Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[easyG]

Right or wrong I am going to start turing on lights. I want the BG to know there is someone in the house and I can't see in the dark. When I finally catch up with the BG I will ask if I can help them. If they have a gun pointed at me I will shoot.

If someone invades your home with the intent to do you harm, with your strategy, it is practically guaranteed that they will be successful.

 

[bababooey32]

Pax

Here's one reason [to give invaders the benefit of the doubt]: Matilda Kaye Crabtree

Pax,

As sad as that story is, Mr Crabtree did not follow Rule #4: Be Sure of Your Target

Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified

From your own website The Cornered Cat - Four Rules:

If you are not overwhelmingly certain that the person you intend to shoot is an immediate, deadly threat

Mr. Crabtree wasn't guilty of not giving an invader the benefit of the doubt, he was guilty of not identifying his target prior to engaging.

The scenario that OP presented us with, we are already certain the invader is a BG and, in practice we should always positively identify the target before we engage.

I still hold to my position that homeowners should not give [positively identified] invaders the benefit of the doubt.

 

[KingEdward]

if staying put for me in BR, then it's mossberg / cell phone / kneeling on bed side opposite door and waiting / listening until the police arrive

if situation exists and unfolds and it doesn't seem likely to have time
to secure loved ones behind me in BR, then it's .357 revolver / sure fire
and position in middle hall between master BR and child's BR

Peetza is wise to stick to one area and protect that area. Mine would be
to not venture beyond the hallway. I may not confront / use force in say den or kitchen or laundry room but police on the way or not, if intruder comes to and down hall way in the wee hours then there will be light and target id and possibly force used depending on the target and their actions.

 

[OldMarksman]

If someone invades your home with the intent to do you harm, with your strategy [(start turning on lights...catch up with the BG...ask if I can help...if they have a gun...shoot)], it is practically guaranteed that they will be successful.

More direct than my response, with better economy of words....

Someone I know actually went outside and around the house the other night to confront someone breaking in. Ended OK when the guys took off, but....

If folks choose to not get some training, they should at least do some research.

 

[pax]

bababooey,

You're right. He should have positively identified his target before he opened fire. That's the safety rule that was broken.

But he had every indication that there was an intruder in his home -- and he chose to go forward into that situation, rather than retreating to safety and calling the cops to deal with it.

Maybe he believed that anyone who broke into his home was "bought and paid for," and had "forfeited their right to live" when they broke in. That would certainly help create the type of mindset where target identification becomes inconsequential, no matter what the safety rules might say.

Do you suppose, if he had it to do over again, Mr. Crabtree would choose to retreat to a safer location and call the cops, rather than placing himself in a situation where he had to shoot in order to stay ahead of the (unidentified) "attacker's" reaction curve?

pax

 

[Playboypenguin]

But he had every indication that there was an intruder in his home -- and he chose to go forward into that situation, rather than retreating to safety and calling the cops to deal with it.

This is one of a few mindsets with which I have a problem.

First, the idea that cops are there to protect you. They are not. They are there to enforce the law. Which more often than not just means bringing in the bad guy after he has committed the crime.

My sister once called the police because her ex-boyfriend was trying to kick her door in one night. She then called me. I was there over 15 minutes before the police arrived. If he had not decided to flee when he heard I was coming imagine what he could have done to her in that amount of time.

Plus, try calling to police every tie you hear a sound in your home without first seeing what it is...see how long that works.

Second, the idea that just because we are capable of deadly force it is our only option. One can confront a trespasser without using excessive force. I can kill a man with my bare hands if needed. Does that mean I have to run away every time there is even the slightest threat of violence? Do I have to live my life being a perpetual victim simply because I am capable of defending myself? Do I need to accept the idea that I have to take whatever someone else does to me simply because am capable of meeting their attack with greater force?

This idea that a am the "immoral" person if I meet a threat with reasonable force is laughable. I would not meet a threat with more force than necessary so I should not be precluded from defending myself. The whole idea that the homeowner is "escalating" the situation by responding appropriately is absurd.

