Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[Donn_N]

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.

Yet another person willing to kill or die for 'stuff'.

Three words: Replacement value insurance.

 

[Donn_N]

Stop with the "you better run away or you are going to be in trouble" crap. It just isn't true and does nothing but perpetuate the idea that anyone that defends themselves is "asking for trouble."

Nope. Defending oneself is not asking for trouble. Insisting on creating a situation where you will or might have to defend yourself is asking for trouble.

 

[MLeake]

not to induce veer, but...

... my buddy had a home burglary last month. Found out State Farm in his area has a $2000 cap on firearms, regardless of actual worth. His NIB Python alone was worth almost that much.

So, "Replacement Value Insurance" may not give true replacement value.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Yet another person willing to kill or die for 'stuff'.

Did you really stop and read what you just wrote? Do you not see that you are doing the same thing the far left does to gun owners? Do you not realize your are using inciting verbiage to illicit an emotional response instead of a logical one? You are labeling someone as bloodthirsty and materialistic simply because they will not flee their own home when attacked. At no time did he say he would "kill over stuff." He said he will not hide while being robbed. You are the one that made the leap to deadly force being the only option...and implying that if deadly force did become necessary due to the actions of the assailant that the victim is somehow responsible.

If I am in my car and someone comes up and says "give me your car or I will take it from you!" and I decided to drive away instead of giving him the car am I then responsible if he pulls out a gun and starts shooting at my car and hits a bystander? And if he did pull out a gun and start shooting would I be justified in stopping my retreat and returning fire to stop him from harming anyone or am I "escalating" the situation?

If I see a teen beating up an old woman should I walk away and call police or should I attempt to stop him. If I do attempt to stop him and I responsible for his actions if he then pulls a knife and attacks me? Did I cause that to happen?

 

[bababooey32]

PAX

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.

You are correct. And I do not subscribe to that mindset. In my post #28 I stated:

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?

My problem comes when escape may not be possible, and some are suggesting having a discussion with the invader to ascertain their "intent". I feel their intent has been determined by their invasion and, once I have retreated as far as possible and confirmed it is a bg, may fire upon them to protect myself. I don't really care if they appear armed or not, or if they are drunk/high/sleepy/sad.

1) Your in my house
2) you are definitely a BG
3) I cannot retreat further

Bang!

 

[bababooey32]

Old Marksman

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

:barf:
Huh? Is this a typo?


Merriam Websters Dictionary - Trespass

1tres·pass
Pronunciation: \ˈtres-pəs, -ˌpas\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English trespas, from Anglo-French, passage, overstepping, misdeed, from trespasser
Date: 13th century
1 a: a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression ; especially : sin b: an unwarranted infringement
2 a: an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another ; especially : a wrongful entry on real property b: the legal action for injuries resulting from trespass

If "someone who has unlawfully entered my domicile at night" is not a trespasser, what the he!! is a trespasser? Technically, they may actually be a burglar in this instance!

 

[NGIB]

Quote:
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.

Yet another person willing to kill or die for 'stuff'.

Three words: Replacement value insurance.

Nope, a line has to be drawn somewhere and my home is where that line is. If our justice system actually kept BGs off the street instead of kicking down my front door - maybe I'd feel differently.

You won't change my mind and I won't change yours so we'll just agree to disagree...

 

[Donn_N]

He said he will not hide while being robbed. You are the one that made the leap to deadly force being the only option...and implying that if deadly force did become necessary due to the actions of the assailant that the victim is somehow responsible.

The victim is not totally responsible, but shares responsibility for escalating a simple burglary into a confrontation that may then require the use of deadly force either by the homeowner, the burglar, or both. To enter into an armed confrontation when it can be avoided cannot be logically explained.

Every respected security expert in the country recommends avoiding a confrontation with someone who breaks into your home. Why would anyone ignore that advice?

 

[Wildalaska]

1) Your in my house
2) you are definitely a BG
3) I cannot retreat further

Many folks have alluded to the fact that the self defense shooting is the "fault" of the criminal actor and that his death or serious physical injury was caused by his/her actions. I would posit that that position is entirely correct if, and only if, the third step alluded above in included in the continuum of force.

To take a life other than with the certainty that you had no other choice is unethical/immoral IMHO.


WildtheyarecryinginmadridAlaska ™

 

[Playboypenguin]

The victim is not totally responsible, but shares responsibility for escalating a simple burglary into a confrontation that may then require the use of deadly force either by the homeowner, the burglar, or both.

Why? That just does not make sense. The victim did not initiate the conflict and they are in their own home...not a public place where they share the responsibility of public harmony.

Every respected security expert in the country recommends avoiding a confrontation with someone who breaks into your home. Why would anyone ignore that advice?

Yeah, for two reasons. Liability issues and the fact that they rely on you needing their aid in protecting yourself and society continuing to play the role of victims to make a profit.

 

[Playboypenguin]

To take a life other than with the certainty that you had no other choice is unethical/immoral IMHO

And if you find yourself in a situation where you need to certainly and immediately defend yourself while engaging in less than deadly force to protect yourself you are not the one to blame if you do not escalate the situation...and responding with appropriate force is not escalating a situation. Just because deadly force is not immediately appropriate does not preclude lesser levels of force being implemented.

 

[OldMarksman]

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.

Not at all. If there's someone unlawfully in the house at night I will assume that imminent danger exists, and I will defend against it.

