Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[Shawn Thompson]

Just as no man (outside law enforcement) has any duty to defend others from a threat; neither does any man have a duty to retreat from a threat. Each man has his own limit of that to which he will or will not be subjugated. It is simply a matter of honor, and each man must decide for himself that which is honorable.

 

[OldMarksman]

Just as no man (outside law enforcement) has any duty to defend others from a threat; neither does any man have a duty to retreat from a threat. Each man has his own limit of that to which he will or will not be subjugated. It is simply a matter of honor, and each man must decide for himself that which is honorable.

Of course, in many states, the use of deadly force for self defense is not lawful if safe retreat is possible, except in the home (and sometimes, within an automobile or place of business). It's been that way for centuries, and for good reason.

So, let each man choose whether to retreat, but that does not mean he should use deadly force if retreat is possible.

Murder would not be honorable.

 

[Sparks2112]

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.

Very true.

 

[stargazer65]

Murder would not be honorable.

Although the Huaorani thought it was...

Maybe the OP should specify a specific set of beliefs.

But I suppose that would spoil WildAlaska's fun watching people squirm.

 

[Shawn Thompson]

Nor did I imply it would be!

But each man must decide for himself what is or is not worth shedding blood over.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Whether morals flow from God or from some cultural and evolutionary interaction isn't really relevant to this thread. Nor is stating that we must accept some religious viewpoint - so let's not drift there.

Let's stay on the OP question.

Moral vs. honorable is another interesting debate. Honor is sometimes a reflexive sense of personal challenge. Retreating is a challenge to one's self image. Is it honorable to be taken prisoner? The Japanese didn't think so.

So honor is not perfectly correlated with moral.

 

[TailGator]

Brief Digression:

Most modern Burglary statutes basically define burglary as an entry into a building with intent to commit a crime therein. The entry itself does not constitute the crime

Not to get stuck on a digression, WA, but are you saying that it is a proper interpretation of the law that if someone crowbars my door and sits down to watch TV, he/she/it has not committed a crime? Do they have to actually steal - leave the property with something they don't own - or commit a crime of force against a member of my family before I can object?

You know way more law than me, but somehow I think we are leaving something out here, my friend.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is no mention of weapon, no mention of shooting, and no mention of others.

The common sense definition, not to mention the legal one, of "complete safety" includes self and others.

"Complete safety" sort of, a little bit, implies that the BG can not hurt you. Can not hurt you implies no weapons, or at least no weapons that can reach you while you retreat.

We must apply a little common sense to the scenario. If we do not then the question is meaningless.

OP: "Would you retreat if you could do so safely?"

Response: "Well, not if the guy has a gun."

Everyone else: "The OP said safely."

Response: "Well, what if he has a rocket launcher?"

Everyone else "Well now, that wouldn't be safe would it."

Response: "Well, what if my daughters near him."

Everyone else "Well, that wouldn't be a safe retreat then would it. The OP said "safely"."

Response: "Well, I didn't see any mention of him not being armed or having my daughter near him."


A little ridiculous don't you think? Complete safety means COMPLETE SAFETY. Anyone involved in SD discussion or legal matters knows that complete safety ALWAYS includes all innocent people and implies that the BG does not have the means to cause damage to the innocents during said retreat.

Now, can you just answer the question? Is there or is there not a moral duty to retreat when possible? It is a YES/NO question.

...are you saying that it is a proper interpretation of the law that if someone crowbars my door and sits down to watch TV, he/she/it has not committed a crime?

No, he's saying that it's not "burglary". It may be breaking and entering, criminal mischief, trespassing, destruction of property or some other such thing but it's not "burglary" unless you "burgle" something.

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?

There's this little thing called "the law". The law most certainly does get hung up on semantics or "interpretation". Why else would they actually include the clause "and actually does commit robbery" if the simple act of entering makes them a robber? Obviously the clause is included because entering is not robbery and it is not home invasion unless a robbery is committed.

 

[stargazer65]

Not to get stuck on a digression, but are you saying that it is a proper interpretation of the law that if someone crowbars my door and sits down to watch TV, he/she/it has not committed a crime? Do they have to actually steal - leave the property with something they don't own - or commit a crime of force against a member of my family before I can object?

It would be a crime to break and enter and sit down to watch TV. Of course I can't see too many people thinking that it would be moral to blow the TV watching guy away.

 

[Shawn Thompson]

In our state making illegal entry DOES constitute a crime. And under the states 'make my day law' you are allowed to asume two things: first, they are capable of causing you harm and second, they intend on causing you harm. So it appears that states greatly vary in their approach to allowing someone to defend themselves. Therefore, it would also seem that what is legal vs. what is honorable will also change dramatically based on geographic location. Perhaps it's the burden of the threat of eminant danger that affects one's choice.

 

[KingEdward]

Tennessee is now similar to Texas...




Castle Doctrine Reform Bill Signed into Law in the Volunteer State!

Friday, May 22, 2009

On Wednesday, May 13 Governor Phil Bredesen (D) signed House Bill 70 into law.

HB 70 will remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection of personal property. It will also expand your right to self-defense to include a place of business.

 

[TailGator]

It would be a crime to break and enter and sit down to watch TV. Of course I can't see too many people thinking that it would be moral to blow the TV watching guy away.

