Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
Moderator
What was Capt Charlies sig again?
WildifeelanotherthreadcomingonAlaska ™
spacemanspiff
New member
easyG, I am trying to understand how you came to this mindset. Granted, your state has different laws than mine, obviously, thats why your opinion is such a good basis for debate.
May I ask how old you are? Have you lived in NC your whole life?
If you moved to a place that had different laws, would it be difficult to change your mindset?
Was it you or someone else in this thread that asked why some are trying to treat criminals like they should be protected? In any case, what reason would you say that a person like myself has for not believing that everyone committing a felony should be killed?
Maybe then we can both understand each other better.
May I ask how old you are? Have you lived in NC your whole life?
If you moved to a place that had different laws, would it be difficult to change your mindset?
Was it you or someone else in this thread that asked why some are trying to treat criminals like they should be protected? In any case, what reason would you say that a person like myself has for not believing that everyone committing a felony should be killed?
Maybe then we can both understand each other better.
Actually, I'd be less worried about the next action of a burglar than some other criminals. Burglars are rarely violent and more rarely armed (armed burglary is generally a greater offense). That's why they are burglars and not home invaders. There is also a difference between standing one's ground and not fleeing when you have a gun pointed at you.
My point was that in the given scenario, there doesn't appear to be any weapon present other than the gun being held on the BG. Thus, I was questioning how he was anticipating the unarmed bad guy was going to do him in. I assume he has enough sense to keep the BG at a distance with one or more pieces of furniture between them.
stargazer65
New member
Mleake, I think he made it deliberately ambiguous so that we would spend more time dwelling on it and trying to picture it.
Tucker 1371
New member
Are you suggesting that the ONLY use for firearms is self defense? Maybe YOU really don't need a firearm if their only purpose to you is killing folks.
And if you must twist it that way then yes, you are appointing yourself to those roles. I'm not uncomfortable with being charged with the task of defending my home and I am absolutely ready and willing to do so if need be. What I would NOT be comfortable with is taking a life I morally should not have. I simply consider it to be what it is, self defense. To be clear this is the way I see it:
If someone has forced their way into my home the only way I am not going to fire is if I can easily see with 100% certainty an opportunity to spare their life without risking mine or my family's lives. That means that in all but a handful of scenarios (if he has his back turned and keeps it turned, if he has his hands full of TV, if he already has his hands up when he comes into view etc.) the intruder is getting shot.
Edit: If you believe that it would be perfectly fine to shoot Joe Thug with his back turned, hands full of your TV, or with his hands already up, that's your decision, I pray you never have to live with it. My only intent in my role of defender of my home is preserving mine and my family's lives, not carrying out my version of justice or trying to make the world a better place.
Last edited:
spacemanspiff
New member
EasyG
Tell me, does NC have a high amount of police shootings of suspects? I would think that the standard that law enforcement are held to in regards to the use of deadly force would be a good outline for everyone else to start with.
Note, I said 'outline', realizing there are inherent differences in how a civilian would be expected to respond.
Tell me, does NC have a high amount of police shootings of suspects? I would think that the standard that law enforcement are held to in regards to the use of deadly force would be a good outline for everyone else to start with.
Note, I said 'outline', realizing there are inherent differences in how a civilian would be expected to respond.
Tucker 1371
New member
+1
OldMarksman
Staff
But the phrase was "just to steal." Stealing is defined as theft or larceny, and it is something else entirely from burglary or armed robbery, either of which, unlike "just" stealing, poses a very serious threat to safety of the occupants of a home.
The distinction is very important under the law, both as it pertains to the justification of the use of deadly force and as it will affect the passing of sentence on the intruder by a judge in a court of law.
The difference has been pointed out more than once in this thread.
Yes, you are most assuredly wrong.
By the way, the justification for executing horse thieves in some territories was that taking the horse from a man in the wilderness was tantamount to murder. That time passed long ago.
Well, no, not at all. Not by a long shot. You have not been sworn to enforce the law or empowered to administer it. You cannot decide guilt and you cannot pass sentence.
Should you use deadly force, you will have to present evidence justifying the otherwise unlawful act, and should the case go to trial court, a jury will decide, based on the evidence you provide, whether your beliefs at the time of the act were reasonable based on the law and based on what you knew at the time, whether you in fact believed them, and whether they justify the use of deadly force.
