Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
- Status
Microgunner
New member
My point is that the decision to shoot needs to be made now, long before the conflict. A menu of options will be onerous in the face of this absolute situation. Once you've personally decided how you WILL react if the time comes it's like relief from the inner conflict. Either you're willing to kill to survive or you're not. Middle grounds are pure academics.
My point remains
that I indicated in my posts that there is the theory of the mentally ill person's ability to choose, and then there is the practical reality of compressed time and a potential serious threat. I specifically stated that time was not likely to be available to make such a determination.
By selectively quoting only part of what I wrote, out of context, you effectively changed my meaning. That would violate journalistic ethics. While this is an informal forum, you still shouldn't do that.
Editing for brevity is ok, so long as you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting.
Respectfully,
M
that I indicated in my posts that there is the theory of the mentally ill person's ability to choose, and then there is the practical reality of compressed time and a potential serious threat. I specifically stated that time was not likely to be available to make such a determination.
By selectively quoting only part of what I wrote, out of context, you effectively changed my meaning. That would violate journalistic ethics. While this is an informal forum, you still shouldn't do that.
Editing for brevity is ok, so long as you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting.
Respectfully,
M
Wildalaska
Moderator
How so?
Thats a good point...but then leads to the next one...
Forced to do so...by what?
WilddoyouseewhereiamleadingyoutoAlaska ™......
guntotin_fool
New member
Wild. That a diversionary question. Their mental illness only applies to their culpability not mine. If they act as a threat they will be treated as one. If they stood in the doorway calling for Momma and display no aggresive behavior no one is suggesting they get shot. Same as little kid looking for home.
Trying to create non answerable what if's brings nothing to the table.
Fact is. There have been very very few cases nationally where a lawabiding home owner has been charge for acting in self defence. When it does happen it is usually because other factors point to something other than a good faith act of self defence.
Trying to create non answerable what if's brings nothing to the table.
Fact is. There have been very very few cases nationally where a lawabiding home owner has been charge for acting in self defence. When it does happen it is usually because other factors point to something other than a good faith act of self defence.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
The question is:
Does "not being charged" = "moral"?
Microgunner
New member
I agree. I did use a partial quote out of context as a convenient platform. I apologize.
Wildalaska
Moderator
really?...want to read the thread again?
Bet ya a ham sandwich there are folks here who advocate unlawful entry=boom....not including the folks who after soul searching have concluded no duty to retreat 
Blackstone you know
WildyouseewhereitallleadsAlaska ™
Microgunner
New member
You can't see it but my hand is raised right now.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
The decision that you will shoot if you have to needs to be made now, as does the decision that you will NOT shoot if you don't need to. You absolutely must be capable and willing to make those split second decisions. Any given situation, regardless of how it started, can turn to murder in a split second. (Just ask the OK pharmacist).
The attitude of "Anybody that (fill in the blank) is going to get shot." is a very good way to find yourself in prison.
My dancing? That doesn't even make sense, but ok.
This is a baiting question that I would not be shocked to see come out of the mouths of the bradytards. Why? It's very simple. Ok, say I agree with #1. Say that I then apply #1 to #2--regardless of mental condition, I would shoot if it was legal. Take that to court and it will end up getting spun to how all gun owners gun down the mentally challenged.
Again, I would need a defintion of 'mentally ill' to provide an accurate answer. It covers such a broad range of people, from those who are intent on doing physical harm to others (serial killers) to those who have severe, limiting disabilities. It is no different than asking "would you shoot (insert random demographic here)?"
I would say "no," initially , that the mentally challenged don't choose death in this situation.
Microgunner
New member
If "they've" invaded my occupied home I "have to". The primary reason is I lost my mind reading capabilities at about aged 6.
Wildalaska
Moderator
So we should reject intellectual honesty simply because it may lead to a conclusion deisred by political adversaries?
I gave you one:
"do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that it was wrong."
Guess where I got that from
WildwanttotryagainAlaska ™
OldMarksman
Staff
Yes indeed! And those permanent, discoverable posts expressing that sentiment will help get someone there.
Blackstone also wrote in his commentaries: "The king," he wrote, "is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness."
Blackstone's commentaries are not binding upon us nor our judiciary, nor are they immune from criticism - whether they speak to statutory or common law. They are merely guides and roadmaps, if you will.
Blackstone's commentaries are not binding upon us nor our judiciary, nor are they immune from criticism - whether they speak to statutory or common law. They are merely guides and roadmaps, if you will.
Forced to do so.... by what?
WA,
Some examples (specific to inside my house):
1) Refusal by a person who seems to comprehend his actions to leave my premises - I may back to a point of cover/concealment tactically, but I don't believe in "retreat" within my home as a moral necessity, period. This doesn't mean I'll automatically shoot, but it does mean I'll challenge from a position of strength. (If at all possible, the lady will have called 911 while backing to a position of safety with her preferred handgun; NOBODY is getting past me to where she will be without being given cause to regret it.) If a person who otherwise appears coherent insists on closing with a homeowner who has told him to depart, that suggests that he thinks I am not a threat, which tells me that he is.
