Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[bababooey32]

Old Marksman

but I'd set the chinning bar at reasonable belief that the act is necessary

I agree with you. That is a very good point.

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

Both are legal in my state, I do believe. The defense of proporty is the one I strugle with the most. On the one hand, it is just "stuff", but on the other hand it is MY stuff!! And if I don't have a right to keep my stuff, then we are no longer a civilized society. I hope I can keep you from taking my stuff without resorting to deadly force but, gosh darnit, that's MY STUFF!!! But then again, it is just "stuff".....So I still struggle....

 

[Al Norris]

I've been reafing this thread (and a couple of others, here in T&T) since shortly after they started.

I've reached a point where I feel I can answer with my own views. So....

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.

The above is the "setup" to the actual question, below.

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

Morals are our motivations (and to a large extent, our subsequent actions) based upon our (usually personal) ideas of right and wrong. Ethics are the philosophical underpinnings of moral values and rules, as they relate to a particular social group.

By conflating morals and ethics, the question, as it was presented, is essentially unanswerable. That is the simple and short answer to the OP's question.

However, I feel a slightly expanded answer is necessary to explain why the question cannot be answered.

The moral responsibilities of an individual within a specific situation, do not always fall neatly into place with respect to any particular societies ethos, and the participants responsibilities to their social ethics.

Further, by choosing the word "duty" over "responsibility," to contain the actions of the individual, Ken has conflated the meanings of duty and responsibility, as they relate to the moral/ethical imperative of the question.

A duty is something one is obliged to perform for moral or legal reasons. A responsibility is something that binds one to an obligation and encompasses certain courses of action that are demanded by a force. In this case, morality. The legality of an actors actions have no bearing upon the actors moral responsibilities, whereas, such legalities do enforce (contain or restrain) the actors actions in the case of duties.

The question (and the poll) is therefore in tension with itself and is unanswerable.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Just from a rational perspective is is pretty unwise to shoot someone when you have a choice. The cost ALONE should be a MASSIVE deterrent, even if the moral question is not.

 

[bababooey32]

Al

So would you shoot or not?

Though I suppose boring the intruder to near-death with a treatise on morals vs. ethics and the societal impacts of shirking one's responsibilities might be a nice non-lethal way of "ending the threat" (though it might be considered cruel and unusual!).

But seriously, we can parse the question all day and all night. I think it is evident what WA is asking.

 

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

You're kidding, right?

If someone attacks me, I may have a legal duty to retreat in some states - thank God, not in Texas - but I have no moral duty to do anything except defend myself and/or my property.

If my attacker loses life or limb in the process, the choice to start the trouble was his, not mine.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The question (and the poll) is therefore in tension with itself and is unanswerable.

Yet a large number of us have no trouble understanding the intent and answering the question.
I think you may be suffering from a serious case of "Analysis Paralysis".

 

[Playboypenguin]

Yet a large number of us have no trouble understanding the intent and answering the question.
I think you may be suffering from a serious case of "Analysis Paralysis".

Many have answered, but none have "definitively" answered the question. A few have pretended that they have...but they have not.

 

[Playboypenguin]

If someone attacks me, I may have a legal duty to retreat in some states - thank God, not in Texas - but I have no moral duty to do anything except defend myself.

That actually raises the question of whether the law is actually the more restrictive of the two principles. Would morality be less limiting than legality when confronting an attacker?

 

[Microgunner]

Here in Florida we have it so simply. Use of deadly force is permitted to prevent grievous bodily harm to anyone and you are not required to retreat in any circumstance. Beyond that the moral call is all you. Personally, I decided many years ago not to hesitate in a potentially deadly confrontation. Hesitation is the worst possible avenue of response.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Let me clarify the question a bit, see if I can take out the ambiguity some:

Your name is Ted Tactician. You live in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine. Your home is built to withstand zombie attacks, except that, for some reason, you never got the front door very well fortified.

On this particular day, you are standing at the entrance to your bedroom, which you have designated the Safe Room in your house. Your wife is in the bedroom folding laundry. Your kids are in the room playing. Your "Safe Room" is essentially a bank vault that you sleep in. It has it's own filtered air supply, the door is literally a vault door and you've got food and communications equipment in there too. There is one window. It can be shielded from the inside by 2" thick steel shutters. As you are standing there talking to your wife, armed of course, you here two quick kicks on the front door. The door blasts open on the second kick. In jumps an intruder. He says "BOO! I'm here to rob you." and starts grabbing stuff. He's 50 feet away, because you have a big house. You KNOW without a doubt in your mind that you have time to get in your "safe room" and call the police.
Instead you draw your (insert favorite TEOTWAWKI weapon) and put two in his chest. He falls over dead.

Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

 

[NGIB]

My final analysis on this:

While I hope I'm never in this position, I've accepted what my reaction will be. Trying to gauge the threat, trying to determine if the BG is armed, talking to the BG, waiting a few seconds to see what happens - all involve risk I will not take.

Trying to second-guess the intentions of a BG is just to risky in my book...