And you did not read me advocating that, nor did I accuse anyone else of advocating it.

I should have been clearer, perhaps, in addressing my question to WildAlaska. The quote I used was directly from his post and he did not qualify it in any way. Not a lawyer, but my understanding has always been the same that you stated. I will be stunned to learn that we have no right to exclude other people from our premises or that they are not breaking any laws by entering, whether by breaking or by walking through an unlocked door, unless they commit another crime while on those premises, but that seems to be WA's assertion.

 

[Playboypenguin]

It would be a crime to break and enter and sit down to watch TV. Of course I can't see too many people thinking that it would be moral to blow the TV watching guy away.

That would depend upon what they were watching. If it was the View or a reality show I am afraid I would have to shoot them...but that would probably be considered more of a mercy killing.

 

[stargazer65]

Most modern Burglary statutes basically define burglary as an entry into a building with intent to commit a crime therein. The entry itself does not constitute the crime:

I think this is the post to which you refer TailGator. I believe he is saying that entry does not constitute the crime of burglary. He is not saying that the entry does not constitute a crime.

If it was the View or a reality show

don't forget Barney and Teletubbies. ...that's probably old school stuff now.

 

[OldMarksman]

Tennessee is now similar to Texas...

Castle Doctrine Reform Bill Signed into Law in the Volunteer State!

Friday, May 22, 2009

On Wednesday, May 13 Governor Phil Bredesen (D) signed House Bill 70 into law.

HB 70 will remove the prohibition against using deadly force in protection of personal property.

Maybe, but probably not.

Here's something from a Tennessee gun forum on the subject:

....from what I understand, you can protect property with deadly force as long as your circumstances also put your life in danger. So, pretty much, not much difference [from the previous law] from what I can tell.

That's pretty much it.

The law was sort of in conflict before. When they updated the self-defense laws a few years ago, the use of deadly force was allowed in some situations in which you may also be defending property. However the law specifically forbade the use of deadly force to protect property and did not give any exceptions.

So in a carjacking situation an over zealous DA could have tried to charge you under using deadly force to protect property even though you were also defending yourself.

The bill pretty much just removes that loophole.

Now, that may be essentially the same as the Texas law on use of deadly force as it applies to defense of person, in terms of the treatment of robbery. But there doesn't appear to be anything like Code Section 9.42, which addresses property.

The other posts in this string are consistent with that...

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/21821-hb70-castle-doctrine-bill.html#post285154

It will also expand your right to self-defense to include a place of business.

So it is stated.

 

[KingEdward]

thanks.

I'm not one who will shoot over the dvd player being taken from the den.

But I will do everything I can to encourage the intruder to exit.

 

[Wildalaska]

Ok, yo yo yo dudes and dudettes....

I'm not as stupid as I sound or look (unless I'm in my Freddie Mercury garb, and then I look abfab) and I worded the OP specifically the way I did for a reason....

Which some of you get, and some of you dont...

It isnt about the law, the law is the law and whilst it give us an interesting and informative digression, one should never confuse the law with morality qua morality or ethics qua ethics....

And it isnt about what moral code we should abide by (or ethical code, but that seems to be lost in the noise over whose and what moral code should apply)........

Its basic simple philosophical questions that some folks like Pax and Outcast and the Pizzamurderer and others have recognized, viz:

How far will you go to avoid killing in a situation where the law allows you to kill? Are you going to pull that trigger as a last resort? The last, final and ultimate resort? You have absolutely and positively no other choice?

Now you can argue all day over scenarios, morals, ethics and the like, but the bottom line is....will you kill someone when you are the one with the last clear chance of avoiding it?

Capital punishment is legal...how many of you WANT to pull the switch? How many of you WOULD pull the switch?

And as for me, my values (which are not entirely moral or ethical, but practical and psychological) would mandate that I better be Pax's Proverbial Kat before I touch one off....

Try it at home...that Kat wont bite ya till its in the corner with no other way to escape.


WildmeowAlaska ™

 

[OldMarksman]

Nor did I imply it [(murder)] would be [(honorable)]!

Sorry, I thought you did. You said "neither does any man have a duty to retreat from a threat" and "It is simply a matter of honor, and each man must decide for himself that which is honorable".

I inferred from that that one would use deadly force if he elected to not retreat.

But in many places, using deadly force if safe retreat is possible is murder.

But each man must decide for himself what is or is not worth shedding blood over.

Now, does he shed someone else's blood when that might be murder, and if so, is that honorable, or is it not? Or is it his own blood that is shed?

There is an old saying: "discretion is the better part of valor" (actually, it was "The better part of valour is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life" as popularized by Shakespeare).

Valor means bravery rather than honor, but I think the substitution works.

 

[KingEdward]

shooting in self defense from imminent threat is not killing.

I would not shoot or "kill" over property.

I would shoot to defend myself or my family if a person who is in the home and (after being confronted/told to exit) continues to remain AND moves towards me (or family) in a threatening manner.

Yes, I would pull the trigger then.

 

[OldMarksman]

And as for me, my values (which are not entirely moral or ethical, but practical and psychological) would mandate that I better be Pax's Proverbial Kat before I touch one off....

As would mine.