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.
In my particular home defense situation retreat is not an option as there are members of my family downstairs who are unarmed. Once I come downstairs and have eyes on the intruder he's going to have to be in a pretty defenseless position for me not to shoot. SO in short, yes I think even inside the home you have a duty to retreat from the use of lethal force if and only if you can do so without jeopardizing you or your family member's lives.

As far as others lives being in danger I almost feel a moral obligation TO act if I can do it without further endangering them. However I would have to limit this to situations in which the BG(s) had already fired shots or someone was being raped.
 
the original question is poorly worded. Retreat or not is more of a factor of the totality of the situation, not just the pre selected choices here.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
A. I would say there is no duty to retreat if others are at risk. To me, defense of a third party is the correct thing to do. of course, this is subject to the intricacies of the situation...a 100 terrorists vs. Captain J-frame wouldn't be a wise battle to fight! In other words, if there was a reasonable chance of success, I would consider it a personal obligation to assist the innocent party. That's just me.

B. Since there is no threat to a person, I would say they should retreat. Although, I may make an exception for property that is a significant source of a persons livelihood (i.e. robber tries to clean out your jewelry store, which most of your life savings is invested in the inventory). It gets a little more grey, IMO.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I believe that the above statement is the purpose of this thread. If that is so I have to ask those who would not retreat:

How could it be moral to take a life, if the offense would not merit it?

Are you going to take a life when the situation does not call for it, just because it is legal?
 
Last edited:
If so, don't complain when government snipers shoot an unarmed woman with a baby because she is deemed to be a threat. After all, that may be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

It wasn't, which is why the state government tried bringing Lon up on Manslaughter charges. The federal government bailed him out big time because they didn't want the shame and subsequent media coverage a trial would have brought.

Anyway, let's not go there.
 
Are you going to take a life when the situation does not call for it, just because it is legal? If so, don't complain when government snipers shoot an unarmed woman with a baby because she is deemed to be a threat. After all, that may be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
Surely you are not trying to draw a reasonable correlation between an outlandish scenario like you just presented and the common occurrence of a home invasion. That is a prime example of a strawman argument wrapped up in a big heaping layer of hyperbole.
 
Moderator Note

Guys,

Drop the Lon Horiuchi thing, please. Not the thread to debate that whole debacle over again.

The question is, Under what circumstances is it moral to take a life rather than retreat?

Thanks,

pax
 
Not bad discussion...

for a bunch of gun crazed rednecks. :rolleyes: On a side note here, I'm impressed by the level of thought and discussion. I'm sure some of the philosophy grad students I know would be left stuttering. I'm proud to be clinging to my guns and religion with people like I have found on this forum. :D
 
KingEdward,

If you stand your ground with gun in hand, you are saying that you are willing to kill rather than retreat any further. Let's not sugarcoat it.

pax
 
The real question here is WHY?.

If you are in a situation wherein you can safely retreat without killing another human being but you choose not to.... why?

The ONLY answer is because you believe it to be morally justifiable to kill someone over property, or to kill someone over violating what is, in essence, your "personal space".

Both ideas equate to imposing the death sentence for trespassing and/or theft. There is no logical difference between shooting them on the spot and putting them in an electric chair when they get caught 6 months later.


So, why? Why do you believe that theft or trespassing should be a capital offense.
 
The real question here is WHY?.
Click to expand...

Hate. Rage. Inadequacy

Not necessarily in that order.

But it all comes down to Fear.

Are we not men? “Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?”

It all goes back to the savannah of Africa, from whence we all came, millions of years ago.


WildwouldyoucaremetoexpoundAlaska TM
 
One can choose to not retreat AND not shoot.

Some seem to assume that if one does not retreat, the ONLY option is
they want to kill or shoot a BG.

A BG trespasser in the house who is stealing property will not get
shot but I will not necessarily retreat if we are in the same area and
I am between him and family.

He might leave but he might not. Either way, I might sit tight.

If he decides he doesn't want me to watch his actions and aggressively takes action accordingly then he may get shot.
 
Surely you are not trying to draw a reasonable correlation between an outlandish scenario like you just presented and the common occurrence of a home invasion. That is a prime example of a strawman argument wrapped up in a big heaping layer of hyperbole.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll take that to mean you are throwing the BS flag.:rolleyes:
I agree, bad analogy.

What Peetzakilla is asking in post 372 is what I was trying to ask.
 
Last edited:
Some seem to assume that if one does not retreat, the ONLY option is
they want to kill or shoot a BG.
Click to expand...

Are you going to simply stand there and watch? The implication is that if you don't retreat when you have the obvious chance then you WON'T retreat. Therefore, you are simply waiting for the BG to give you a chance and/or reason to shoot him.
 
so if one retreats, then BG can finish in that room and move to the bedrooms where daughters are sleeping?

let's go with that logic and sleep easy.

no thanks.

he's broken in, he's stealing, he sees homeowner with firearm. He stops
stealing and tries to harm homeowner versus seeing homeowner and fleeing.

under the logic here of some, if the BG gets shot WHILE HE IS ATTACKING A HOMEOWNER (who did not stay under the covers asleep or go back to bed)
then the HOMEOWNER is a murdering hate monger.

Correct me if I'm at fault here. Oh, already at fault for not retreating.
 
so if one retreats, then BG can finish in that room and move to the bedrooms where daughters are sleeping?

let's go with that logic and sleep easy.
Click to expand...

No one has suggested that scenario. Retreat to safety includes your family.
 
no no, homeowner is in question / at fault for seeing BG and not
retreating.

regardless of the scenario / situation.

there can be dozens of reasons why a homeowner would stand and watch.

gun cabinets in the adjoining room, etc.

the homeowner is at NO fault of any kind for being a witness in his own home
to a crime.

how do people come up with the logic then that any pain for the BG to follow if the BG goes from thief to attacker is immoral for the homeowner because he didn't walk away?

I'll step up and say there are situations when I see BG(s) in the kitchen at 2am that I might retreat back to the bedroom. Or I might decide that since girls rooms are between kitchen and my BR that there is not time nor quiet to secure / retreat.
 
I'll step up and say there are situations when I see BG(s) in the kitchen at 2am that I might retreat back to the bedroom. Or I might decide that since girls rooms are between kitchen and my BR that there is not time nor quiet to secure / retreat.
Click to expand...

We are talking ONLY about scenarios wherein there is complete safety for all involved. Situations wherein you may place your family or other innocents in danger by retreating do not count in this discussion.


there can be dozens of reasons why a homeowner would stand and watch.
Click to expand...

Few, if any, of them are sane reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top