Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

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


  • Total voters
    216
Status
Not open for further replies.
OldMarksman said:
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.

Very good point.

OldMarksman said:
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 (shooting someone?) less onerous by eliminating the (ridiculous, in my view) requirement to retreat from or within the home.
(Bold is mine for clarification, correct me if that is not what you were saying)


Another good point, and I agree the choice to shoot or not to must be left to the individual in these cases and not prescribed by a ridiculous and burdensome requirement.

Sparks2112 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.

I have too Sparks, but now that you've said that, we're jinxed.;)
 
Last edited:
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?
So by your argument, you call the cops to tell them you just shot an intruder, you tell them "I'm a law abiding citizen, I pay my taxes, I count my calories, I killed a thug trying to take my stuff, could you clean up the mess, give me my gun back and let me go wash the carnage off me? I have to get up early!"

You want to tell us that you can shoot to kill with impunity and that you don't need to prove to anyone else that those who you do kill posed an actual threat that necessitated your useo f deadly force?
 
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.

I'm not going to disagree with you that we would be better without them, but it is not my place to proclaim myself judge, jury, and executioner. I have the right to self defense (not stuff defense), I will use lethal force only if mine or another's life is in danger. If we all followed your reasoning then police officers could execute speeders for "threaten[ing] the lives of others".
 
Morality and legality aside, there is no personal upside to shooting someone who absolutely didn't have to to be shot. Not legally, not psychologically, not financially.

I also find it disturbing that anyone here would think that someone who commits a crime where the death penalty is not a legal punishment actually deserves to die. This shows a clear intent to shoot to kill rather than shoot to stop.

Threads of this type are enlightening and disturbing at the same time. The preference, and in some cases even desire, for killing someone feeds right into the anti-gunners stereotype of gun owners.
 
I also find it disturbing that anyone here would think that someone who commits a crime where the death penalty is not a legal punishment actually deserves to die. This shows a clear intent to shoot to kill rather than shoot to stop.

Agree, but it may involve "just talking" by blowhards who do not know the law and/or who have never read any accounts about the serious effects of even a perfectly justified shooting on the shooter and his family.

Morality and legality aside, there is no personal upside to shooting someone who absolutely didn't have to to be shot. Not legally, not psychologically, not financially.

From what I've read, that's quite an understatement.

Threads of this type are enlightening and disturbing at the same time. The preference, and in some cases even desire, for killing someone feeds right into the anti-gunners stereotype of gun owners.

...and into the grist mill for new laws....

Also, such posts can prove very troublesome indeed when they are introduced by a prosecutor to establish mens rea in a case in which the evidence is unclear or contradictory. Could mean the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Frankly, I am amazed that anyone would post such potentially dangerous, readily discoverable, indelible electronic ink.

Of course, many people have not been exposed through experience, training, or professional education to how what someone writes may do them in, perhaps years later.
 
But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does.
I typically avoid these moral dilemma questions, if for no other reason than there are too many variables to pin down. However, do I have a moral duty to surrender and flee when faced by a person or animal bent on causing damage to me if I do not surrender my possessions (often, even if I do so)? I say, if I have the means to defend myself and/or others, I have a moral duty to stand and fight, if for no other reason than to stop the person/animal from repeating the act. If I choose not to defend myself or others, I believe I have the moral onus of what happens to the victims (direct and indirect) of the act of aggression.

It's funny: people will say "don't hurt him/her/it" when they see a person take action to stop someone/something attacking a person , but they often fail to consider that the person being attacked has the right to expect to be defended by others, and that the perpetrator of the act has put themselves in that position of their own volition. Most states allow a person to use of deadly force to avert death or serious injury to themselves or others. I believe I not only have the legal right to do so, but also the moral obligation to do so.
 
[why would someone turn "exercising my right to self defense in my home"

into "you kill with impunity"
/QUOTE]

See post #257.

For the sake of argument, I believe that society would be better off if certain criminals were removed from our midst, and not just by putting them in prison. However my conscience limits that to murderers and rapist/molestors.

But not thieves.

If I came home and discovered a thief inside, and they had no weapon visible, my first impulse would not be "Shoot to kill! They deserves it! They are trying to steal My Precious!"
 
For the sake of argument, I believe that society would be better off if certain criminals were removed from our midst, and not just by putting them in prison. However my conscience limits that to murderers and rapist/molestors.

But not thieves.

+1
 
they have shattered my piece of mind, etc. I feel that lethal force is an acceptable option.

So if I stand in fronm of your house with a garish poster of Michael More in a spandex thong, are you gonna use lethal force against me.

WildsincethatwouldshattermostnormalpiecesofmindsAlaska ™
 
there is a fine line between a thief (when he is in the home alone)

and a thief when he is confronted with the home owner.

if he remains the kind and jovial benevolent thief and flees, he can tell the story to his pals I guess and hopefully I can give Police enough info and maybe he is caught.

if he does not flee then he is staying for other reasons.

Woe is me and mine if I act too slowly or think about getting him
home safely. If he has broken in, then he has already done some harm
and most bets are off.

I didn't say ALL bets are off. If he sees the barrels and runs, ok

if not, he can stand there and wait for cops. Not running or not standing still

equals possibly doing us in. that equals one would be wise to stop the threat.
 