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

Not clear what you mean. I won't "run away" in the house, but I will defend from an advantageous position if I can.

Outdoors, if there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, deadly force would be in justified, unless safe retreat (in my jurisdiction) is possible.

Other alternatives? Well, I do carry a Kimber Pepperblaster as a less-than-lethal alternative, but I don't think I'll use it if imminent danger of death actually exists. And I sure as heck don't intend to wrestle with an armed assailant. But perhaps I miss your point.

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.

Where I live, if outdoors, I must retreat before using deadly force if I can do so safely, or I will indeed be in trouble, one way or the other. I may either be killed or injured because I did neither, or charged and perhaps convicted because I used deadly force without availing myself of a safe avenue of retreat.

That's the law. The requirement stems from laws established around 1200 A. D. and later adopted by most of our states.

In practice, it has changed due to the advent of firearms. If the perp has a gun, it's highly probable that I cannot safely retreat.

In some places, retreat is no longer required.

 

[Donn_N]

If I am in my car and someone comes up and says "give me your car or I will take it from you!" and I decided to drive away instead of giving him the car am I then responsible if he pulls out a gun and starts shooting at my car and hits a bystander? And if he did pull out a gun and start shooting would I be justified in stopping my retreat and returning fire to stop him from harming anyone or am I "escalating" the situation?

No, you are not responsible if he hits a bystander. No, you would not be justified in stopping your retreat and returning fire as your life is no longer in danger. While it is possible that the hijacker will make another attempt at some point, it is not your duty to prevent him from a future act.

If I see a teen beating up an old woman should I walk away and call police or should I attempt to stop him. If I do attempt to stop him and I responsible for his actions if he then pulls a knife and attacks me? Did I cause that to happen?

Did you cause it to happen? Of course. Had you not interfered, the knife would not have been drawn and you would not have had to shoot. Does that mean you shouldn't have helped the old lady? Of course not, but to say that the knife being drawn was not a direct result of your decision to help would not be true.

These are amusing scenarios to discuss but neither case is really the same as a voluntary armed confrontation with a burglar in your home.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Did you cause it to happen? Of course.

I completely disagree with you there. I did not "cause" the attacker to pull a knife. I "caused" him to stop attacking a defenseless person. By your line of thinking would have "casued" myself to get mugged by going downtown...or "caused" someone to steal my car by owning one in the first place. A woman does not cause a man to rape her by flirting or wearing provocative clothing.

 

[bababooey32]

WildAlaska

I would posit that that position is entirely correct if, and only if, the third step alluded above [I cannot retreat any further] is included in the continuum of force.

I think it is important to note that "not being able to retreat any further" may very well be precisely where you stand when the BG kicks in the door. There may be no TIME to retreat, no PLACE to retreat or no way to retreat SAFELY (scatterd children around the house). You may be jsutified in acting without taking a step, yet have progressed through those three steps.

GO USA!

 

[Donn_N]

Why? That just does not make sense. The victim did not initiate the conflict and they are in their own home...not a public place where they share the responsibility of public harmony.

Not true. The victim did not initiate the break in, but most certainly did initiate the conflict if he confronts the intruder. Whether you agree that the confrontation is a good idea or not, the victim did initiate it since he could have done what security experts recommend - take up a protected position and call the cops. Now if the BG then breaches the victim's position, he has initiated the confrontation and that's when the use of deadly force may become necessary.

Yeah, for two reasons. Liability issues and the fact that they rely on you needing their aid in protecting yourself and society continuing to play the role of victims to make a profit.

That just doesn't even make sense.

 

[Donn_N]

I did not "cause" the attacker to pull a knife. I "caused" him to stop attacking a defenseless person.

No, you attacked him. The attack made him stop his attack on the woman, but your action was to attack him. The law may allow your attack because it was in the defense of another, but it was still an attack.

That attack caused him to pull the knife to defend himself.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Not true. The victim did not initiate the break in, but most certainly did initiate the conflict if he confronts the intruder.

No, I most certainly did not initiate the conflict. The intruder initiated conflict by breaking in...I simply responded to the situation.

That just doesn't even make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Security specialists rely on society having bad guys and needing protecting to make a living. They do not make money when you handle situations yourself.

No, you attacked him.

NO...that is not true at all. Defending one person does not entail attacking someone else. To attack someone involves setting upon them as an aggressor.

at⋅tack  [uh-tak] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.

 

[OldMarksman]

To take a life other than with the certainty that you had no other choice is unethical/immoral IMHO.

WA, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd set the chinning bar at reasonable belief that the act is necessary.

That's what the charging authority and a trial jury would evaluate.

The decision must be made quickly based on what the actor knows at the time. Certainty would be not only unreasonable but unattainable.

Now, going back to your original post, the question becomes one of "necessary for what?".

If it's to protect property at night, it's legal in one state, but I wouldn't do it. If it's to effect a citizen's arrest for certain dire crimes under certain circumstances, it's legal in one (different) state, but I probably wouldn't do it.

But to protect against death or serious bodily harm? No second thoughts about it.

 

[OldMarksman]

I think it is important to note that "not being able to retreat any further" may very well be precisely where you stand when the BG kicks in the door. There may be no TIME to retreat, no PLACE to retreat or no way to retreat SAFELY (scatterd children around the house). You may be jsutified in acting without taking a step, yet have progressed through those three steps.

Yes indeed!