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.
stargazer, I would take issue with your premise that the beginning and end of morality is found in the ten commandments.
 
Morals are a person's CORE BELIEFS,
Click to expand...

We ASSIGN the word morals to our belief system.

TRUE morality is just that, true. Beliefs can be right or wrong or any weird mixture thereof. The accuracy of our beliefs is defined by core, fundamental truth. Truth is what morals are. Without truth, morals have no meaning.

Like I said, Hitler believed what he was doing. Stalin, Mao, Manson, Von Brunn, the guy that killed Dr Tiller and Dr Tiller himself. They ALL believed what they were doing was moral, based on their own beliefs. Each one of them was either right or wrong. Whether I believe it, you believe it, nobody or everybody believes it. They were either right or wrong. They were not, and could not be, BOTH right and wrong.
 
Folks, we don't do religion here. The underlying bases of moral principles can be viewed from several perspectives. So let's drop this line for the poll.

The question is:

While it is legit to shoot the guy and you would if life was threatened, if you could vamoose and not shoot - would you take that option and does a moral principle of not harming others unnecessarily suggest you do that?

You could argue that the incident gives you free reign to clean the gene pool - as something probably will say. Or who made you judge, jury and hangman if you don't need to be?

So we don't need to know about religion (pro or con) to focus on this issue.
 
Truth is what morals are.
Click to expand...

then who assigns the truth? who judges when morals are good or bad? Answer those questions without bringing religion or god or jesus into it. There is no proof to a higher power and I don't want to hear that there is. Instead you have to answer that with we're the ones that judge good and bad morals or assigning the truth to them. Us, people, human beings that each have a DIFFERENT way.
 
This is one of those things that I'm still trying to sort out for myself. I really have to rack my brain to try and form an opinion that I can agree with. While I don't like the idea of watching someone get mugged or raped or watching a store get held up, I'm also not sure it's my place to intervene with deadly force. I honestly don't think I could just stand there.

I would have to at least say something.
 
This is awesome guys, because of semantics and religious differences you're going to end up getting what could be a very good thread locked. I think this is a great question that bears reasonable discussion. Not banter about what defines morals and where they come from.:rolleyes:
 
I voted "Yes, but only on the street"

I think one's first instinct should always be to escape, if possible. As you step through your alternatives (very quickly) in a scenario, that thought may quickly vanish, but I think it should always be at the top of the list. Frankly, even in your own home. If I'm standing at the back door, and someone comes in the front, why not vamoose and call LEO? Yes, legally (and even ethically) you could stay and fight in your own home, but that is dangerous and unnecessary. If the BG is there for your stuff - it's just stuff. If he IS after you, then he'll follow and you'll get your chance to "clean the gene pool".
 
I think one's first instinct should always be to escape, if possible. As you step through your alternatives (very quickly) in a scenario, that thought may quickly vanish, but I think it should always be at the top of the list. Frankly, even in your own home. If I'm standing at the back door, and someone comes in the front, why not vamoose and call LEO? Yes, legally (and even ethically) you could stay and fight in your own home, but that is dangerous and unnecessary. If the BG is there for your stuff - it's just stuff. If he IS after you, then he'll follow and you'll get your chance to "clean the gene pool".
Click to expand...
Well, it's never "just stuff" - if it was just stuff, you wouldn't keep it in your home - you'd throw it out with the trash, wouldn't you? The things you own are the product of your own labours, and have value - at least to me they do. And in your hypothetical above, how do you know there isn't a bad guy waiting just outside your back door?
 
Sorry, Glenn, I'll take it to PM. I do think that the source of morals is necessary to inform the discussion but I understand why the controversy detracts from the purpose of TFL.
 
Last edited:
Morals are pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it. They vary so vastly from country to country and culture to culture. To try and pretend you or I somehow have the hard and fast moral set down pat is very naive and self centered to say the least. This question has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with pride and ego. Beyond that it is about person belief and not so called "morality."
 
I would definetly divide the issue in two scenarios: home and street.

At home, once someone has forcefully entered the premises you either confront the individual or hold your ground.

On the street I avoid a confrontation at all cost and that means retreat unless the situation forces you otherwise.
 
Sorry for mentioning religion. I removed my posts. I'll go crawl back in my hole now if you're done spanking me.;)
 
Last edited:
You bet yer bippy.

I will avoid conflict (particularly violent conflict) whenever feasible.

For the purpose of this discussion the ground rules are that I can escape safely (I'm assuming that family members are included in that safety). How highly do I value my life? What do I place above my life and the lives of those I love? So for all cases IN THIS DISCUSSION, I will always retreat in perfect safety, rather than escalate the situation.

Escape in safety poses no risk to my family. Confrontation and conflict poses many risks:

1) Gunfire goes somewhere, and while I am perfect and would never miss, the incompetent (Please God, let him/her be incompetent!) criminal attacking me will probably miss, and those bullets go somewhere.

2) I have no greater duty than the duty to my family. Nothing else supersedes this. Escalating a situation could bring harm to my loved ones. There is no way to accept this risk. My death or injury (very possible) will slightly impede my ability to care, provide for and protect my family.

The situation obviously changes when the ground rules of this situation give way to reality. When in my home, perfectly safe retreat becomes very problematic.

-Is there someone outside?
-Can my entire family exit the house and get to "safety"?
-How do we complete our escape?

Because of these uncertainties I would probably retreat to one room where I have the best chance of keeping my loved ones safe. Even if that means being forced to fight.

But in keeping with the ground rules of this discussion, I find myself answering that I would ALWAYS retreat. I'm somewhat surprised by this. But the ground rules constrain the situation.

VR

Matt
 
My #1 goal is to get home to my family, so running away screaming like a little Austrian girl from the ' Sound of Music' is definitely in my tactical training plans.

Protecting an innocent person would be the only thing that would cause me to stay in a dangerous situation.
 
It may be a fact that morals as well as legalities vary from culture to culture and country to country but that is irrelevant because you only live in one country and one culture, at least at any given point in time. But the rub is in actually making the decision and quickly.
 
Perhaps everyone discussing the OP should bear in mind that 'Retreat' in this context does not necessarily mean 'turn your tail and run screaming like a eunuch'.

Consider the scenario that sparked this thread. "Retreat" for the pharmacist could have been taking cover, while keeping the wounded suspect on the ground covered.

The question here is: Would your conscience allow you to escalate a situation that you could possibly walk away from without firing a shot?

Remember, escalating the situation, as I am posing the question, means 'using deadly force'. And 'possibly walk away from' means "the threat that you are reacting to is diminishing".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top