Finally, I have issue with all the people in here that have somehow been brainwashed into thinking that even if it is a good shoot you are going to go to jail or face dire legal issues. That is just NOT the case. There are many, many good shoots every year and the vast majority of them face no repercussions. It is only when the shooter uses poor judgment or unreasonable force that such issues come up. People will focus on the one case of a bad shoot and try to portray that as the norm when it could not be further from the truth.

Maybe he believed that anyone who broke into his home was "bought and paid for," and had "forfeited their right to live" when they broke in. That would certainly help create the type of mindset where target identification becomes inconsequential, no matter what the safety rules might say.

Isn't it possible that most people in this situation do not feel that anyone has forfeited their "right to life" for breaking into their home, but that they do forfeit that same right once they cross the line and become an actual threat to the homeowners well being? The homeowner did not initiate or invite the situation. They are simply responding to it. The real issue is not the response to an actual threat, IMHO, but the process one uses to evaluate the level of the threat. The problem occurs when people cannot differentiate between a level of threat that requires harsh words, a kick in the rump, or a gunshot.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Gosh... go to the lake for a few days, come back, and this thread is still open, still civil, and... still interesting. Not half bad.

I choose a safe room... my bedroom. The kids rooms are near, the BG would be reasonably far. Get the kids and the wife in the bedroom, lock the door, put a dresser in front if possible, have the PD on the phone. Anybody who disregards the continuous warnings about pending police presence and the fact that I am armed and will shoot is a danger will have to be dealt with if they try to breech that room.

And this seems to me to be the very exemplar of what one might call a tactical retreat... To back off, not to confront an intruder needlessly, but to be in as strong a position as possible. If the intruder disregards those warnings, and does breach (not breech, BTW -- that has to do with pants ) that room, I'd call that absolute-last-resort-time, no question.

Maybe he believed that anyone who broke into his home was "bought and paid for," and had "forfeited their right to live" when they broke in. That would certainly help create the type of mindset where target identification becomes inconsequential, no matter what the safety rules might say.

And this illustrates the problem with bringing the question of whether or not someone lives in a castle-doctrine state into this discussion. To rely for one's moral guidance on being in a place where it's legal not to retreat under certain circumstances is just a fancified way of saying "...if I can get away with it," and completely begs the moral question, IMO.

 

[OldMarksman]

Do you suppose, if he had it to do over again, Mr. Crabtree would choose to retreat to a safer location and call the cops, rather than placing himself in a situation where he had to shoot in order to stay ahead of the (unidentified) "attacker's" reaction curve?

Very important point that pertains to the risk involved in "clearing" a house.

The homeowner must first find and see the "threat" and then decide whether the person is in fact a threat. A criminal intruder does not have that requirement.

That, and the possibility that he might be facing multiple intruders firing from more than one direction, adds to the homeowner's considerable tactical disadvantage.

Far wiser to stay put and let the threat come to you.

 

[pax]

First, the idea that cops are there to protect you. They are not. They are there to enforce the law. Which more often than not just means bringing in the bad guy after he has committed the crime.

Yes, PBP, I know. As do we all!

That's why you call the cops when there is an intruder in your home: because their job is to apprehend the bad guy and take him to jail. Your job, as a regular citizen, is simply to stay safe until they do so.

Apprehending the intruder is not your job. You might, incidentally, apprehend the intruder while defending yourself, but apprehending the intruder is not your job.

Protecting you from harm is not the cops' job. They might, incidentally, protect you from harm when they arrive to apprehend the intruder, but protecting you is not their job.

When someone tries to take over the cops' job, all too often they neglect their own job of staying safe. "I gotta hunt this guy down, he's in my hooooooome!!!" Emotionally satisfying, tactically foolish. (And -- since I just veered over to tactics as opposed to moral choices, a topic for a different thread, perhaps.)

pax

 

[Playboypenguin]

Apprehending the intruder is not your job. You might, incidentally, apprehend the intruder while defending yourself, but apprehending the intruder is not your job.