 

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

God Bless Texas

You might recall this is the state where a man shot someone for stealing something from his NEIGHBOR'S yard and was no-billed by the Grand Jury.

I think they got it right.

And yes, in some jurisdictions, the law is more restrictive than morals.

Again I say, God Bless Texas.

 

[Wildalaska]

The question (and the poll) is therefore in tension with itself and is unanswerable.

Aw, Al you just want the lard wrestling pics and are trying to justify that answer

One of the problems I confronted in trying to phrase the poll, and which has been pretty carefully skirted here, is the source of the moral or ethical (and I should have used an or instead of an /) duty to retreat.....and in addition thereto, the wisdom of the ancients in that vein....

That wisdom may lead to religious discussion or at least quotations from religious texts and philosophers which I know is verboten...perhaps an exception can be made with careful monitoring? We need more of you in this thread.....

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

Reasonable belief is a legal fiction....certainty is reality....

Lets look at it not like Paxs cat but Shroedingers cat

1. You live alone. Door crashes open and it wakes you up. You grab your gun and surefire, open the bedroom door, light up across the room, see a guy standing there who has a baseball bat and says I'm gonna beat your chicken butt you nerd. He takes a step towards you. You legally and justifiably shoot him under the laws of your jurisdiction......yet in another world


2. You live alone. Door crashes open and it wakes you up. You grab your gun and surefire, open the bedroom door, light up across the room, see a guy standing there who has a baseball bat and says I'm gonna beat your chicken butt you nerd. He takes a step towards you. You flee into the bedroom and slam the door while shouting Im gonna shoot. You hear him leave...yet in another world

3.You live alone. Door crashes open and it wakes you up. You grab your gun and surefire, open the bedroom door, light up across the room, see a guy standing there who has a baseball bat and says I'm gonna beat your chicken butt you nerd. He takes a step towards you. You flee into the bedroom, slam the bedroom door, start dialing 911. He kicks the bedroom door open as you cower behind the bed, gun pointed at the door. You then legally and justifiably shoot him under the laws of your jurisdiction...

What are the differences between the three realities from an ethical OR moral standpoint? Which one would be certainty in your mind?

WildijusthadtotossthecoweringinformyownstrangereasonAlaska ™

 

[Playboypenguin]

Instead you draw your (insert favorite TEOTWAWKI weapon) and put two in his chest. He falls over dead.

There is that assumption that deadly force is the one and only course of action outside of running or hiding. I refuse to accept that flawed concept.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is that assumption that deadly force is the one and only course of action outside of running or hiding.

There is no assumption. It is plainly stated. The guy was shot dead. I didn't ask what else COULD have been done. He was shot dead.

Good shoot or bad shoot?

 

[Microgunner]

Let me clarify the question a bit, see if I can take out the ambiguity some:

Your name is Ted Tactician. You live in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine. Your home is built to withstand zombie attacks, except that, for some reason, you never got the front door very well fortified.

On this particular day, you are standing at the entrance to your bedroom, which you have designated the Safe Room in your house. Your wife is in the bedroom folding laundry. Your kids are in the room playing. Your "Safe Room" is essentially a bank vault that you sleep in. It has it's own filtered air supply, the door is literally a vault door and you've got food and communications equipment in there too. There is one window. It can be shielded from the inside by 2" thick steel shutters. As you are standing there talking to your wife, armed of course, you here two quick kicks on the front door. The door blasts open on the second kick. In jumps an intruder. He says "BOO! I'm here to rob you." and starts grabbing stuff. He's 50 feet away, because you have a big house. You KNOW without a doubt in your mind that you have time to get in your "safe room" and call the police.
Instead you draw your (insert favorite TEOTWAWKI weapon) and put two in his chest. He falls over dead.

Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

Lord have mercy. What a fantasy world you must live in. He's in your house, he's dead, good job. Where you want us to send you your medal? Good shoot.

 

[Playboypenguin]

There is no assumption. It is plainly stated. The guy was shot dead. I didn't ask what else COULD have been done. He was shot dead.

There is a huge assumption. The assumption that firing shots would be the next course of action after noticing the perp. Why did he immediately open fire? Why did he not address the perp verbally? Why did he not then physically restrain the perp if he did not flee upon being addressed?

 

[stargazer65]

WA said:

That wisdom may lead to religious discussion or at least quotations from religious texts and philosophers which I know is verboten...perhaps an exception can be made with careful monitoring?

Oh yeah, good idea WA, I can see that going pretty well.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is a huge assumption. The assumption that firing shots would be the next course of action after noticing the perp. Why did he immediately open fire? Why did he not address the perp verbally? Why did he not then physically restrain the perp if he did not flee upon being addressed?

So, then your answer would be that a responsible citizen should take some alternate action beside shooting, when possible, even if shooting is plainly legal.

I don't know why so many people (not necessarily you PBP) have such a hard time just saying THAT.

 

[bababooey32]

PETE!

Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

Easy. Good shoot. (legally). Morally/Ethically/Whatever - not clear. If all he's doing is stealing "stuff", I'm not sure how I feel about using deadly force.