Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[easyG]

Legal opinion? Do you actually believe that you could successfully argue that something had been necessary when it was avoidable? That it had been necessary when an alternative would have sufficed? On what basis would you put forth your contention? What does your attorney say?

No such argument is needed.
Why should a law abiding citizen, exercising his legal right to self defense and defense of his home, need to prove that his actions were "necessary" when the law does not dictate that he need make such an argument?

If a person chooses to break in to another's home, then he has, by his very actions, given the homeowner the right to use deadly force.
The invader's actions make the argument for the defender.

 

[Wildalaska]

Since when is one considered "bloodthirsty" for merely defending ones self, family, and/or property from those who have made the decision to place their own life in jeopardy by invading another's home, or by threatening another's life?
The very notion certainly adds insult to injury.

I dont think the poster mentioned the word threat, did he?

He's cleaning the gene pool

Do you interpret a requirement that an actor reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence, as permitting the use of deadly force under any circumstance "as long as the intruder is in the house"?

Really?

On what basis?

Huh? There is no legal requirement for a "threat" in connection with the use of deadly physical force to stop a burglary, where do you get that

WildunlessyouconsiderthetakingofthexboxnottobeafelonyundernclawthereisnofelonyrequirementundernylawAlaska TM

 

[OldMarksman]

Since when is one considered "bloodthirsty" for merely defending ones self, family, and/or property from those who have made the decision to place their own life in jeopardy by invading another's home, or by threatening another's life?
The very notion certainly adds insult to injury.

Just a minute, Easy. You were not discussing defending yourself. You said that you would shoot "dead" anyone you didn't recognize within a few milliseconds who broke into your home, and then relax. Whether it was a wrong address, a person with a member of your family whose key didn't work, whatever.

Not too difficult to see that as bloodthirsty, IMHO.

Hopefully you never get involved in any kind of shooting situation and have your posts used to try to establish a criminal state of mind.

 

[Wildalaska]

If a person chooses to break in to another's home, then he has, by his very actions, given the homeowner the right to use deadly force.

I don't think one person here questions the "right".

We have lots of rights that many choose not to excersize

WilditstheimplementationthatsthequestionAlaska TM

 

[easyG]

Huh? There is no legal requirement for a "threat" in connection with the use of deadly physical force to stop a burglary, where do you get that?

Again, NC law.

If you think that person is going to commit burglary (a felony) then you are legally allowed to use deadly force to stop that person.

The real question is this:
Why do some here think that criminals who prey upon the law abiding citizens of this nation should be protected?

 

[easyG]

Just a minute, Easy. You were not discussing defending yourself. You said that you would shoot "dead" anyone you didn't recognize within a few milliseconds who broke into your home, and then relax. Whether it was a wrong address, a person with a member of your family whose key didn't work, whatever.

Not too difficult to see that as bloodthirsty, IMHO.

Actually, it was not me who said that.
It was Steviewonder1 who made that statement.

Try again.

 

[OldMarksman]

Why should a law abiding citizen, exercising his legal right to self defense and defense of his home, need to prove that his actions were "necessary" when the law does not dictate that he need make such an argument?

Oh yes it does!

14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.

 

[easyG]

I don't think one person here questions the "right".

No, I think that some here are questioning the right to use deadly force to defend ones self and one's property.
Some have even claimed that it's our "obligation" to try and not hurt those that threaten us whenever possible.

 

[OldMarksman]

Actually, it was not me who said that.
It was Steviewonder1 who made that statement.

Whoops! My apologies.

 

[easyG]

Oh yes it does!

No, the defendant does not have to prove that he was justified....the prosecution must prove that he was not justified.

It's the "assumption of innocence" that our laws are founded upon that proves you wrong.

 

[OldMarksman]

I think that some here are questioning the right to use deadly force to defend ones self and one's property.

Let's distinguish between the two.

The right to defend one's self exists everywhere in the country. In some places, there exists a requirement to retreat.

I haven't heard anyone question that right.

There are laws providing for the use of deadly force to prevent certain serious felonies in some states. I haven't heard any challenges to that, either.

In some states, breaking into a dwelling or car provides a presumption of reasonable belief that there exists imminent danger to one's self or other persons. Some have interpreted that as justifying the use of deadly force against a person "as long as he is in the home." That's questionable at best in a number of states, but nothing I've seen has questioned the right to self defense per se.

