I would rather get to safety instead of shooting someone. I don't really believe its possible though, especially if you already feel the need to reach for your weapon.
 
Morals are subjective and vary from person to person.
Click to expand...

If morals are subjective then there are NO morals. The Holocaust was both right and wrong, the shooting at the museum yesterday was both right and wrong. Rape, murder, racism.... all would have a time and place and person for which they are morally acceptable.

Subjective morals = anarchy.

For the purposes of the OP, subjective morals make the question meaningless.
 
If morals are subjective then there are NO morals.
Click to expand...

Don't totally agree with that. Here is one definition I found: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.

Morals are a personal choice and differ from person to person. Some think that vaccinating your kids is morally wrong, others think that NOT vaccinating is morally wrong. Which is why I think that they are subjective.
 
Okay, well let's really break it down...

There are Society morals and personal morals.

Society morals are what the law is based off of. IE, murder, infidelity in at fault divorce states, larceny, rape, etc. etc. What those laws amount to are basically society morals.

Personal morals go above and beyond. Most here agree that a justifiable SD shooting is okay. WA is asking "what if you know you could run away". As in guy tries to mug you with a knife while you're still in your car with the window rolled up. It's your "castle". You're not required to drive away and you could probably make the case that the guy came at you with a knife so you shot him. Does that mean you should, or should you simply drive away?
 
again I just don't think that anyone can answer that question, but I'll try: in some cases he might and in other cases he might not have a moral duty to retreat.
 
One thing I have learned in my years is that even a situation were you have the upper hand can go terribly wrong very quickly. In public I would always avoid an issue if I was armed. Especially one where I might be fored to use my gun.

Now if someone breaks into my home or business and becomes a threat that is a different matter.
 
Morals are a personal choice and differ from person to person.
Click to expand...

Nope, BELIEFS vary from person to person.

Even the most sincerely held belief does not become correct because of the sincerity of the believer.

Let's take rape as an example. Rape is either wrong, all the time, or it is not. Johnny Rapist can BELIEVE that it is ok to rape a women but he is WRONG.

Hitler believed that exterminating the Jews was THE moral thing to do. He was wrong, always and forever, past and present.

You and I can believe two different things but we can not both be right. We can both be wrong or one of us can be wrong. We CANNOT both be right on diametrically opposed beliefs.
 
I say yes but only on the street. If you are forced to fire on the street at someone who is only threatening you but you had the chance to retreat safely then you are endangering other peoples lives when your life was safe if you had retreated. In the home or business your on your own turf and you know the consequences of action in those places. Especially in the home it is your right to stand your ground and defend what is yours. A antigun prosecutor would have a field day with an uneccesary shoot on a public street.
 
That's a trick question. If you have complete safety, why would you even be thinking about retreating, much less bringing ethics and morals into play? If you aren't being attacked or threatened - that's pretty much my life 24/7. I don't call my daily activities retreating.

Maybe you see some an marked gunman with his armed masked man buddy outside your house with torches, but they are waiting for the end of the football game to start rioting?
 
This thread is just a strawman. There is no situation whatsoever in which one knows he/she is in complete safety. And I would argue that the moral imperative is NOT to yield to unwarranted, unprovoked aggression (though, of course, practical considerations of safety to onesself and other, innocent others might supersede this). The safety of the aggressor would never enter my thought process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top