Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[csmsss]

Thats only if you consider that anyone who is a criminal is evil, and retreating instead of killing is not taking a stand.

I cannot think of any more descriptive a term than "evil" to describe the notion of stealing from another.

Dunkirk again.

Non sequitur.

By the way, are castle doctrines remnants of less civilized times?

Far from it. They are the sign of a more enlightened state wherein one is not obligated to shrink from aggressors but may freely defend himself and his property.

The notion that one must shrink from aggressors and submit to their tender mercies is what I would consider less civilized.

 

[csmsss]

I have a real problem with the idea that things can be labeled with such base terms as "evil" in the first place. I especially have issues with the term "evildoers" since it is nothing but a manipulative word used to demonize and dehumanize. Is a man who steals to feed his starving child "evil?" I also have issue with the idea that anyone would feel that they are somehow endowed with a duty to "remove" said "evil" from the world.

Let me see if I have this correct. Property doesn't belong to me if someone else decides he needs it more? The right to own property is superseded by someone else's desire to illegally take it from me? Absurd, and repugnant to me. I hold the right to own property to be as sacred as my right to defend my life, and consider anyone who would decide to steal it as evil. Yes indeedy.

 

[Wildalaska]

I cannot think of any more descriptive a term than "evil" to describe the notion of stealing from another.

The 9 year old that steals a candy bar. The starving children who glean the stalks from the field. The homeless alcoholic who finds a wallet and keeps the money.

All evil?

They are the sign of a more enlightened state wherein one is not obligated to shrink from aggressors but may freely defend himself and his property.

Really? Studied up on the history of the castle doctrine have you? recent development in the more civilized law?

I hold the right to own property to be as sacred as my right to defend my life, and consider anyone who would decide to steal it as evil. Yes indeedy.

Ergo, death is a justifiable to protect your property. The evil toddler that wanders over to your house and steals an apple should be shot? As burgeoning evil?

WildlasttimewesawthatwasinstalinsrussiaAlaska TM

 

[Donn_N]

Let me see if I have this correct. Property doesn't belong to me if someone else decides he needs it more? The right to own property is superseded by someone else's desire to illegally take it from me? Absurd, and repugnant to me. I hold the right to own property to be as sacred as my right to defend my life, and consider anyone who would decide to steal it as evil. Yes indeedy.

Huh? Of course your property belongs to you, even after someone else decides they need it more. I don't think anyone is saying differently. If it is recovered, the police return it to you.

And your right to own property certainly isn't superseded by someone else's desire to illegally take it from you. Who said that?

I wonder if you consider someone who commits a simple theft evil, what word do you reserve for folks like Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson?

People who steal can be evil, but stealing in and of itself does not make them so.

Some folks might also say that someone who would kill to protect property was evil.

 

[omkhan]

I think the assumption in the OP is "If you could shoot LEGALLY". Shooting a 9 y/o kid steeling a candy bar is far from legal. So why did u bring that up WA?

IMO if it is legally right to shoot a "BG" then it should morally be too. For me, the term BG denotes here some one who is in the act of a violent felony with third party. We have plenty of BGs here who "steals" (read rob on gun point) one off his/ her possessions specially cell phones, wallets etc & are pretty much trigger happy.
If I see them doing this with someone, will I shoot? NO but IMO since at that time it would be legal to shoot them, it would be morally right too. I may have my other reasons for not getting involved, but not because of "the moral duty to retreat".

 

[Playboypenguin]

MO if it is legally right to shoot a "BG" then it should morally be too.

Trying to equate legality with morality is a very weak position to be taking. Do you consider adultery moral...it is legal. Do you consider lying to be moral...it is legal. Do you consider greed a moral aspect of humanity...it sure is legal.

 

[OldMarksman]

Some folks might also say that someone who would kill to protect property was evil.

And should that someone actually do so, criminal, except in Texas at night when "necessary" and under some limited circumstances, in Georgia.

Kinda dumb to do something to protect property when one would end up without any.

Anti-gunners have often mischaracterized castle laws as permitting the use of deadly force to protect property, but the intent is generally to establish a presumption for justification of self defense. The principle goes back about 4000 years.

 

[stargazer65]

csmss wrote:

The notion that one must shrink from aggressors and submit to their tender mercies is what I would consider less civilized.

I'm not suggesting submission to the BG. He's not a threat to me in my "retreat" as I understand the OP. I'm just suggesting that the moral thing to do IMO would be to let law enforcement and the justice system deal with him.

 

[Sparks2112]

I'm just suggesting that the moral thing to do IMO would be to let law enforcement and the justice system deal with him.

I have almost no faith in the justice system's ability to properly handle most violent offenders...

 

[OldMarksman]

The notion that one must shrink from aggressors and submit to their tender mercies is what I would consider less civilized.

Two different things. The duty to retreat "to the wall" was incorporated in the common law numerous centuries ago to provide a means of establishing whether one who had committed homicide had done so in consensual combat, had committed murder, or had been forced to kill for the legitimate purpose of self-preservation. How else would people know? Sounds very civilized to me.

Didn't apply in the home.

Submission is something else entirely.

Today some states have "stand your ground" laws. These obviate the need for proving, in a defense of justifiability, that safe retreat was not a viable option.

Just thinking aloud, they may--conceivably--have the unintended effect of making it more difficult to establish that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary as a last resort if retreat has not been attempted, however.

 

[easyG]

A moral duty to retreat?

NEVER.
Standing your ground when someone is threatening your life, your family, or your property is certainly not immoral.





An ethical duty to retreat?

