Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
- Status
There are those that deep down want someone to break into their house so they can shoot them and can hardly wiat for it. Some that have their gun so tricked out that they long for the day that they can actually use it.
However most on here do not and fear the day that they will actually be confronted with the decision of what to do. I think that morally everyone has to take into account all of the surrounding facts and make that decision of whether to retreat in about one second. Home or street doesn't matter and thankfully in most states it is recognized that few people can analyze all the factors in one second. In the end I don't think that it is any difference for most people whether it is legal or moral, just thayt they are defending themselves. If someone breaking into my home or sticking a gun into my face on the street, I am not going to be thinking is this legal or moral, I am going to be thinking "I don't want to die". Unless you are a very rare person the taking of another person's life no matter how thuggish is going to change yours forever.
However most on here do not and fear the day that they will actually be confronted with the decision of what to do. I think that morally everyone has to take into account all of the surrounding facts and make that decision of whether to retreat in about one second. Home or street doesn't matter and thankfully in most states it is recognized that few people can analyze all the factors in one second. In the end I don't think that it is any difference for most people whether it is legal or moral, just thayt they are defending themselves. If someone breaking into my home or sticking a gun into my face on the street, I am not going to be thinking is this legal or moral, I am going to be thinking "I don't want to die". Unless you are a very rare person the taking of another person's life no matter how thuggish is going to change yours forever.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Another aspect to consider regarding retreat is "does your retreat leave others in immediate danger with no defense?"
If I see, from a safe distance down the hall, an armed man burst into a schoolroom and I can easily and safely retreat should I still do so?
If I see, from a safe distance down the hall, an armed man burst into a schoolroom and I can easily and safely retreat should I still do so?
#18indycolts
Moderator
I think I might since I wouldn't be armed at a school. I try and follow the rules of carrying here in Indiana.
OldMarksman
Staff
I think Matt covered it pretty well in post #38.
I might add that what one might assume to be legally justified just might not be seen quite the same way by others after the fact. Even with a stand-your ground law-there may be risk.
For me the gun is a last resort in all cases.
Let me rephrase that: firing a gun is a last resort in all cases. I have presented a weapon without firing in what might well have ended rater badly had I not been armed.
I might add that what one might assume to be legally justified just might not be seen quite the same way by others after the fact. Even with a stand-your ground law-there may be risk.
For me the gun is a last resort in all cases.
Let me rephrase that: firing a gun is a last resort in all cases. I have presented a weapon without firing in what might well have ended rater badly had I not been armed.
stargazer65
New member
At this time I'd have to say if everyone can be safe by retreating (including my family, myself, all bystanders that the BG could reasonably harm) I would choose retreat. But that's an awful lot of ifs.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I hate to break it to you, but you just did.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Cant think of one culture or belief system that condones killing except under limited circumstances
WildtheuniversalruleAlaska ™
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You need to get out more. Some cultures do not have quite as high a regard for human life. In fact some even place the lives of lesser animals above individual human life. Some cultures allowing killing for simple disobedience of a husband or parent.
stargazer65
New member
Actually, I think there are quite a few cultures where killing for revenge, etc... are perfectly acceptable and condoned. I think PBP is right in this case. So they would answer the question differently than I would.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Cultures had sanctioned human sacrifice and practiced warfare to capture folks for later human sacrifice.
The killing of infants, for example - daughters, is not unknown.
In a sense, those are limited but clearly some societies killing for reasons other than self-defense are accepted.
The killing of infants, for example - daughters, is not unknown.
In a sense, those are limited but clearly some societies killing for reasons other than self-defense are accepted.
Legal and Moral obligations? More to it...
If an armed BG wants to put me in a position where I feel the need to defend myself, I don't feel any moral obligation to shield him from his own actions. None at all.
That said, I would feel a moral obligation to protect innocent bystanders, assuming there were any. This could include people who were with me, and anybody else in the vicinity. Situationally, that protection could range from proper sight alignment and trigger control to de-escalation by any reasonable means. Any number of variables would impact this calculus, including but not limited to apparent intent of the BG, number and positions of BGs, number and positions of bystanders, etc.
Additionally, assuming force were required, I would feel a moral obligation to use no more force than necessary to resolve the situation. IE once threat is stopped, no more shots taken, punches or kicks thrown, etc. Engage to stop the threat, quickly and efficiently as possible, but no further than stopping the threat.
But morally, I'd feel no obligation to put the protection of the BG, per se, anywhere near the level of conscious thought.
Legal obligations may vary. After avoiding the graveyard or ER, and preventing harm to innocents, avoiding prison time runs a close third - or maybe second, as the first two are kind of tied for first place.
That's all well and good for Legal and Moral. However, a third and no less important consideration is Practical/Tactical.