I think we need to distinguish between "job" and "right"...maybe even "duty."

People on here seem very devoted to the "right" to bear arms...why ignore the "right" to defend yourself and the sanctity of your home? And yes, I used the word sanctity. Peace of mind is a very important part of a healthy emotional state. Without it a person cannot be a well adjusted person. How much peace of mind can someone ever have if they have no place to feel secure? How safe can they feel if they are always running?

One of the creeds this country is founded on is the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How liberated is someone when they must flee their own home or feel afraid to protect themselves? How happy can someone be knowing they cannot even defend their own home with being looked down upon by others?

 

[NGIB]

Home invasions are become rather routine in Atlanta in the past year. The BGs are becoming bolder as they'll now attack at high noon, dinner time or really anytime.

I'm not a mall ninja or a violent person - but if my home is invaded I will not hesitate to use my firearm to end the situation. Anybody, and I mean anybody that forces their way into my home is threatening me and I will end this threat as quickly as possible...

 

[OldMarksman]

This [retreating to safety and calling the cops to deal with it] is one of a few mindsets with which I have a problem.

Playboy, are you proposing venturing out and not staying safe, or not calling the police, or both?

Plus, try calling to police every tie you hear a sound in your home without first seeing what it is...see how long that works.

Did you read Fiddletown's advice?

You investigate as best you can from a place of safety inside the house with your family. You wait and quietly listen. Does the sound repeat? Can you begin to identify it? Can you positively identify it as something innocuous? If the sound is clearly from outside, you may look out nearby windows.

If you can't identify the sound and believe there is a danger, you assure that your family and any known visitors are all together and with you in a place of safety. You arm yourself. You call the police. You maintain telephone contact with the police. And you wait.

That's consistent with all of the informed professional advice I've seen.

No, you don't call every time you hear a noise. But if noise that is indicative of someone in the house does turn out to represent the presence of a person in your home, "seeing what it is" may prove to be your last earthly act, or, as it turned out for Mr. Crabtree, it may result in a terrible tragedy.

One can confront a trespasser without using excessive force.

Yep. In many places, however, excessive force means any force at all, if you're talking bout trespass. Depending on the circumstances and the jurisdiction, the proper thing to do may be to ask him to leave.

But I wouldn't characterize someone who has unlawfully entered my domicile at night as a trespasser.

I can kill a man with my bare hands if needed.

Your point?

Does that mean I have to run away every time there is even the slightest threat of violence?

No. There are two points here.

In the case of Mr. Crabtree, the point pax was making is to not take actions that create the risk of getting shot or the risk of shooting the wrong person to avoid getting shot first. Defending oneself and one's family from safety, rather than doing something dangerous,does not constitute "running away".

Secondly, in many cases and in many places, you must "run away" if you can safely do so before using deadly force to defend yourself. That includes killing with your bare hands. The requirement goes back many centuries and predates the wide use of gunpowder. It's not true everywhere, and in most states, it is fortunately not true in your home.
__________________

 

[pax]

PBP ~

Okay, then let me restate.

That's why you call the cops when there is an intruder in your home: because their duty is to apprehend the bad guy and take him to jail. Your duty, as a regular citizen, is simply to stay safe until they do so.

Apprehending the intruder is not your duty. You might, incidentally, apprehend the intruder while defending yourself, but apprehending the intruder is not your duty.

Protecting you from harm is not the cops' duty. They might, incidentally, protect you from harm when they arrive to apprehend the intruder, but protecting you is not their duty.

When someone tries to take over the cops' duty, all too often they neglect their own duty of staying safe. "I gotta hunt this guy down, he's in my hooooooome!!!" Emotionally satisfying, tactically foolish. (And -- since I just veered over to tactics as opposed to moral choices, a topic for a different thread, perhaps.)