Just for background...from Blackstone:

BURGLARY, or nocturnal houfebreaking, burgi latrocinium, which by our antient law was called hamefecken, as it is in Scotland to this day, has always been looked upon as a very heinous offence: not only becuafe of the abundant terror that it naturally carries with it, but alfo as it is a forcible invafion and difturbance of that right of habitation, which every individual might acquire even in a ftate of nature; an invafion, which in fuch a ftate, would be fure to be punifhed with death, unlefs the affailant were the ftronger. But in civil fociety, the laws alfo come in to the affiftance of the weaker party: and, befides that they leave him this natural right of killing the aggreffor, if he can, (as was fhewn in a former chapter ) they alfo protect and avenge him, in cafe the might of the affailant is too powerful. And the law of England has fo particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's houfe, that it ftiles it his caftle, and will never fuffer it to be violated with impunity: agreeing herein with the fentments of antient Rome, as expreffed in the words of Tullyq ; “quid enim fanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniufcujufque civium?” For this reafon no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil procefs; though, in criminal caufes, the public fafety feperfedes the private. Hence alfo in part arifes the animadverfion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nufancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it muft be affigned, that a man may affemble people together lawfully (at leaft if they do not exceed eleven) without danger of raifing a riot, rout, or unlawful affembly, in order to protect and defend his houfe; which he is not permitted to do in any other cafer..........

And as to self defense in the home:

IN the next place, fuch homicide, as is committed for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, is juftifiable by the law of nature r; and alfo by the law of England, as it ftood fo early as the time of Bracton s, and as it is fince declared by ftatute 24 Hen. VIII. c. 5. If any perfon attempt to burn it t,) and fhall be killed in fuch attempt, the flayer fhall be acquitted and difcharged. This reaches not to any crime unaccompanied with force, as picking of pockets, or to the breaking open of any houfe in the day time, unlefs it carries with it an attempt of robbery alfo. So the Jewifh law, which punifhed no theft with death, makes homicide only juftifiable, in cafe of nocturnal houfe-breaking: “if a thief be found breaking up, and he be fmitten “that he die, no blood fhall be fhed for him: but if the fun “be rifen upon him, there fhall blood be fhed for him; for he “fhould have made full reftitution” At Athens, if any theft was committed by night, it was lawful to kill the criminal, if taken in the fact w: and, by the Roman law of the twelve tables, a thief might be flain by night with impunity; or even by day, if he armed himfelf with any dangerous weapon x: which amounts very nearly to the fame as is permitted by our own constitutions.

Query: havent we developed a bit since the the time of Moses and Solon?


WildsorryabouttheffAlafka ™
 
Have any of the states actually decided that one who breaks into a house "just to steal" deserves to be killed?
Again, yes.
In NC you can use deadly force to prevent someone from breaking in to your home if you believe that they are doing so with the intent to commit a felony....even if that felony is merely burglary or armed robbery.

Well, if so, would the laws not prescribe the death penalty for such a crime? They do not, anywhere in the country.
I could be wrong, but I believe some states still allow horse thieves to be put to death.
And if you can put a man to death for stealing a horse, I don't see why you wouldn't put a man to death for stealing goods from another man's home.

And during times of crisis, like hurricanes and such, deadly force can be used against looters....and they're just stealing stuff too, right?

I'm not going to disagree with you that we would be better without them, but it is not my place to proclaim myself judge, jury, and executioner.
It is your place if they break in to your home.

After all, how do you determine if they are a deadly threat or not?
YOU BECOME THE JUDGE.

How do you determine if you need to use deadly force?
YOU ARE THE JURY.

Would you take their life if you JUDGED them to be a threat to your life?
If so, then you also adopt the role as EXECUTIONER.

If you're uncomfortable adopting these roles if need be, then perhaps you really don't need a firearm?


I also find it disturbing that anyone here would think that someone who commits a crime where the death penalty is not a legal punishment actually deserves to die. This shows a clear intent to shoot to kill rather than shoot to stop.

Threads of this type are enlightening and disturbing at the same time. The preference, and in some cases even desire, for killing someone feeds right into the anti-gunners stereotype of gun owners.
Do you want honest thoughts and honest open conversation, or do you want politically correct let's-not-anger-the-anti-gunners kind of conversation?
Are you willing to sacrifice your right to free speech for your right to bear arms.
Owning a gun doesn't mean much if you live in a nation where you are afraid to speak your mind openly....even if your views might be unpopular.
 
Last edited:
If I came home and discovered a thief inside, and they had no weapon visible, my first impulse would not be "Shoot to kill! They deserves it! They are trying to steal My Precious!"
But if you came home and discovered someone in your home, how exactly would you determine if he was just there to steal, or if he had other plans?

Do you think that a killer is going to tell you that he was planning to kill you and your family, all while you are questioning him at gunpoint?

Do you think that a rapist is going to tell you that he was planning on raping your wife or daughter, while you are pointing a gun at him?


If I come home and an intruder has broken in, I'm not going have a conversation with the guy.
I'm not going to ask him why he broke in to my home.
I'm not going to ask him if he as gun in his pocket.
I'm not going to ask him if he has killed or raped others in the past.

I'm going to do what the law allows me to do in regards to using deadly force.
Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Not running or not standing still equals possibly doing us in. that equals one would be wise to stop the threat.

By what means are you assuming he is going to do you in?

There is a bit of a difference between assuming and action by another and considering the risk of that action. It seems to me legitimate to worry about the next actions of a burglar who, upon being surprised in his illegal action, stands his ground. This is a thread in the "Tactics" section, after all.
 
Owning a gun doesn't mean much if you live in a nation where you are afraid to speak your mind openly....even if your views might be unpopular.

I have the right to wear my Kleagle badge at the gun show, is that a good image for gun owners....?

WildbutwhateverthreaddriftAlaska ™
 
I have the right to wear my Kleagle badge at the gun show, is that a good image for gun owners....?
Who is going to believe you are a kleagle? You just don't have the kind of positive people skills needed for that job. :D ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top