Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[BillCA]

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.

My emphasis added.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sparks2112]

I kind of agree but I also kind of think there is a responsibility of a citizen to look out for his/her community. I just do not think they should take it as far as to appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner. Some people's comments have come very close to conveying that sentiment. Even LEO's do not have that authority.

I think everyone is missing the context here however. We're talking about people that by their own actions have given us authorization to use deadly force on them. I'm saying that when someone has by their actions given us the LEGAL option to shoot them then an obligation exists to not pass the buck on to someone else.

I'm not proposing we go out shooting people in circumstances other than self defense. I'm saying that we exercise our right to self defense first, not last.

WA's original question was that if you were in a situation where you were legally allowed to shoot someone, but through some sort of divination KNEW that if you tried tried to retreat you could do so succesfully, would you still exercise your legal right to self defense?

My position is that if conditions exist where you can legally shoot someone then conditions also exist where there is an obligation to make sure no one else is hurt through your own inaction.

 

[OldMarksman]

In NC, if someone is even attempting to break in to your home, and you have reason to believe that the person intends to commit a felony once inside your home, you have just cause to actually shoot them.

Yes, to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry.

How does that justify shooting someone who has "demonstrat[ed] themselves to be violent... [and] not letting the problem be passed on to someone else"?

 

[easyG]

If you want to be a crime fighter, become a LEO. It isn't your job to stop crime. Carrying a gun doesn't make you some kind of cop.

You're both right and wrong....

No, carrying a gun does not make one a cop.

Yes, it is my job, and your job, and the job of every good citizen in this nation, to stop crime.
If you see someone molesting a child do you turn and walk away claiming "I'm not a cop, it aint my job to stop crime".

Police officers do NOT stop crime.
Good people who are willing to stand up against criminals is what stops crime.

 

[easyG]

Yes, to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry.

How does that justify shooting someone who has "demonstrat[ed] themselves to be violent... [and] not letting the problem be passed on to someone else"?

If they are demonstrating themselves to be violent outside of my home, without attempting to force their way in to my home, then I don't think that shooting them is justified.
But if they attempt to break in to my home and demonstate violence, then yes, they deserve to be shot.

When one man makes the decision to break in to another man's home, he has also made the decision to place his life in jeopardy (especially in N.C.).

Under no circumstances should anyone be morally or ethically obligated to retreat from someone who has chosen to place his life in jeopardy in order to invade another person's home, or threaten the life of another person.

 

[OldMarksman]

The problem with such training is that it not totally realistic.
The "intruder" knows how many folks are in the building, he knows their weapons, and he knows that they are going to come looking for him....so he just hides and waits and the results are really whoever gets off the first shot.
But a real intruder does not know the layout of your home, he does not know how many occupants there are, he does not know the armament of the occupants, he does not even know if the occupants are aware of him or not, he does not know that anyone will even come looking for him, ect...

Is that right? Wonder why they don't make the training more realistic....

Do you know of any qualified instructors who recommend clearing a house, or doing anything other than getting to a safe place except to attend first to the safety of family members?

 

[Evan Thomas]

there is no moral duty to retreat.

is too.

I kind of agree but I also kind of think there is a responsibility of a citizen to look out for his/her community. I just do not think they should take it as far as to appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner. Some people's comments have come very close to conveying that sentiment. Even LEO's do not have that authority.

Well said, PBP. And I'd add that there are any number of ways for citizens to look out for their communities: volunteer to... help at-risk kids, work at a homeless shelter or food pantry, be a guardian ad litem, teach hunter safety classes for the DNR, deliver Meals on Wheels, give blood... the list is endless.

If someone wants to help their community, they ought to be doing some form of community service along these lines. If they're not, and they just fantasize about "taking criminals off the streets," or whatever, I have serious questions about their real motivation. (This isn't directed at you, PBP -- I remember your thread about trying to enlist as a Big Brother, as I think it was?)

... I'm saying that we exercise our right to self defense first, not last

But your right to self-defense is no more than that: a right to protect yourself, not to harm others without needing to do so. If retreating is an effective way to protect yourself, you've just exercised that right.

