Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[Brian Pfleuger]

Personally I think this is A LOT of bandwidth for one thread, but that's just me

I say three cheers for a thread that has gone 400+ posts with only a smattering of idiotic personal attacks. That in itself is worth the "bandwidth". It's a good question with some well thought out, educational answers. It's been a good while since a thread of this potentially explosive nature has died a natural death.

 

[Re4mer]

I really think that the morality of any situation it dependent on the circumstances of each individual case. The morality may also be interpreted differently due to the fact that we all have different standards that we employ for determining such things. In truth I think that the vast majority of times if you are confronted by a violent attacker or armed robber especially in your home or place of work you should not have to retreat if you do not want to. Most likely retreating will not solve the problem if the person is determined and could also put you at a tactical disadvantage. In reality the person who is confronting you has already put their own life on the line in an effort to rob or kill you and if you choose to defend yourself from that and not simply become a victim then the judiciary (legal) and society as a whole (moral) should be ok with it.

 

[5whiskey]

I say three cheers for a thread that has gone 400+ posts with only a smattering of idiotic personal attacks. That in itself is worth the "bandwidth". It's a good question with some well thought out, educational answers. It's been a good while since a thread of this potentially explosive nature has died a natural death.

You know what. You are correct sir. I will leave my original post so people will see it and understand what I said, but you are correct. Bravo to the members of TFL for being mature and responsible.

 

[jjyergler]

Ok, Peetza,

First, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong,

No he's not. He might be guilty of ONE felony.

I was thinking that the BG has done this before, but, my bad.

Second, don't take this as a personal attack, but you are too smart to be committing so many logical errors.

Here you go:

Error #1 then start your own thread. We are discussing the scenario in the OP

The OP doesn't give a "scenario." He is asking a broad, open-ended question looking for a debate and distillation. His "scenario" is unanswerable. Are there others in danger? Does the BG have a weapon? What kind of weapon? What kind of crime, if any, is being committed? There are too many variables to honestly answer the question.

Error #2 Not all burglars are dangerous

No, most burglars aren't dangerous. Someone breaking into my home isn't a burglar, if I'm home, under Florida law, he's a home invader, and that's a felony. The burglary and home invasion statutes overlap, but home invasion is definitively an upgrade.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 812 THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES
812.135 Home-invasion robbery.--

(1) "Home-invasion robbery" means any robbery that occurs when the offender enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a robbery, and does commit a robbery of the occupants therein.

Error #3 Since you don't have ESP there is no safe assumption. Assumption = Guess

You are assuming that the BG is a burglar. He might be a Meth head thinking I'm the dealer that just cut his supply. He might be a Satan worshiper who wants my heart for an evil ceremony. He might be there to rape me or my dogs. The point is, you accuse me of assuming, but make your own assumption. I have evidence on my side. He could break in for the several hours I'm at work. By breaking in while I'm home, it is perfectly logical for me to "assume" that he intends to do harm.

Error #4 Should a misdemeanor be a capital offense

That's a straw man argument. No, it shouldn't, nor should home invasion. I'm not an executioner, I'm not the state, only the state can make things offences. I'm not determining what constitutes an offence. I'm simply sleeping in my bed, or watching tv, minding my own business, and if needed, protecting myself.

I'm not advocating killing people for any reason. The OP asks is there a moral duty to retreat. That is a philosophical argument. Most of the people are conflating practical and philosophical. If I am where I'm supposed to be, and I have taken reasonable precautions for my safety, then no, there is no moral duty to retreat. That doesn't mean I won't retreat, I'm just saying that there isn't a moral duty.

If someone engages in action that puts him or her in the position of primary moral agent or actor, then that person is responsible for what happens.

The morality comes into play depending upon who precipitates the action. If someone breaks into my house, it isn't my responsibility to spend time determining their intent. By his ACTION, he has placed himself in a position of danger. If I am required to determine his intent, I am in danger if his intent is to harm me. No moral code I can think of would require ME to endanger MY SAFETY because of his ACTION.

You are asking the equivilent of me determining if the guy driving in my lane is drunk or not. I don't know if he is going to swerve back into his lane or not. If I he hits me, well, at least I'm not morally responsible. I don't care why he's in my lane. Similarly, I don't care why an "uninvited" BG is in my home; I must assume the worst, at least in today's world. To do otherwise, while it may be honorable, is stupid.

To quote Dark Helmet, "evil will always win, because good is dumb."

 

[jjyergler]

I heartily agree.

You know what. You are correct sir. I will leave my original post so people will see it and understand what I said, but you are correct. Bravo to the members of TFL for being mature and responsible.

Yeah, I've seen some nincompoops here, but I don't think they stay on too long. I think they go to skinhead forums when they can't incite things.

PBP, I completely agree. I'm not even saying I'd shoot someone for "just being there." I'm just arguing the point that if I'm where I'm supposed to be, there is no MORAL duty for me to retreat. Finally, the laws of the state of Florida have caught up to morality, kind of like slavery, it took a while for law to catch up to morality. I don't know what I'd do either. Hopefully, I'll never know.