Back on topic: I've always used "right" as a question of what one can morally do in a given situation. Which would definitely make its use begging the question in this conversation.

pax

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Plus, try calling to police every tie you hear a sound in your home without first seeing what it is...see how long that works.

I've heard that idea before. Oddly, I'm 34 years old and I WILL call the cops every time I hear an unidentifiable sound in my home. So far, in 34 years, that has been zero times. Anybody who has lived in any given home for any length of time knows the noises that the home and it's inhabitants make. I don't think too many people call the cops every time the floor boards adjust to changing humidity.

 

[OldMarksman]

Oddly, I'm 34 years old and I WILL call the cops every time I hear an unidentifiable sound in my home. So far, in 34 years, that has been zero times. Anybody who has lived in any given home for any length of time knows the noises that the home and it's inhabitants make. I don't think too many people call the cops every time the floor boards adjust to changing humidity.

Want some levity?

I'm almost 65. When I was about 15, my grandmother heard a noise downstairs and got me out of bed. Someone (no one else else in the family in town) was opening and closing desk drawers.

Showing my immaturity and lack of training, I armed myself and went downstairs.......

....to find the cat rooting around in the desk for a catnip mouse.

Had I called the police, they would have gotten a chuckle. Had I fired, I wouldn't have heard it. I was armed with a Model 1903 Springfield rifle.

Several obvious things to do differently....

 

[FireForged]

I will never use deadly force simply because I can or because it was legal. I will use deadly force only because I feel that I had no other choice and a innocent-life is likely to be forfit, if I dont. Only in that situation am I willing to risk what it is likely to cost me to defend myself against such an action. Just becuase my action were justified does not mean that it wont cost time, money and heartache to prove it.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Your duty, as a regular citizen, is simply to stay safe until they do so.

No, I reject that whole heartedly. It is not my "duty" to simply stay safe. If every citizen felt that way then we would not be a free state. If no one ever took up arms unless they themselves were in immediate danger then the world would be very sad place. If every person hid when trouble reared it's head society would be pretty depressing.

If I stood back and watched a thief steal money from a sleeping old homeless woman and did nothing but give his description to the police an hour or so later when they arrived I am no real help at all...no matter how I try to rationalize it.

I do find it odd that I, of all people, find myself being to the right of center in this particular discussion but so be it.

 

[NGIB]

While I will do my best to retreat from situations outside my home, the same rules do not apply inside my home. I want one single place on this worsening, dangerous planet that I control.

I will not retreat in my home and I will proactively protect my home. I've worked for 37 years to acquire the things I have and I will not, repeat, will not hide in a bedroom while I'm being robbed.

You invade my home - the consequences are yours to accept.

 

[OldMarksman]

It is not my "duty" to simply stay safe. If every citizen felt that way then we would not be a free state. If no one ever took up arms unless they themselves were in immediate danger then the world would be very sad place.

Sounds like you are confusing citizens who comply with the very longstanding legal requirement to avoid using deadly force except when there exists imminent danger (to themselves and family or in some limited circumstances, to third persons) with people who refuse military service.

If every person hid when trouble reared it's head society would be pretty depressing.

...and confusing defending onself, when it becomes necessary, from an advantageous defensive position, with "hiding."

 

[Playboypenguin]

Sounds like you are confusing citizens who comply with the very longstanding legal requirement to avoid using deadly force except when there exists imminent danger (to themselves and family or in some limited circumstances, to third persons) with people who refuse military service.

It sounds like you are confusing how and when someone determines how much danger they are in and whether they chose to defend the sanctity of their own home with your own personal opinions.

It also sounds like you are failing to understand that running away is not the only alternative to using deadly force.

Stop with the "you better run away or you are going to be in trouble" spiel. It just isn't true and does nothing but perpetuate the idea that anyone that defends themselves is asking for bad things to happen and somehow responsible for the outcome of another persons choice to break the law and endanger innocents. That just condones the idea that anyone who owns a gun is looking for a confrontation by the very fact that they have prepared themselves for one.