My position is that if conditions exist where you can legally shoot someone then conditions also exist where there is an obligation to make sure no one else is hurt through your own inaction.

But there is also an obligation to make sure, if possible, that no one else is hurt through your own action; and that should include the person who is threatening you, if you can protect yourself by other means than the use of deadly force. We can't see into the future, to know who's going to go on to kill someone and who isn't. And as PBP said, we aren't entitled to appoint ourselves executioners.

 

[easyG]

Do you know of any qualified instructors who recommend clearing a house, or doing anything other than getting to a safe place except to attend first to the safety of family members?

What's your definition of "qualified instructor"?

Our firearms instructors in the Army didn't recommend hiding and calling 911.

I have noticed that most police do recommend doing just that.
But in my experience, most police don't have a very high regard of armed non-police citizens at all.
Some even think that they, the police, are "the thin blue line separating law and order from anarchy".

 

[Wildalaska]

If so, I know a good psychiatrist who'd like to visit Alaska.

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.

Aw now isnt that cute...you get called out on your need to pontificate for the sake of pontificating and you respond with ad hominems.

I wont stoop to your level. Perhaps you should add me to your ignore list so my poorly phrased poll questions don't put you in such a state of intellectual confusion.

WildandnowbacktothedebateAlaska™

 

[easyG]

Well said, PBP. And I'd add that there are any number of ways for citizens to look out for their communities: volunteer to... help at-risk kids, work at a homeless shelter or food pantry, be a guardian ad litem, teach hunter safety classes for the DNR, deliver Meals on Wheels, give blood... the list is endless.

With the possible exception of helping at risk kids, none of those other things help to reduce crime.

If someone's idea of how to help their community is to fantasize about "taking criminals off the streets," or whatever, and they're not already doing some form of community work along these lines, I have serious questions about their real motivation.

Nobody has said anything about "taking criminals off the streets"....
I'm talking about not running and hiding when criminals threaten you or invade your home.
There's a world of difference.

But your right to self-defense is no more than that: a right to protect yourself, not to harm others without needing to do so. If retreating is an effective way to protect yourself, you've just exercised that right.

You're confusing the "Right to self-defense" with the "right" to run away.
Castle doctrine is not about running away.
You cannot run away and honestly say that you defended yourself or your home.
You can only say that you were a victim of crime and a survivor because you ran away.
If that's your goal, then fine, but it has nothing to do with firearms or self-defense.

But there is also an obligation to make sure, if possible, that no one else is hurt through your own action; and that should include the person who is threatening you,

No, you are not obligated to make sure that the person threatening you is not hurt by your actions.
This is total nonsense.

 

[#18indycolts]

Yes, it is my job, and your job, and the job of every good citizen in this nation, to stop crime.

And so is Batman,Superman and Spiderman's job. Actually my JOB is taking care of my FAMILY, if its reasonable then I'd lend a helping hand but I'm not walking into a dangerous situation and put myself at risk (outside of my job, i.e. walking into a burning building because thats how I support my family) so my wife and daughter lose the house and end up in the streets just to call me a "hero". My job is to take care of my girl and wife, my career is a firefighter.

Police officers do NOT stop crime.
Good people who are willing to stand up against criminals is what stops crime.

:barf: really.....

 

[Wildalaska]

My position is that if conditions exist where you can legally shoot someone then conditions also exist where there is an obligation to make sure no one else is hurt through your own inaction.

I'm talking about not running and hiding when criminals threaten you or invade your home.
There's a world of difference.

You are in your bedroom. You hear the door being kicked in and you arm yourslef and see a guy unhooking your Xbox. You hit him with the surefire and he turns to run away with your Xbox......

You shoot him? You legally can, do you? Or do you slam the bedroom door and call 911?

WildthewholepointofthisexcersizeistointellectuallydemonstratethatshootingisthelastresortAlaska ™

 

[AZAK]

WA

The right answer: there is a duty....only the circumstances change to define how that duty applies...