The two times I have had to confront people, it was quickly apparent that no crime was taking place.

 

[Wildalaska]

To quote Dark Helmet, "evil will always win, because good is dumb."

Who is Dark helmet?

WildhuhAlaska ™

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Are there others in danger? Does the BG have a weapon? What kind of weapon? What kind of crime, if any, is being committed? There are too many variables to honestly answer the question.

The OP eliminated those variables. Take a minute in your mind to create the scenario envisioned by the OP.

1) The BG either doesn't have a weapon or doesn't have a distance weapon. This is implied by the "retreat with safety" caveat.

2)No one else in in danger. This is plainly stated. Retreat with complete safety to you and others.

3)The type of crime is not relevant, except that it is obviously not a personal injury crime because that would exclude being able to retreat with safety to self AND others.

There are no variables that are unaccounted for. You are in a situation wherein you have the option to either:

1)Shoot someone who has presented you with a situation wherein it is LEGAL to shoot them.

2)Retreat safely.

Pick one. Shoot or leave. It's really is a Yes/No, A/B type question.

if I'm home, under Florida law, he's a home invader,

Looks to me like he's not a "home invader" until he ACTUALLY robs you:

"when the offender enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a robbery, and does commit a robbery of the occupants therein."

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Who is Dark Helmet?

From the movie "Space Balls", a spoof of Star Wars. He was "Darth Vader, so to speak.

 

[Wildalaska]

Spaceballs huh....Gee, there is something on par with Also Sprach Zarathustra and the great philosophers of our time

If someone engages in action that puts him or her in the position of primary moral agent or actor, then that person is responsible for what happens.

So you would apply volenti non fit injuria to cancel Thall shalt not kill?

On the other hand does not morality imply the last clear chance?

WildletspassbydarkhelmetifwecanAlaska ™

 

[OuTcAsT]

does not morality imply the last clear chance?

This is probably the most "to the point" comment on this topic thus far !

Bravo Sir ! You have summed up, in a sentence, what it took me a quarter of a page to write.

With your permission, I would like to add this to my signature line ?


Well Said.

 

[Playboypenguin]

On the other hand does not morality imply the last clear chance?

Once again...who's version of morality? To pretend that morality is a concrete set of terms is absurd.

 

[jjyergler]

Sorry,

I'll remember not to post any jokes to lighten things.

As to your points, Alaska:

I'm not advocating killing people for any reason. The OP asks is there a moral duty to retreat. That is a philosophical argument. Most of the people are conflating practical and philosophical. If I am where I'm supposed to be, and I have taken reasonable precautions for my safety, then no, there is no moral duty to retreat. That doesn't mean I won't retreat, I'm just saying that there isn't a moral duty.

I'm not advocating cancelling "thou shalt not kill." Read the above. I'm not ADVOCATING anything. I am answering the OPs question. Is there a moral duty to retreat, since the question as asked is unanswerable, I am positing a particular set of circumstances and using that scenario as a basis to answer the question. If you want to get into a theological debate as to the intent of the word "kill" vs. "murder" in the commandment, PM me. Most scholars I have ever heard interpret the text as saying "thou shalt not murder." In this case, defence is not murder, therefore nothing is cancelled.

Ok, Captain Semantics,

Looks to me like he's not a "home invader" until he ACTUALLY robs you:

You are right, the guy who shoots you isn't a murderer until you die. I guess the interpretation of "robs" is the issue. Are you being robbed upon the initiation of the crime or only the consummation. I'll call Bill Clinton, he is the only person that could split that hair. The cat is both in and out of the box, right?

Also Peetza, did you like read the OP? None of your points are discussed. There is no mention of weapon, no mention of shooting, and no mention of others. Of course, I don't have the secret decoder ring that you get at 1000 posts, so maybee I'm missing something.

Most progressive states have some form or another of Castle Doctrines, which eliminate the Legal Duty to Retreat in ones home, and frequently a place of business.

Many other jurisdictions have extended that Doctrine into Stand your ground laws applicable to areas outside the home.

There fore, the armed citizen, under these laws, has no legal duty to retreat, even if he can do so in complete safety.

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does. Vote and discuss.

Please note: The poll question is: Retreat with COMPLETE SAFETY

1) The BG either doesn't have a weapon or doesn't have a distance weapon. This is implied by the "retreat with safety" caveat.

2)No one else in in danger. This is plainly stated. Retreat with complete safety to you and others.

3)The type of crime is not relevant, except that it is obviously not a personal injury crime because that would exclude being able to retreat with safety to self AND others.

Pick one. Shoot or leave. It's really is a Yes/No, A/B type question.

No, the question isn't shoot or leave, it's confront or retreat. If you are going to go for a little semantic crack in my argument, don't overlook the gaping chasm in yours.

 

[jjyergler]

I have to disagree PBP

To pretend that morality is a concrete set of terms is absurd

Slavery, genocide, theft, rape, etc. Morality can only be a concrete set of terms. If it isn't, it is meaningless. Morality is a standard by which society and individuals are judged.