There are limited rights to use deadly force to defend property in Georgia and Texas. That's not true where I live.

Some have even claimed that it's our "obligation" to try and not hurt those that threaten us whenever possible.

Not I.

I have said I would use deadly force only as a last resort.

I haven't addressed the original question--morality. It's just that as a practical matter, there will always be some legal risk, and unless the use of deadly force is demonstrably unavoidable, it may be very difficult to justify.

And win or lose it could take years and many, many thousands of dollars to litigate. I'd like to avoid it.

 

[Tucker 1371]

Why do some here think that criminals who prey upon the law abiding citizens of this nation should be protected?

Innocent until Proven Guilty... (that's part of the 5th ammendment right?)

Of course we are talking about someone being caught in the act here. Still, criminals in the act of being criminals have the right to life up until they have intentionally threatened the life of another. However, you have to consider a few things in a home defense scenario. First and foremost is that you have no idea what an intruder's intentions are. Usually they're just after you stuff. If otherwise you may not have much time to react.

Another big thing to consider that was mentioned earlier is that it may just be a family friend or someone with the wrong address. In that case you have to look at the way they entered the house. Assuming you lock all your doors and windows (which you should) anyone inside your house in the wee hours of the night is going to have to have broken something (window, door etc. which you probably would have heard breaking) to get in, not something one of the two aforementioned parties is likely to do. Still, have a tac light ready, be sure of your target.

Personally, if I can safely spare the life of Joe Thug trying to steal my TV, I will. I would much rather see him leaving in the back of a squad car than a body bag, if for no other reasons than I won't have wasted any ammo and it's a LOT less explaining for me (I do of course have more important reasons than that). But if he's armed, appears to be armed, or is moving towards me or my family he is going to get shot.

 

[OldMarksman]

No, the defendant does not have to prove that he was justified....the prosecution must prove that he was not justified.

True. Imprecision on my part. The defendant must present evidence that he reasonably believed that the act was necessary. While the defendant need not prove that his actions were necessary, the law does in fact require that he make such an argument in his defense of justifiability.

 

[DougO83]

Of course we are talking about someone being caught in the act here. Still, criminals in the act of being criminals have the right to life up until they have intentionally threatened the life of another.

The criminal's right to life ended once they made the conscious decision to invade MY privacy, MY solitude, MY piece of mind, MY domicile.

However, you have to consider a few things in a home defense scenario. First and foremost is that you have no idea what an intruder's intentions are. Usually they're just after you stuff. If otherwise you may not have much time to react.

This is how I stand on the subject: I do not care if somebody wants my things. However, if they come into my home, the place I should be safe and the place I feel comfortable, they have shattered my piece of mind, etc. I feel that lethal force is an acceptable option.

Another big thing to consider that was mentioned earlier is that it may just be a family friend or someone with the wrong address.

Family friend? Then they would have my phone number. Otherwise, any idiot should know that you don't force your way into a home. If your key don't fit, you don't belong.

In that case you have to look at the way they entered the house. Assuming you lock all your doors and windows (which you should) anyone inside your house in the wee hours of the night is going to have to have broken something (window, door etc. which you probably would have heard breaking) to get in, not something one of the two aforementioned parties is likely to do. Still, have a tac light ready, be sure of your target.

Back to your statement earlier; if they are intent on doing you harm, you won't have time to illuminate the target and make an assessment of intent.

Personally, if I can safely spare the life of Joe Thug trying to steal my TV, I will. I would much rather see him leaving in the back of a squad car than a body bag, if for no other reasons than I won't have wasted any ammo and it's a LOT less explaining for me (I do of course have more important reasons than that). But if he's armed, appears to be armed, or is moving towards me or my family he is going to get shot.

You have much more confidence in our legal system than I do apparently. Joe Thug will get a slap on the wrist and be right back at it again.

 

[DT Guy]

Why on earth would you shoot someone if you didn't absolutely, positively and unequivocally have to?

All this tough talk aside, taking a life-even a guilty and criminal life-when it wasn't necessary to save another is just wrong.


