Either this is a red-herring or you didn't understand the meaning of the paragraph. Or are you claiming that a person entering your home with a criminal intent is an absurd notion? If so, I know a good psychiatrist who'd like to visit Alaska.WildAlaska said:My emphasis added.BillCa said:I'll be blunt when it comes to being in one's own home or similar place (e.g. hotel room) and someone unlawfully enters the place with a criminal intent. There is, I believe, a moral duty to enforce the concept that your domicile is an inviolable sanctuary from the public and especially from those with a criminal or violent nature. Even Biblical passages support the notion that a "thief in the night" may be killed by the resident of a home without it being a proscribed murder. You can work out why there is a moral duty to enforce this concept on your own, I am sure.
Cant have it both ways, can you. On one hand, you call certain factual scenarios ad absurdum, on the other hand you recognize the existence of such scenarios.
I pointed out that we aren't talking about petty misdemeanors such as a kid shoplifting a candy bar or walking on your lawn. All of that derived from someone's post about stealing being "evil" and your examples of petty crimes. It is stipulated that not all theft is "evil" but that theft is a legally defined crime.
You highlighted the "with a criminal intent" portion of the paragraph above. Obviously, instead of using the gray matter which you so obviously love to show off in some of your posts, you chose the insipid approach of putting on your best stupid look in an attempt to nit-pick the details of those 4 words. Perhaps I should have included the word "obvious" before "criminal" ... but then you would ask "obvious to whom?" or perhaps what level of criminal intent --e.g. to steal a lifesaver?
Don't be a deliberate Equus asinus, WA. This mode of communications is often less-than-perfect in the meaning of terminology and continued nit-picking may result in you receiving a 2-lb bag of black pepper so you can pick the fly crap out of it.
To further clarify, in case you still insist on emulating a certain former president trying to define "is" -- if a person unlawfully enters your residence with an obvious criminal intent do do harm, such as;
- Enters in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, or
- Enters by means of stealth or surprise, or
- Commits, attempts to commit, or makes threat(s) to commit felonious act(s), or
- Displays any deadly weapon, or
- Menaces any person, or
- With the aid of one or more persons uses threats of violence, implied or explicit, and commits or attempts to commit any crime
And yes, in my poll response I did say "No Duty" only because your provided responses did not allow us to answer "Yes, under limited circumstances". You'll notice that my post explained that there ARE times when one might have a moral duty to retreat and I gave a few examples - which is not an all-inclusive, exhaustive list meant to the be the total incidental or situational universe by which a moral person would utilize the option of safe retreat to a location of sufficient security to provide complete safety.
And... rather than have pic of you and Spiff wearing spandex loincloths lard wrestling in a baby pool I would rather be forced to kiss Janet Reno on the lips in public.