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.
Interesting approaches as this wears on. To all who insist that we are overthinking this issue, I have a suggestion.

I have yet to find a courtroom which charges admission for spectators. Go to superior court (or whatever court is apt to be trying things like murder cases) in your jurisdiction when a major case is being tried. You can check with them ahead of time to find out what's on the docket. Read the media coverage on it so you have some idea what supposedly went on. Sit in on the trial for a day or three. Watch what happens in court when it's for real.

lpl
 
To get this thread back to the point,

A person IS morally (or ethically, if you prefer) justified in using lethal force even if there is a completely safe retreat (though I agree with quite a few on here that the idea of a perfectly safe retreat is nonsense, it does serve its purpose for this thought experiment).

A person who commits a crime for which their victim would be justified in the use of lethal force against them has chosen DEATH. They made the choice. This person chose to initiate the use of force against another human being to get what they wanted. That, in this situation, is the moral wrong, and that is why their victim is acting correctly if they choose to end the life of their attacker. Human life is NOT sacred. The idea is ludicrus. Human life is what the INDIVIDUAL makes of it. In this case, the individual chose death.

That said, lets muddy the waters a bit more:

You can retreat safely, while your daughter (sister, mother, girlfriend, wife) is being raped. You can retreat safely while an arsonist sets fire your best friend's house. Oh, and by the way, these guy's were just there for that nice new tv, but since your retreating...

We argue about these little moral quandries as if crime is something that is impersonal. It's not. It's very personal. In situations that allow it, such as when you are legally justified in using lethal force, justice should be as well.
 
A person who commits a crime for which their victim would be justified in the use of lethal force against them has chosen DEATH. They made the choice. This person chose to initiate the use of force against another human being to get what they wanted. That, in this situation, is the moral wrong, and that is why their victim is acting correctly if they choose to end the life of their attacker.
Click to expand...

Think so? Well, a person may use deadly physical force against an attacker to protect against unlawful deadly physical force, against burglary, kidnapping , sexual assault....

By definition, such force may cause death.

But do not give anyone the impression that they may lawfully "choose to end the life of the attacker."

You see, if a shot from your gun or cross-bow, or a blow from your bat or mallet, stops the attacker without killing him, your right to continue to use such force ceases to exist.

Most gunshot victims do survive, and if they don't, the forensic evidence will tell whatever story there is to be told.

Anyone who acts unlawfully in this regard may end up following Lee's suggestion, and get a very good seat to watch the show.
 
That said, lets muddy the waters a bit more:

You can retreat safely, while your daughter (sister, mother, girlfriend, wife) is being raped. You can retreat safely while an arsonist sets fire your best friend's house. Oh, and by the way, these guy's were just there for that nice new tv, but since your retreating...
Click to expand...


That doesn't muddy the waters at all. We already had several pages of discussion on "complete safety". Complete means complete, you and everyone. It doesn't mean running like a coward and saving your own skin.

Most areas allow lethal force to prevent arson, I believe all areas allow lethal force to stop or prevent rape.
 
A person who commits a crime for which their victim would be justified in the use of lethal force against them has chosen DEATH.
Click to expand...

How about the mentally ill who do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that is was wrong.

WildthatoneissuepleaseAlaska TM
 
How about the mentally ill who do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that is was wrong.
Click to expand...

This would depend on your definition of 'mentally ill.' Some would argue that those with a compulsion to commit crimes are mentally ill, no different than a severly handicapped individual. However, I would pose this question in response: What duty do I have to determine that someone is, in fact, mentally disabled? It may not be evident to a non-trained person.


This discussion is going to be "what if'd" to death. There are numerous scenarios that have no clear answer.
 
This would depend on your definition of 'mentally ill.' Some would argue that those with a compulsion to commit crimes are mentally ill, no different than a severly handicapped individual. However, I would pose this question in response: What duty do I have to determine that someone is, in fact, mentally disabled? It may not be evident to a non-trained person.
Click to expand...

Your dancing. I'll answer your question when you answer mine, yours is easy.

1. A person who commits a crime for which their victim would be justified in the use of lethal force against them has chosen DEATH.