2) If the person seems obviously out of touch with reality, I'll try to maintain distance, but again nobody gets near the lady of the house, so I will only back up so far. If no weapons are apparent, and if the person isn't ridiculously large, then non-lethal options may be pursued once I've reached my limit. I'm on the large side, wrestled for a few years and have studied aikido for a dozen years or so. I have pretty decent odds of taking down the average person without having to inflict a lot of damage.
However, I've had friends get shot by people they had not thought dangerous - if the person acts like he has a weapon and intends to use it, I won't wait to see what is drawn from concealment, so hopefully there won't be any suspicious motions. The suggestion of a weapon draw will immediately escalate my response, sane or not.
3) If the person immediately gets violent, I'm not playing. If an unarmed attack, good odds I'll just take them down. However, if armed or of such a size and demeanor that I'm not positive I can handle them via non-lethal means, they get shot until hostile action ceases.
4) As previously caveated, short of the person being obviously drunk, or blatantly psychotic or schizoid in demeanor, or just bewildered looking, it's going to be hard under adrenalized, short distance, time critical conditions to decide the person is mentally off.
Non-violent people who don't close distance will be reasonably safe. Non-violent people who do close distance will probably be taken down, if they don't seem overwhelming. Violent people will be engaged, sane or not.
WA,
Some examples (specific to inside my house):
1) Refusal by a person who seems to comprehend his actions to leave my premises - I may back to a point of cover/concealment tactically, but I don't believe in "retreat" within my home as a moral necessity, period. This doesn't mean I'll automatically shoot, but it does mean I'll challenge from a position of strength. (If at all possible, the lady will have called 911 while backing to a position of safety with her preferred handgun; NOBODY is getting past me to where she will be without being given cause to regret it.) If a person who otherwise appears coherent insists on closing with a homeowner who has told him to depart, that suggests that he thinks I am not a threat, which tells me that he is.
2) If the person seems obviously out of touch with reality, I'll try to maintain distance, but again nobody gets near the lady of the house, so I will only back up so far. If no weapons are apparent, and if the person isn't ridiculously large, then non-lethal options may be pursued once I've reached my limit. I'm on the large side, wrestled for a few years and have studied aikido for a dozen years or so. I have pretty decent odds of taking down the average person without having to inflict a lot of damage.
However, I've had friends get shot by people they had not thought dangerous - if the person acts like he has a weapon and intends to use it, I won't wait to see what is drawn from concealment, so hopefully there won't be any suspicious motions. The suggestion of a weapon draw will immediately escalate my response, sane or not.
3) If the person immediately gets violent, I'm not playing. If an unarmed attack, good odds I'll just take them down. However, if armed or of such a size and demeanor that I'm not positive I can handle them via non-lethal means, they get shot until hostile action ceases.
4) As previously caveated, short of the person being obviously drunk, or blatantly psychotic or schizoid in demeanor, or just bewildered looking, it's going to be hard under adrenalized, short distance, time critical conditions to decide the person is mentally off.
Non-violent people who don't close distance will be reasonably safe. Non-violent people who do close distance will probably be taken down, if they don't seem overwhelming. Violent people will be engaged, sane or not.
With all due respect for you considerable knowledge of the law, WA, I don't think mental illness, even properly defined, can be assessed in a defensive situation, nor should it be. A fellow who is pointing a gun at me can shoot me just as dead whether he understands the consequences of pulling the trigger or not, and if I want to survive, I have to fire before he does. Determination of legal mental deficiency is a process that occurs to determine his culpability if I don't fire first, and it takes the court systems a long time to determine it, and experts argue about it all the time.
If I or those under my protection are in imminent danger (and that is the only time I can fire) there is neither means nor time nor reason for me to consider the legal mental state of my assailant.
If I or those under my protection are in imminent danger (and that is the only time I can fire) there is neither means nor time nor reason for me to consider the legal mental state of my assailant.
guntotin_fool
New member
Wild I am not a medical professional who has the ability to take one look at a person and decide whether or not they are competent to stand trial. I AM however a reasonable enough judge of outward behavior that if ANYONE smashed through my front door while screaming their gonna kill me, that I would take that as a serious enough threat to engage with potentially lethal force.
Regarding "moral". If I am legal and I see fit to shoot, then I will deal with "moral" repercussions.
Regarding "moral". If I am legal and I see fit to shoot, then I will deal with "moral" repercussions.
rampage841512
New member
Good question. Such a person is too dangerous to be allowed to live in a free society (that is not say they should be euthanized, but rather that they should be confined). Their very condition makes it impossible for them to do so as they cannot exercise any form of control.
Edited at 6:46 for grammar and a clarification on 'allowed to live in a free society.'
Last edited:
- Status