(Emphasis by AZAK)

"For me there is only one true morality; but it might not fit you, as you do not manufacture aerial battleships. There is only one true morality for every man; but every man has not the same true morality."
Undershaft from George Bernard Shaw's Major Barbara

 

[easyG]

Actually my JOB is taking care of my FAMILY, if its reasonable then I'd lend a helping hand but I'm not walking into a dangerous situation and put myself at risk

If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

Would you just turn away while a kid was being abducted by an armed man?

 

[OldMarksman]

WA's original question was that if you were in a situation where you were legally allowed to shoot someone, but through some sort of divination KNEW that if you tried tried to retreat you could do so succesfully, would you still exercise your legal right to self defense?

Yes it was. And that question begs the question, how would one know that he was legally "allowed" to shoot someone if he had any alternative at all?

Yeah, if he's coming at you with a gun, the legality may be obvious to you, but then escape wouldn't be a viable option anyway. Entering (or in some places attempting to enter) your occupied home unlawfully and with force? Legality may not be at issue, but it is likely that even if you were alone in the home, retreating outside wouldn't be assuredly safe. Chances are, I would reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary--and therefore legal--in either case. With luck, the legal system would concur, hopefully forthwith.

In many scenarios, however, the legality, though perhaps evident to the shooter, will probably be determined later by someone else. If I am accosted outside and can safely retreat and would, by so doing, avoid the potential for spending money I don't have in bushels, while waiting a year for a trial, perhaps without a gun, I'll do it.

Operative word there is safely, of course. I'd have to be alone, and in close proximity to a safe have, I don't run at the track anymore, and my wife cannot move swiftly.

That's a practical, and not a moral, perspective.

 

[KingEdward]

quote: You are in your bedroom. You hear the door being kicked in and you arm yourslef and see a guy unhooking your Xbox. You hit him with the surefire and he turns to run away with your Xbox......

You shoot him? You legally can, do you? Or do you slam the bedroom door and call 911?




good questions. Much better than the OP question.

you shoot him? me? not at that point

do you slam the bedroom door and call 911? me? not at that point

IF he is moving away from me with property, he will probably proceed
unharmed. The double barrel will be on him the whole time.

 

[#18indycolts]

Would you just turn away while a kid was being abducted by an armed man?

if I was unarmed then YES! Only if it was MY KID would I face an armed person while I was unarmed. Again, I'm not putting myself at risk, potentially dying and leaving my family just to be called a HERO. And to answer your question, I would only interact only if the situation warranted it.

If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

and it seems that you live in a fantasy world where Cops don't stop crime, only armed citizens do.

 

[BillCA]

Aw now isnt that cute...you get called out on your need to pontificate for the sake of pontificating and you respond with ad hominems.

You highlight a 4-word phrase an make accusations of it being an argument ad absurdum with the apparent rationale that "criminal intent" is... in your mind... inclusive of a 9-year old breaking in to the house to steal candy... or some such idiocy. You know as well as most others here that people often post comments that are generalizations to cover the topic. If you want white paper responses on the principles of self-defense that's another matter.

I wont stoop to your level. Perhaps you should add me to your ignore list so my poorly phrased poll questions don't put you in such a state of intellectual confusion.

Your poll question wasn't poorly phrased, but the answers allowed were either essentially Yes, No, I'm afraid to answer or a specious response. In essence, it looks to me like you tried to rig the poll to create division or to muddy the waters.

You're smarter than that. Or at least I thought you were.

 

[spacemanspiff]

For the record, there are NO such pictures, and NEVER WILL BE.


There was an incident up here a few years back that actually test this particular topic.

Google Pastor Mielke, there should be a link that comes up, first one for me anyways, to a THR thread that could be relevant.

 

[Wildalaska]

You're smarter than that. Or at least I thought you were.

You're better than that. Or at least I thought you were.

WA's original question was that if you were in a situation where you were legally allowed to shoot someone, but through some sort of divination KNEW that if you tried tried to retreat you could do so succesfully, would you still exercise your legal right to self defense?

Doesnt call for divination. The question is simple: If you can avoid legal shooting, do you do so?

Cornered cat

WildthescenariosareendlessAlaska ™