As to whose morality, America has already answered that question. Jehova, the Judeo-Christian God is our standard. This is implicit in our founding documents. If you don't like that, too bad. I didn't decide, Madison, Washington, Jefferson, and the boys did. Our Constitution is a document that explicitly recognizes the natural law of the created world, given by the Creator.

Most of our problems as a nation stem from how we have distanced ourselves from the founding principles of this nation. In fact, I think I've read about the fall of a nation after they distanced themselves from and ignored their Creator. It was some big, old book, not sure where.

 

[Wildalaska]

Once again...who's version of morality? To pretend that morality is a concrete set of terms is absurd.

Well PP, since we live here, I reckon we are stuck with Western Morality...thou shall not commit homicide?

If you want to get into a theological debate as to the intent of the word "kill" vs. "murder" in the commandment, PM me. Most scholars I have ever heard interpret the text as saying "thou shalt not murder." In this case, defence is not murder, therefore nothing is cancelled.

Ethically, would it not be murder to not take advantage of the last clear chance? isnt it a question of ethical necessity?

WildwhatagreatdebateAlaska TM

 

[Playboypenguin]

Slavery, genocide, theft, rape, etc. Morality can only be a concrete set of terms. If it isn't, it is meaningless. Morality is a standard by which society and individuals are judged.

Abortion, premarital sex, interracial marriage, gay marriage, divorce...

All of these things are described as immoral by certain groups also.

Morals are not concrete. They are based on your own personal opinions, culture, religion, mindset, demeanor, etc.

Many people would consider killing someone, even if they were holding knife to you young childs throat "immoral." Does that make it so? Or are there varying degrees in every circumstance...which by definition would make morality fluid.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Well PP, since we live here, I reckon we are stuck with Western Morality...thou shall not commit homicide?

There is no concrete set of western morality. Western morality is a very convenient thing that is often twisted and perverted. Some consider any type of killing immoral. Others have no problems with the death penalty. Some consider divorce or premarital sex immoral...others do not.

 

[Wildalaska]

Abortion, premarital sex, interracial marriage, gay marriage, divorce...

Sorry PP, the moral issues about where one puts ones unmentionables in and with who under what legal circumstances and the consequences thereof are not quite the same as the moral values involved in pumping some lead into a walking human being...

JC moral codes that would look askance at you and I getting married (if you were cuter) have naught to do with the basic fact of life...are we not men? Not to chase other men, that is the law......(I love HG Wells)

WildandiamtryingtoavoidtheethicalquandryposedbytheunmentionableissuewhichiamwellawareofAlaska TM

Wow...I just thought of the ethics of cannibalism.....naw.......

 

[Playboypenguin]

Sorry PP, the moral issues about where one puts ones unmentionables in and with who under what legal circumstances and the consequences thereof are not quite the same as the moral values involved in pumping some lead into a walking human bein

Not to you...but to others the story might be different. The very posts in this thread are evidence of that fact. I am sure many of the people that have taken a position different than your own see themselves as just as moral as you see yourself.

I know exactly how I feel about this topic but I have made it very clear that I can see the other side of the aisle's point also...and a lot of places in between. For either view point to try and pretend they somehow have the moral certainty is a bit presumptuous IMHO.

 

[stargazer65]

Although I believe that there is a concrete moral standard in all things, it's absurd to imagine that everyone will believe or accept those standards. That's just my belief system, I believe it's right(or else why would I believe it) but others believe it's wrong. I can imagine that every possible thing that most people would accept as being immoral(yes, even the basic things) has been accepted practice somewhere sometime.

Even the people that I associate with, who share my beliefs don't come to the same conclusions. And my concrete standards, which I still believe exist, I don't always know the right way to apply them so my conclusions change. So even a person like me who believes in concrete moral standards can't always have moral certainty. I do believe there is liberty of conscience (in many things, not all) whereby a person makes a misjudgment (that they believe is right) and they are blameless.

I know exactly how I feel about this topic but I have made it very clear that I can see the other side of the aisle's point also...and a lot of places in between. For either view point to try and pretend they somehow have the moral certainty is a bit presumptuous IMHO.

So can the original question be answered? Certainly not to everyones satisfaction, it can only be debated. Maybe I can get to that magical place of moral certainty for myself at least, and then I'll sit around wondering: "Maybe I'm wrong?"

Philsophical musing button off...hope I didn't ramble too much.

 

[jjyergler]

This nation does have an objective moral standard. It is the Christian standard. If you don't accept that, the whole thing goes byebye. You don't have to be a Christian, but citizens of this nation must accept the Christian moral standard. Our rights flow from God, preexisting any government. This is the only nation where that is true. Our rights exist ONLY inasmuch as God exists. Without that differentiation, we are no different than anyone else.

As Madison said, this Constitution is fit only to govern a moral and religious people. It will suit no other. That's a paraphrase, but gets his point across.

Off to work, bye.