Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

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

  • Yep, at all times

    Votes: 30 13.9%

  • Nope, Never

    Votes: 92 42.6%

  • Yep, but only on the street, not in the Home/Business

    Votes: 63 29.2%

  • I'm not ansering because I dont want to seem either wimpy or bloodthirsty

    Votes: 15 6.9%

  • I'd rather have pic of you and Spiff iwearing spandex loincloths lard wrestling in a baby pool.

    Votes: 16 7.4%
  • Total voters
    216
Status
Not open for further replies.
so you shot and killed Mr so and so, why?

because I thought he was going to kill my cat.

really?
Click to expand...
No, stop thinking like a victim. I shot Mr. criminal because he invaded my home in the middle of the night and presented a threat to me. I might have retreated if not for the fact I could not insure the safety of my pets if I did so. Therefore I stayed and legally defended my property.
 
threat to you and yours (wife/kids), sure.

threat to fish or gerbil or dog?

My dog is a part of the family but he is a dog.

Not a child.

Child is first. Dog is not even a close second.

Dog is on his own in home invasion.

my actions and thoughts are based on the humans and their lives.
 
No, I would not shoot someone to defend my pet. Much as I like them, I don't consider my pet to be worth risking my life. If you do, well then bully for you, I don't agree with your choice but I respect that you're following your belief.
 
Last edited:
No, stop thinking like a victim. I shot Mr. criminal because he invaded my home in the middle of the night and presented a threat to me. I might have retreated if not for the fact I could not insure the safety of my pets if I did so. Therefore I stayed and legally defended my property.
Click to expand...

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” Ingrid Newkirk

WildwhataboutyourgoldfishAlaska ™
 
stargazer65 said:
No, I would not shoot someone to defend my pet. As a matter of fact, I would rather shoot my own pet for no good reason than shoot a human being for a good reason. Even if it's the worst criminal, it's just not in the same league to me.
Click to expand...
No offense, and you are welcome to your own opinions, but anyone that would say that and mean it could never be a friend of mine. In fact I would not think very highly of them at all. I would never harm an innocent animal, mush less a loyal companion. I would definitely not place their well being below that of a criminal that has broken into my home or threatened my safety.
 
Last edited:
I shot Mr. criminal because he invaded my home in the middle of the night and presented a threat to me
Click to expand...

A reasonable response.

I might have retreated if not for the fact I could not insure the safety of my pets if I did so
Click to expand...

An irrational response that admits you had an alternative to deadly force, and chose the gun. Prosecutor is gonna rip you a new one.


Therefore I stayed and legally defended my property.
Click to expand...

Unless you stayed to defend your own, or another Human life, this one is also gonna get you standing reservations for the pen.
 
An irrational response that admits you had an alternative to deadly force, and chose the gun. Prosecutor is gonna rip you a new one.
Click to expand...
No, I have no legal responsibility to retreat from my home. The only reasons would be personal morality and I am not held to any litany regarding that decision.
Unless you stayed to defend your own, or another Human life, this one is also gonna get you standing reservations for the pen.
Click to expand...
Not even close to being true. Every year there are successful home defenses involving firearms where no charges are filed. There was a story on the news just last night about an old lady shooting an invader and a story a couple weeks ago where a man shot two people trying to steal his air conditioner. My own great uncle shot his daughters ex-husband for trespassing. Where are some gun owners getting this victim mindset that if you ever defend yourself you will be punished? s long as you do not exceed your legal rights you will be fine.
 
No offense, and you are welcome to your own opinions, but anyone that would say that and mean it could never be a friend of mine. In fact I would not think very highly of them at all.
Click to expand...

The above referring to post #344:

Edit: To clarify: I was merely illustrating in the above statement how highly I esteem human life above animal life. I was speaking metaphorically. It was a bad and confusing analogy, I removed it.

I can understand how it sounds harsh to you and some other people. I've had to put family pets to sleep before for terminal illness. I got over it. It would be hypocritical for me to say I highly esteem the life of a beast and then turn around and use it for food and clothing. Killing a person would probably haunt me for a long time, even under the most just circumstances.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to clarify how I feel about that. Suffice to say, I could pobably blot killing a pet out of mind as being no different than hunting for food.
Click to expand...
As a psychologist (ex that is) I would have a field day with anyone not able to make that distinction. In fact that is one of the indicators of serial killers.
 