Larry

 

[stargazer65]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the purpose of this as I understand it. To show that just because it is legal to shoot someone, doesn't make it moral. The legal principle keeps us from being hamstrung when we are in a self defense situation. It gives us the latitude to make a moral decision of whether to shoot or not.

But that's where freedom of conscience comes to play. That's why we're beating each other up so badly. We all come from different backgrounds with different moral values, and it's hard to comprehend the other.

Even so, it's a valuable discussion. I'm not trying to win anyone to my view, I'm just sharpening the principles that I believe, and along the way I've learned some lessons from people who hold different views.

Plus we need something to kill time with while we wait for WA and Spiffs pictures to come out. From what I understand they haven't had the wrestling match yet.

...time for a second cup of coffee.

 

[easyG]

Personally, if I can safely spare the life of Joe Thug trying to steal my TV, I will. I would much rather see him leaving in the back of a squad car than a body bag, if for no other reasons than I won't have wasted any ammo and it's a LOT less explaining for me (I do of course have more important reasons than that).

Why on earth would you shoot someone if you didn't absolutely, positively and unequivocally have to?

All this tough talk aside, taking a life-even a guilty and criminal life-when it wasn't necessary to save another is just wrong.

This is the part I just don't agree with....
I think that when a person chooses to break in to another person's home, then has also chosen to forfeit his life.

I believe that those who invade another's home, even just to steal, deserve to be killed (yes, I said it....killed.), and judging from the laws of my state, I am not alone in this belief.
Many states recognize that burglary alone is reason enough to use deadly force.
And these states, for the most part, have created these laws because that's what the people of those states desired.

Do I want to see a thief captured by the police, put on trail, and then possible be placed in jail (so that he can continue to be a parasite on society and be kept at taxpayers expense)?
No.

First the criminal steals your hard earned possessions, and then your tax money goes toward providing him legal council, and then (if he is convicted) more of your tax money goes toward the feeding and and sheltering of that same criminal.
And some dare call this the "moral" thing to do.

I would much prefer that he get killed while committing the crime.
Society is better off without those who break in the homes of others, and those who steal from others, and those who threaten the lives of others.

 

[stargazer65]

I think that when a person chooses to break in to another person's home, then has also chosen to forfeit his life.

Maybe so, that doesn't mean I have to help him with that choice if we aren't personally threatened and can retreat to safety.

First the criminal steals your hard earned possessions, and then your tax money goes toward providing him legal council, and then (if he is convicted) more of your tax money goes toward the feeding and and sheltering of that same criminal.
And some dare call this the "moral" thing to do.

I don't think it's moral either, but it is legal.

 

[Sparks2112]

I don't have much to add right now that wouldn't just be a rehash of what I've already said. I do have to say however that I've REALLY enjoyed this conversation, and I'm glad that for the most part everyone has remained adult in their debating.

 

[OldMarksman]

I believe that those who invade another's home, even just to steal, deserve to be killed (yes, I said it....killed.), and judging from the laws of my state, I am not alone in this belief.
Many states recognize that burglary alone is reason enough to use deadly force.

Sound logical at first blush, but dig a little deeper....

Many states, including mine, legally permit the use of deadly force against one who is unlawfully breaks into an occupied home, place of business, and/ or automobile. That's essentially an extension of the concept that a man's home is his castle, as embodied in the old English Common Law that serves as the foundation of the laws in all states but one. In fact, the concept goes back about 4000 years.

But is the purpose to permit the slaying of someone for stealing? I think not. Read any scholastic discussion of the concept behind those laws and you will find that the justification has to do with the right of the occupants to self preservation.

Try shooting someone for breaking into an unoccupied house and see what it gets you.

Have any of the states actually decided that one who breaks into a house "just to steal" deserves to be killed? Well, if so, would the laws not prescribe the death penalty for such a crime? They do not, anywhere in the country.

Under Sharia law, a person convicted of stealing may have a hand amputated, but that's not in effect here....yet.

There are two states--and only two states--in which deadly force is permitted for the sole purpose of protecting property, and in those the circumstances are limited.

In all others that have castle laws, the laws are intended primarily to address self defense. In some, but not all, they make the defense of justifiability less onerous by eliminating the (ridiculous, in my view) requirement to retreat from or within the home.