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.
Responding to the OP only: it has always been my personal belief that a person should stop a criminal permanently if given an opportunity. I came to this conclusion based on the twin facts that it conforms to my moral principles and is the most practical solution to crime.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate, as this sounds similar to the idea that the "hero" is "Judge, Jury and Executioner".

The scenario is that you could escape without danger. The above quote seems to indicate that you would insert yourself into a situation so you COULD end the life of someone you deemed a criminal. This smacks of vigilantism.

Would you knowingly place yourself in danger so as to:
stop a criminal permanently if given an opportunity
Click to expand...

VR

Matt
 
I think some here are debating past each other. There are two types of morality: Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism.
Click to expand...

That is indeed the case. As such, there are only 3 possible answers.

1) If moral relativism is true the there is no correct answer. Whatever the individual involved believes to be right, is right. In fact, it is not even wrong for the person committing the "crime" since, according to that persons morality, it is perfectly moral to be doing so. Society would in fact be wrong to even call it a crime, since that would be imposing completely arbitrary morality.

2) If moral absolutes are true then it either absolutely is mandated to retreat when possible or it is not mandated to retreat when possible. There would be no middle ground. There could be opinions, but one opinion would be right and the other wrong, regardless of who or how many believe the right thing or do not.
 
Responding to the OP only: it has always been my personal belief that a person should stop a criminal permanently if given an opportunity. I came to this conclusion based on the twin facts that it conforms to my moral principles and is the most practical solution to crime.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate, as this sounds similar to the idea that the "hero" is "Judge, Jury and Executioner".
Click to expand...
Yes, it does sound that way...and by the reasoning of the first statement it would then be okay to "permanently stop" the person who appointed himself executioner since he is then by very definition a criminal himself.
 
Peetza, you said what I meant even better than I.

Our job is to determine if we live to standards of absolutes or in a relativist world. I believe it is an absolutist world. In this absolutist world, killing is ALWAYS wrong. The moral question is who is responsible for killing. If it is unjstified, it is murder. If it is justified, the murder is the instigator.

As an example, if I am speeding or driving drunk and cause an accident, a death is my responsibility.

If I am sleeping in my home, someone breaks in, and I shoot to protect myself and my family, the burglar is responsible. I have no moral culpability because I did not precipitate the action.

Similarly, if I am somewhere where I am allowed to be, and a BG commits an act of violence, I am not responsible, MORALLY, for the results of HIS act. Legally is another matter.

To paraphrase, the Good Lord may forgive, but the State of Mississippi is another matter. I have a MORAL duty to understand the LEGAL ramifications of my actions. If I go to jail and leave my family in the lurch because I did not understand the legal ramifications of my actions, there is some moral consequenses between God and me.
 
Let's restate it for the simple: when in a situation where one can legally kill a criminal, one should.

Edit: to further elaborate, the OP ask should one retreat if it is an option when deadly force justified. One should not. Is this vigilantism? Hardly, when the law allows such action to be taken.
 
Last edited:
PS: Just because I voted for the third option does not mean that I do not want to see the lard wrestling photos.
Click to expand...

+1 :D

There's a line between funny and disturbing and you flirt with it quite a bit WA (still funnny in this case though :D)
 
Given the option, I would always retreat. Morals have nothing to do with it. It just makes sense. It is not my job to stop crime. It is only my job to protect myself. By protecting myself, I protect my family.

As long as retreating will not endanger my family (i.e., leave them facing the danger on their own), why wouldn't I retreat? If I engage with the BG, there is always the chance something is going to go wrong. Just because I'm the good guy doesn't mean I can't come out on the losing end.

As far as protecting bystanders or stopping a crime in progress? Not my job. My job is to be there for my family. While I might feel like risking my life to stop a crime, do I have the right to deprive my family of a father and husband to protect a stranger? I don't think so.

I carry a gun for one reason - to protect myself and my family. I'm not a cop. I'm not a vigilante.

Avoid fights and you avoid the risk of losing.
 
What's the third answer?
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry, that was badly formulated, 2 and 3 are together.

1)No right or wrong.

2)Retreat is morally required.

3)Retreat is NOT morally required.