If a safe avenue of escape is available, then it doesn't make sense to engage. I'd define "safe" as safe not only for me, but for anybody I might care about in the vicinity. IE, if I drive away, or if I go around the building, do I just leave a bunch of people in harm's way? So, if I can in good conscience resolve the problem by exiting, that's the way to go. I'm a good shot, and I'm not bad with my hands, or knives or clubs for that matter, but a wounded attacker can still inflict damage; an armed and wounded attacker can potentially still inflict fatal damage. Engaging just for the sake of not backing down opens up a very big can of risk. So, from a Practical/Tactical or self-preservation perspective, I'd avoid the problem if a morally acceptable retreat were available.
Note that while retreating, I'd keep whatever weapon I had in hand, as surreptitiously as possible; I'd also want to maximize use of cover and concealment. As soon as relative safety were reached, it would then be time for a 911 call.
If an armed BG wants to put me in a position where I feel the need to defend myself, I don't feel any moral obligation to shield him from his own actions. None at all.
That said, I would feel a moral obligation to protect innocent bystanders, assuming there were any. This could include people who were with me, and anybody else in the vicinity. Situationally, that protection could range from proper sight alignment and trigger control to de-escalation by any reasonable means. Any number of variables would impact this calculus, including but not limited to apparent intent of the BG, number and positions of BGs, number and positions of bystanders, etc.
Additionally, assuming force were required, I would feel a moral obligation to use no more force than necessary to resolve the situation. IE once threat is stopped, no more shots taken, punches or kicks thrown, etc. Engage to stop the threat, quickly and efficiently as possible, but no further than stopping the threat.
But morally, I'd feel no obligation to put the protection of the BG, per se, anywhere near the level of conscious thought.
Legal obligations may vary. After avoiding the graveyard or ER, and preventing harm to innocents, avoiding prison time runs a close third - or maybe second, as the first two are kind of tied for first place.
That's all well and good for Legal and Moral. However, a third and no less important consideration is Practical/Tactical.
If a safe avenue of escape is available, then it doesn't make sense to engage. I'd define "safe" as safe not only for me, but for anybody I might care about in the vicinity. IE, if I drive away, or if I go around the building, do I just leave a bunch of people in harm's way? So, if I can in good conscience resolve the problem by exiting, that's the way to go. I'm a good shot, and I'm not bad with my hands, or knives or clubs for that matter, but a wounded attacker can still inflict damage; an armed and wounded attacker can potentially still inflict fatal damage. Engaging just for the sake of not backing down opens up a very big can of risk. So, from a Practical/Tactical or self-preservation perspective, I'd avoid the problem if a morally acceptable retreat were available.
Note that while retreating, I'd keep whatever weapon I had in hand, as surreptitiously as possible; I'd also want to maximize use of cover and concealment. As soon as relative safety were reached, it would then be time for a 911 call.
Last edited:
#18indycolts
Moderator
just look at the countries without humanaterian laws like China and its 1 child system, or dissent against the government and be killed or placed in prison for life.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I misspoke...it should have read "modern" culture
Seems to me its a valid discussion
WildandonethatweshouldhaveAlaska ™
Wildalaska
Moderator
I guess the poll could also read...
Is it OK to shoot an aggressor when you don't need to do so for the protection of yourself and others?
Now are my choices clearer (PBP)
WildinotherwordsisstandyourgroundOKAlaska ™
Is it OK to shoot an aggressor when you don't need to do so for the protection of yourself and others?
Now are my choices clearer (PBP
)WildinotherwordsisstandyourgroundOKAlaska ™
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I would posit that if what the proponents of "morality by majority rule" suggest is true then there is no distinction between "legal" and "moral". They are, by definition, one and the same. "Legal" would be the "moral" dictate of the majority.
rantingredneck
New member
Given that morals are basically internalizations and formalizations of mores, the basic societal expectations or social contract, they cannot be truly individualized. They definitely share a broader context whether the foundations be cultural, religious/spiritual, or "other" in nature.
I think the true test here of whether something is "moral" or not (in this case the legally justified but morally questionable killing of an assailant) is whether you would freely and proudly admit to it in your town square, without reservation. If you have reservations about doing so, it probably isn't moral. If you feel you can proudly say, "No I didn't have to kill him to protect myself, but since I wasn't legally obligated to retreat out my back door, I was legally justified in doing so, I figure 'What the heck?'", then go right ahead......
. Be prepared for outrage.........
Since the killing of others is frowned upon when it can be avoided, then I would say we definitely have a moral as well as legal duty to retreat if retreat can be accomplished safely. The duty ends when "safely" ends.
I think the true test here of whether something is "moral" or not (in this case the legally justified but morally questionable killing of an assailant) is whether you would freely and proudly admit to it in your town square, without reservation. If you have reservations about doing so, it probably isn't moral. If you feel you can proudly say, "No I didn't have to kill him to protect myself, but since I wasn't legally obligated to retreat out my back door, I was legally justified in doing so, I figure 'What the heck?'", then go right ahead......
. Be prepared for outrage.........Since the killing of others is frowned upon when it can be avoided, then I would say we definitely have a moral as well as legal duty to retreat if retreat can be accomplished safely. The duty ends when "safely" ends.
- Status