Should they decide otherwise, you will then be a convicted felon.
Inside the home, and given the fact of a forcible entry, your burden would be a lot easier than it would otherwise be.
This might be good time to point out to you that if you "come home and...," the castle law likely does not apply, where you live or anywhere else. You have to be occupying the home.
Heres the wording for NC:
It's virtually the same wherever I've looked.
Not too long ago, a law abiding homeowner returned to his home in Washington State (where the castle doctine is not codified explicitly, but is esatablished by judicial precedent) to find an intruder in the house on the couch. He killed the man and has been charged with murder.
That doesn't mean that he did not have the right to defend himself, but the charging authority deemed that he did not shoot for that purpose, and the fact is, the castle doctrine did not apply.
Maybe he has been exonerated, maybe not, but either way he has not been happy, one can reasonably guarantee.
Might I suggest that you inquire about some training in your area.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Got some case law to that effect?
WildinterestingissueAlaska ™
42
No.
No.
Probably for the same reasons that I have....
Human life is precious and I place great value upon it.
And not all crimes should be answered with a slug to the head.
Some folks read something and see what they want to see, or perhaps they just misread the statement altogether.
I never said that anyone committing a felony should be killed.
I said this:
And this:
And this is really how I feel....
When a person chooses to break in to another man's home, then as far as I'm concerned, he has also chosen to throw his life away.
But no, I don't think that every felon should be killed.
Mail fraud is a felony, but I certainly wouldn't kill someone for mail fraud.
More than some states, less than others I suppose.
I disagree.
It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Last edited:
No, I'm not suggesting that the ONLY use for firearms is self defense.
But this IS a "tactics and training" forum, not a hunting or target shooting forum.
And we are talking about the moral and ethical aspects of shooting another person.
If he has his hands full carrying the TV, I might not shoot him.
But just because he has his hands up or his back turned, that does not mean the person is not a threat.
His back could be turned to you and he could he holding a gun.
And some folks can draw very quickly from a "hands up" position.
If you want to play around and try to second guess the intentions of someone has has broken in to you home then that's your right.
But I'm not going to give the creep the benefit of the doubt.
I'll do all that I can legally do to stop him for good.
Wildalaska
Moderator
And back to the drunk going into the wrong house? Shoot first and find out why later?
WildbeconsistentnowokAlaska ™
I hope you're not a lawyer.
When I come home, and enter my home, I am then, at that very second that I cross the threshold, the lawful "occupant".
The law as worded certainly does not indicate that one is an occupant only if one is home before the crime starts being committed.
OldMarksman
Staff
No. But the case law in a number of states does so indicate.
Nor is it possible for someone going inside to prevent the entry of someone who is already there. And do you know what the words "terminate another's entry" mean? Legally speaking, that is?
In my CCW training, we were told that one had to be in the house or in the car. The Washington State case seems to support that thought.
Not a good idea for the layman to rely on interpretations of dictionary terms without legal training or a knowledge of the case law. Not a good idea at all.
What has been ruled in North Carolina, if anything, I do not know. Want to become the test case?
One more time, you might look into the possibility of some local training.
And you might in the future think first before posting statements that could prove very harmful to you should you become involved in a shooting.
OldMarksman
Staff
Got some case law to ...[the] ... effect [that you have to be occupying the home]?
I referred to the Washington State case, which may or may not not have yet been adjudicated. I was told such in my CCW training. And case law aside, all of the laws I've read refer explicitly to an "occupied" domicile, home, auto, place of business, etc. or some such, or to the "occupant."
Further, since the intent of all of the castle laws and similar laws going back beyond the English Common Law and beyond Codex Hammurabi to the Code of Ur-Nammu is universally described in academic texts as having to do with the right of self defense of the occupants, the idea of extending the law to cover someone not at home would not seem to make much sense at all.
I referred to the Washington State case, which may or may not not have yet been adjudicated. I was told such in my CCW training. And case law aside, all of the laws I've read refer explicitly to an "occupied" domicile, home, auto, place of business, etc. or some such, or to the "occupant."
Further, since the intent of all of the castle laws and similar laws going back beyond the English Common Law and beyond Codex Hammurabi to the Code of Ur-Nammu is universally described in academic texts as having to do with the right of self defense of the occupants, the idea of extending the law to cover someone not at home would not seem to make much sense at all.
- Status