Those are the options, in the simplest terms. There are no other possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Donn_N poses a question which I find to be a difficult dilemna for myself:

As far as protecting bystanders or stopping a crime in progress? Not my job. My job is to be there for my family. While I might feel like risking my life to stop a crime, do I have the right to deprive my family of a father and husband to protect a stranger? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Morally I feel I have to protect a life even a bystander, but at what risk? I'm not sure...

When I was in the military I realized that it was my duty to put myself in possible risk. Now I find this situation in civilian life is maybe not so clear cut.
 
stargazer65 said:
Morally I feel I have to protect a life even a bystander, but at what risk? I'm not sure...
Click to expand...

It might be worth comparing this type of situation with those encountered by EMT's and other first responders. As has been pointed out in some other threads, and has been stressed in first responder (wilderness medicine) classes I've taken, your first duty is to assess the scene and determine if it's safe for you to render aid. It doesn't matter if someone is bleeding out, not breathing, etc., etc. -- before rendering aid, your first responsibility in an emergency is not to become another victim.

As a matter of both ethics and common sense, I see no reason why this principle wouldn't apply to a situation involving the defense of bystanders, as well. A person might choose to intervene even if it were not safe to do so, especially in the case of a threat to family or friends, but that choice would be based on emotion, not on principle.
 
Stargazer

+1

The question of your duty to protect others is where personal choice and opinion affect morality. I believe that I do have a moral duty to help and protect others, even when at risk to my personal safety. This duty is stronger when relating to women or children in danger (warning: Old fashioned values statement) as I am more able to shoulder such risks.

However, I don't believe that an answer different from mine is less "manly" or correct. I don't have kids, I'm not married. My responsibilities are much less than a father. I don't have anyone dependent on me. Where I believe I should take a risk to help others, my situation dictates that. I wouldn't second guess someone who answers differently.

I'm up for seeing the pics of the rasslin in lard in the kiddie pool
Click to expand...
Don, this is definitely something to keep between you and your higher power!:eek:
 
At this point in my life I have no dependents, no wife, no kids. For the time being I feel that if someone's life (not property) is in danger and I am in a position to protect them without further endangering them or others (myself not included) then I should take it.

That might change when my responsibilities expand a little but for now this is how I feel.
 
Nope - no moral duty.

Assumptions:
  • I am the target of the attack, not someone else.
  • My attacker has means, motive, opportunity.
  • My attacker is using those means and the opportunity.
  • My life is in imminent danger because he is close enough to hurt me, not approaching from 50 yards.
  • I am not within leaping or jumping distance of a door, cover or instant safety.
  • I am armed and do not need to "go find" a weapon.

However, there are special circumstances where I would retreat or not immediately try to neutralize the threat. For instance, if the attacker is;
  • A young child (i.e. pre-adolsecent)
  • In an emotional crisis and shooting wildly with little effect.
  • In front of a day-care center.
  • In or near a milling crowd of uninvolved people.
  • Nearby to something dangerous or irreplaceable (fuel, storage, priceless artwork like the Mona Lisa).
With the above list, I think there is a moral duty to make your retreat and/or try something else first.
 
Don't take away my right to choose

If someone is attempting to harm you or your family or if you have a fear that you can articulate to another person that your life or another's is in danger, the person endangering your life or another's has taken away your right to choose to harm (or kill) them or not.
 
But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does. Vote and discuss.
Click to expand...

There's no question that we all have a duty to retreat in the eyes of those who would make moral judgements about every type of conduct. Their views are even reflected in laws when they control legislatures.

I'm not sure I'd abandon my home or property in the name of some one elses' moral/ethical judgement.

Is the life of a criminal worth more than than my personal possesions I'd worked hard to purchase? Maybe, but is that life worth more than my liberties that have been paid for with the blood of Americans?

That's not to diminish the sound wisdom of a tactical and de-escalating retreat.

I'll be requred to make my own judgements when and if the time comes. And that, of course, takes into strong consideration whether deadly force would be authorized under the law.:cool:



Hope this isn't going to be a "pass judgement on others" thread.
 
Last edited:
moral

Even if you are armed and have the immediate ability to stop dead someone threatening our life WHY if you have the ability to say slam a steel door infront of you shut wouldn't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top