Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

Does an Armed Citizen have a Moral/Ethical Duty to Retreat (complete safety)

  • Yep, at all times

    Votes: 30 13.9%

  • Nope, Never

    Votes: 92 42.6%

  • Yep, but only on the street, not in the Home/Business

    Votes: 63 29.2%

  • I'm not ansering because I dont want to seem either wimpy or bloodthirsty

    Votes: 15 6.9%

  • I'd rather have pic of you and Spiff iwearing spandex loincloths lard wrestling in a baby pool.

    Votes: 16 7.4%
  • Total voters
    216
Status
Not open for further replies.
You basically agreed with me (or I with you, if you prefer) until you used the word "immediate." There are no doubt burglars that are unarmed and will choose to flee if discovered; some people who have posted in this discussion have opined that they are in the majority, but I don't recall anything being cited to support that, and whether they are a majority or a substantial minority may not affect your decision in a moment in which you are dealing with an individual. So then the question is, are you justified in shooting a fleeing person? I personally answered no, because I would consider his flight to be a removal of the threat. If he advances toward me in that situation, I would have to consider that an escalation to aggression on his part, and I would be able to fire. With regret at likely taking a human life.

That decision takes a fraction of a second. Is there some risk to it? Yes, but justifiable risk for my own peace of mind.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you. My sentence was poorly constructed. I was teeing off on the concept of "immediately necessary."

I agree with your next paragraph also.
 
I can think of any number of scenarios where it would be acceptable to shoot someone in the back. For one, what if he is running to a place of cover? What if he was, while running, occasionally turning and firing at you? There's another.
 
Darn. I was just about to congratulate us all on approaching a consensus after 26 pages, and someone has to go thinking again!:D
 
For one, what if he is running to a place of cover? What if he was, while running, occasionally turning and firing at you? There's another.
Click to expand...


That's why I said "VERY specific conditions". There are instances, but they are few and far between and the Castle Doctrine is not going to protect you if you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back. A fleeing and SHOOTING intruder would be different.
 
That's why I said "VERY specific conditions". There are instances, but they are few and far between and the Castle Doctrine is not going to protect you if you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back. A fleeing and SHOOTING intruder would be different.
Click to expand...
My point was only that we need consider the totality of the circumstances in a self-defense situation, and should probably not make absolute judgements on right and wrong in advance. My own opinion is that anyone who retains his weapon after engaging me in a self-defense situation is still an imminent regardless of his current actions.
 
we are all doing roughly the same thing.
Click to expand...

Well, no, Bababooey, not all.

Some have argued that one should clear the house, and that trying to get to a safe place is "running and hiding." I said I would not walk around in the house looking for an intruder, inviting ambush.

Others have said they would shoot a man "as long as he is in the house." I said I will think twice about shooting if he appears to be heading out, and TailGator was among those who agreed.

Some have seemed to suggest that they would retreat from their houses if possible. Not for me, thanks, though in some places it may be required.

Beyond the "implementation plan":

Some have argued in favor of using deadly force to defend what others who have said they would not do so have described as "just stuff" and in fact, for shooting thieves. In most places using deadly force against a thief is unlawful.

Some have argued in favor of the concept of shooting because of what a perp might do in the future.

And outside of the "walls of the castle", some have said they would not retreat if it were possible to to so with safety. Some of those live where they are not required to do so. Others may not.

And that's based on few recollections....
 
Shawn, you seem to have neglected to include an adjective above. Stabbing someone is, necessarily, an act of violence. In your scenario above, it's a perfectly defensible and moral action of violence in the interest of self defense, regardless of the eventual fate of the person who attacked you.
Click to expand...

CSMSSS, thanks for your response. I did not "neglect" to include as much as I intentionally avoided. Looking at a typical defenition (dictionary) of violence, it will read something like: Action intended to cause destruction, pain or suffering. Again these are just working process thoughts, but in the scenario the intention was not to cause destruction, pain or suffering as much as it was intended to cause the release that would save a life. The other was the net result, not the intention. Now that may be splitting hairs a little, but I didn't hate the man before I knew him, and probably didn't have time to hate him during the attack. But you did elude to the point I was somewhat trying to get at. "It's a perfectly defensible and moral action."
 