2. How about the mentally ill who do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that is was wrong. Has that person CHOSEN death

WildistheavoidancebecauseyouknowwheretheanswerwillleadAlaska TM
 
the mentally ill

They may not understand their choice.

That doesn't mean they have necessarily left us with one.

I have relatives who've worked in psychiatric hospitals. Even with training, and numbers of nurses and orderlies, there are a lot of back and other injuries among the staff.

Some of those mentally ill types can really hurt you.

Does that mean I'd want them convicted in court? Not necessarily, depending on their illness.

However, it does mean I wouldn't blame most people for feeling threatened, and reacting accordingly.
 
answering the question

if a person I thought to be mentally ill, but not malignant (IE not really in touch with reality, as opposed to a Ted Bundy type sociopath), I would hope to be able to avoid a shooting;

if they forced the issue, I'd shoot, because I know they can hurt me even thought they aren't sane;

if they did not force the issue, I'd prefer to hold a safe position and wait for police;

this assumes time and a relatively safe position with which to evaluate their state, which may not be all that likely
 
Nope.....

Hard one huh:p

Premise:. A person who commits a crime for which their victim would be justified in the use of lethal force against them has chosen DEATH.

Question: How about the mentally ill who do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that is was wrong. Has that person CHOSEN death?

I give you credit for trying...do you or anybody else care to answer...its either a Yes or a no ;)

WildperhapswewillonlygetmatureanswersonthisroundAlaska ™
 
my answer is that their ability to choose...

... is irrelevant to the necessity they create.

However, if you want a simple yes or no - No, they haven't chosen, but in a practical sense it doesn't really matter. Their actions still force the same results as if they had consciously chosen.

I would feel worse about pulling the trigger, if it came to that, but still might be forced to do so.
 
ust 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.
Click to expand...
That argument might work if you are a cop. Normal citizens have a much higher burden of proof.
 
Last edited:
Speaking technically...

... the prosecutor has the burden of proof, for conviction.

Defendant has a burden of proof in establishing an affirmative defense, I suppose, but ultimately it's up to the prosecutor to prove wrongdoing.
 
That argument might work if you are a cop. Normal citizens have a much higher burden of proof.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's exactly the opposite. LEO's typically are held to a much more stringent standard than other citizens.
 
Mentally ill with a gun in his hand, is just another imminent threat. It makes no difference.


Perhaps we should go over what exactly "morally" justifies lethal force.


Be it a man, woman, teenager or the violently mentally ill, a imminent threat to life, limb and family is still an imminent threat. If you are ready and willing to stand up and protect both yourself and your loved ones, how does one justify the negotiation of which version of "imminent threat" warrants yourself/their defense?


Say (just for a hypothetical worst case scenario) an armed man breaks down my door in the middle of the night. Lets say I am forced to shoot him and he dies. Later I found out he was a man who had a long term history of mental illness, a large family, kids, a few dogs, a baby on the way and was on the verge of kicking his drug habit. Maybe he even won the lottery the day before and was about to get married.

... all that matters is that he was where my family dwells armed and dangerous, and it was well within reason that he aimed to do us all harm. There is your moral justification.



I also don't see how the above is debatable unless you believe that you yourself should never take a life under any circumstances. In which, if you did, I would respect that belief . . . though I myself do not agree with it. The bad guys don't share your respect for life, and if the rest of the world thought that way we would all be speaking German.


In the the end my justification is this:

If someone or something enters the place where both I and my family feel safe, with the intent on doing either them or myself harm (or appearing ready and willing too within reason) I am morally justified in repelling them by any means necessary. After the fact, I sleep well at night knowing I succeed in defending what is sacred, and that one less maniac with a gun exists in this world.



P.S.

If I were to break into someones house . . . the very first thing i'd think to myself is "I'm gonna get shot" I'd prefer it if far more bad guys thought the way I did.
 
if a person I thought to be mentally ill, but not malignant (IE not really in touch with reality, as opposed to a Ted Bundy type sociopath), I would hope to be able to avoid a shooting;
Click to expand...

Where are you folks going to find all this time needed for these detailed analyzes when a split second could make the difference between life and death for you and your's. They're in your home, you do not hunt them but they show themselves to you anyway, you fire instantly, without any delay. You win, hopefully. If you win we all win. Hooray!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top