If the death penalty were any kind of a deterrant, why are there thousands
on death row? They don't seem to deterred.

Now if tomorrow, every death row person were executed (electric bleachers) then maybe a deterrent would exist.

The penalty of death is for justice to be carried out based on the crime
Click to expand...

The punishment (life in prison or death penalty) serves as a deterrent, if there were no punishment or were it not severe enough how many more murders would there be? Also, if we made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted of 1st degree murder I would wager that murder rates would see a noticeable decline, this is a different topic for a different forum though.

Agreed.

Agreed. But add it to the other two I mentioned.
 
I think you misunderstand me Playboypenguin. I merely meant to say I don't put animal life on the same plateau as human life. Especially considering I have a wife and five kids to protect. I didn't say killing animals for no good reason would be good. I was just making a statement that I would rather deal with the stress of having to put down my pet than being forced to shoot a person. The serial killer comparison was more than harsh, it was uncalled for.:( My wife loves animals (more so than me), and she was upset that you would make such a statement.

How about if we just agree to disagree on the relative value of human and animal life and leave it at that?

If you want to discuss it any more we can do it via PM.
 
Last edited:
there is little deterrent in the justice system.

there are not enough prisons and nearly all of them are over crowded.

criminals and those in crimes of passion do not stop for a few days

and mull over, "hmmm... I wonder what my punishment will be" if I go ahead
and commit ___________.

I like three strikes (felonies) and life in jail sentence.

But there simply would never be enough facilities to house everyone.
 
Only if the opposing party is willing to retreat as well.

If he leaves the house without causing me trouble, and never come back again, I don't see why anyone has to be hurt.

I am not quite comfortable with someone pillaging through my house while I retreat. If he's not going to go away, I don't think I am either.
 
There is no legal duty to retreat unless your state legislates otherwise.

There is no moral duty to retreat.

If one chooses and can get family/self to "safer room" and hunker down there
then okay.

To me, that is not really retreat.
 
To anyone on here that shoots someone in order to protect your dog, cat, hamster, etc. When it comes time to draw the jury please strike me when my name gets pulled.
 
We are wandering - while it is nice to say there is no moral duty to retreat - this thread as gone on for so long because some do think there is.

To refocus and refresh on nuances:

1. You are in a situation where you can use lethal force but can also avoid doing it safely. The OP seems a property crime in progress.

2. Since you can avoid using lethal force with no detriment to your safety, should you?

3. Does the type of incident make a difference? Meaning:

a. You can avoid using lethal force with no risk to yourself but you leave others at risk

b. You can avoid using lethal force but your property is at risk. In this, the justification for lethal force is that local law says you can stand your ground and not have to flee. Fleeing means your property goes bye bye but you avoid shooting someone over the property. The rationale for shooting is not that your property is worth shooting someone for, per se but that you are at risk when you attempt to save your property - a subtle distinction.

Is saving property worth a life?

Is it moral to leave someone to their fate? That really, really depends on a whole slew of victim characteristics and situational characteristics. If you see 100 terrorists with AK-47s charge into the mall when you are driving away, does Captain J-Frame return to that fight vs. engaging a single nut in the food court about to shoot a child, when you could skeedaddle.

The moral duty to retreat seems to mean is there a moral duty to avoid taking a life in an offense that would not merit it but you could do it legally.

Stealing your VCR (in the old days) - may seem a great offense but not punishable by death in the courts. Are you saying it is because of a sense of emotional violation of your nest as compared to there being an active threat to you (which the OP says is not the case)?
 
There is no legal duty to retreat unless your state legislates otherwise.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rely on that.

Where I live, the law reads "A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony [(there's no mention of retreat here)] or such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person." The law goes on to say that a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

While there is no explicit wording specifying that there is a duty to retreat when outside, we are adised that said duty exists. Probably implicit in the word "necessary" and embodied in case law.

Given that fact and the fact the duty to retreat stems from the common law, absent competent legal advice to the contrary I would assume that there is a legal requirement to retreat unless the state has legislated otherwise, or unless there has been a binding court decision to the contrary.

Lay opinion. Any attorneys care to comment?
 
There is no moral duty to retreat.
Click to expand...
Actually, that varies widely from person to person. Some people would take the position that they would allow themselves to be killed before ever taking another life. Whether or not they changed those opinions when actually in fear for their life is another matter. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top