My own opinion is that anyone who retains his weapon after engaging me in a self-defense situation is still an imminent regardless of his current actions.
Click to expand...


The problem being that we very often cannot act on our "own opinion". At least if we want to stay out of jail. Most all locales require that hostilities cease if someone attempts to remove themselves from the combative situation. Saying "Well, he still had a gun." is likely not enough to avoid prosecution.
 
The problem being that we very often cannot act on our "own opinion". At least if we want to stay out of jail. Most all locales require that hostilities cease if someone attempts to remove themselves from the combative situation. Saying "Well, he still had a gun." is likely not enough to avoid prosecution.
Click to expand...
Not to be argumentative, but that's silly. How does one know that hostilities have ceased? A reasonable person could easily conclude that the aggressor was just going off to locate another target. As I said before, I don't believe you can speak of absolutes in this context.
 
How does one know that hostilities have ceased? A reasonable person could easily conclude that the aggressor was just going off to locate another target.
Click to expand...

He's running away and not engaging you. Hostilities have ceased. You CANNOT legally act on what he might be doing in 5 minutes. There are localities that would allow for you to shoot someone who has committed a forcible felony and is in immediate flight therefrom. If you are in such a place, and you would like to take on the legal and financial load of having shot someone, legal or not, then by all means, fire away.
 
Just as a technical point - modern human factors research as demonstrated that a person facing front can turn and take rounds in the back during the time that you took to shoot. It has been a factor in expert testimony in police shootings. Dr. Lewinski at Force Science has studied this intensive as has Mas.

So blanket pronouncements that rounds in the back send you to jail, need to be qualified.
 
Hey guys, I don't want to beat a dead horse with this one but it ties into the home invasions from my post earlier today.

There has been another home invasion here, this one in a nice quiet neighborhood in northwest Oklahoma City. Local law enforcement are looking for multiple suspects. (Again it would appear that being a VCA is a team sport) The victim was 38 year old male. As it turns out, he was a nurse at the hospital where my wife works. He was killed with a sword!

I thought this worthy of mentioning only because of the method employed by the attackers, and because there has been some debate over when decisive force should be employed.
 
A reasonable person could easily conclude that the aggressor was just going off to locate another target.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but no citizen could do any more in terms of acting on that concluson than informing the authorities.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should get some training as soon as possible.
 
In response to the original post:

Who in their "right" mind would want to be involved in a shooting if it could be avoided?
Click to expand...
Well, heck, by that logic practically all shooting can be avoided....just refuse to own a gun.
Be a hapless victim all of your life.

If you are looking to shoot someone I'm pretty darn sure I don't want you carrying a gun in public, or private for that matter. There is a reason that the gun is called the "Tool of last resort."
Click to expand...
I don't know where you have heard a gun called "the tool of last resort" (sounds like something one might read in a gun magazine), but I've always heard the gun referred to as "the great equalizer".

Sometimes the gun is the wrong tool, and sometimes the gun is the RIGHT tool.
But it is certainly not always the "tool of last resort". :rolleyes:
 
modern human factors research as demonstrated that a person facing front can turn and take rounds in the back during the time that you took to shoot.
Click to expand...

Glenn, recently one of our local Highway Patrolman had been investigated for a shooting in which he was involved because there were entry wounds in both the abdomen and back. The patrolman was cleared when the investigation concluded that he had acted within his training and that the man he shot had spun quickly while the officer was "stitching" a string from the navel to neck - It just ended up being from the navel to the inside of the right shoulder blade.
 
Well, heck, by that logic practically all shooting can be avoided....just refuse to own a gun.
Be a hapless victim all of your life.
Click to expand...
Most people don't own guns, and are also never victims to any point in their lives. Not being a potential killer doesn't automatically make you a confirmed victim. Life really isn't all that dangerous.
 
Most people don't own guns, and are also never victims to any point in their lives.
Click to expand...

And most people who do own guns never have to use them to protect themselves.

I have, however, three times since 1964.

Most people are never threatened by fire, either, but the potential consequences are such that ii is prudent to be prepared for the eventuality.

Same thing with violent crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top