NEVER.
Standing your ground when someone is threatening your life, your family, or your property is certainly not unethical.





A legal duty to retreat?

Unfortunately, the answer to this one is: MAYBE.
Make sure you know your state laws.

 

[Deputy Dog]

Hi everyone, new to to the Forum, 16 yr. Veteran (constant Student) to the world of self preservation and firearms. A lot of great arguments here, my .02 is, I beleive that too many people only worry about themselves, and not care about what goes on around them (other people). This mantallity, is why we are in the world of hurt, we as a society, could have avoided, if we just think about our fellow (law abiding) man/woman. There would be fewer needless victims, if we stopped criminals in their actions, instead of retreating and letting the criminal move on to the next victim. I believe we have a moral obligation to protect inocent life, wether it is our own, or the man next to us. I have seen way to many good people get hurt, because someone didnt want to get involved, reason being, didnt affect them. Criminals are scum of the earth along with pedafiles and rapists, if someone came after me, or some one I Love, or a descent human being, with a weapon, or was puting lives in immenant danger, drop him/her in their tracks, so no innocent people are affected by the Scum bag in the future. Regardless if you could safely retreat or not.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Today some states have "stand your ground" laws. These obviate the need for proving, in a defense of justifiability, that safe retreat was not a viable option.

Just thinking aloud, they may--conceivably--have the unintended effect of making it more difficult to establish that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary as a last resort if retreat has not been attempted, however.

Good point. And it's worth keeping in mind apart from the legal implications, as well: one reason I would always at least attempt to retreat is that if I were pursued as I was trying to get away and I then shot the pursuer, there would be that much less doubt in my own mind, after the fact, that I really did need to shoot to defend myself. Might make it a bit easier to live with...

Kinda dumb to do something to protect property when one would end up without any.

So is this one: as a practical matter, shooting someone to protect your property may be a poor choice, since the ensuing legal costs will likely far exceed the value of the property you were "protecting"... So if the actual protection of property is sort of a moot point, because defending it will end up costing you more than not defending it, we're back to the prophylaxis argument, it seems to me: the only reason to shoot a thief is that people who steal deserve to die, because they'll just do it (or worse) again.

Which is an argument I'll go on rejecting, for all the reasons I, and others, have stated above.

 

[stargazer65]

Welcome DD. You sure don't mind jumping into the frying pan.

You stated that we should drop the criminal in his tracks so no innocent people are affected in the future.

WA stated earlier to someone who said something similar:

Really? Like the drunk who stumbles into the wrong house? Just blast him to protect the public from inchoate future harm?

(WA is using sarcasm to make a point)

Remember, you are suggesting dropping him for things he hasn't yet done based on what you think of him. Why not let the police pick him up and the courts decide what to do since you can do that in complete safety as the OP stated. It's not our place to dispense justice single-handedly.

 

[easyG]

WA stated earlier to someone who said something similar:
Quote:

Really? Like the drunk who stumbles into the wrong house? Just blast him to protect the public from inchoate future harm?

(WA is using sarcasm to make a point)

Remember, you are suggesting dropping him for things he hasn't yet done based on what you think of him. Why not let the police pick him up and the courts decide what to do since you can do that in complete safety as the OP stated. It's not our place to dispense justice single-handedly.

I disagree with this sentiment.
How is the homeowner expected to know that a night intruder is just "Ol' Joe the harmless town drunk"?

"Excuse me mister intruder, are you just lost or confused or do you have a gun and plan to shoot me and rape my wife?"

If someone forces their way in to my home, I'm not going to sit by and wait and see what they have on their mind.

 

[stargazer65]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The thing is I agree with you EasyG. But what you suggest isn't what this thread is about. If there is real potential danger to me or family, sure I believe that I would be morally justified in shooting. But there isn't any danger, since we can retreat and hide in our room in complete safety with a gun until the police show up. At least that's the way I understand the OP intent.

 

[Wildalaska]

How is the homeowner expected to know that a night intruder is just "Ol' Joe the harmless town drunk"?

"Excuse me mister intruder, are you just lost or confused or do you have a gun and plan to shoot me and rape my wife?"

If someone forces their way in to my home, I'm not going to sit by and wait and see what they have on their mind.

If its Spiff, a warm floor to curl up on......

WildbethehasthatonememorizedAlaska ™

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241344&highlight=drunk

I do too......

 

[easyG]

But there isn't any danger, since we can retreat and hide in our room in complete safety with a gun until the police show up. At least that's the way I understand the OP intent.

But how can you be sure that you actually are in no danger just because you have a gun and are hiding in your room?

Suppose the intruder is in the other room setting your house on fire?
Suppose he has a gun and starts shooting through the walls?

Unlikely?
Sure.

But IMO thinking that you're "SAFE" in one room of your house while an intruder (whom you have no idea whatsoever is planning) is in another room in your house is foolish at best.

 

[stargazer65]

Most progressive states have some form or another of Castle Doctrines, which eliminate the Legal Duty to Retreat in ones home, and frequently a place of business.

Many other jurisdictions have extended that Doctrine into Stand your ground laws applicable to areas outside the home.

There fore, the armed citizen, under these laws, has no legal duty to retreat, even if he can do so in complete safety.

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does. Vote and discuss.

Please note: The poll question is: Retreat with COMPLETE SAFETY

WilditscloudytodayinAlaska ™

emphasis mine

I'm only dealing with the situation as it was put forth, I'm not dealing with other what ifs.

By the way that was a hilarious thread WA posted, everyone should read it if you haven't yet.

 

[Donn_N]

But IMO thinking that you're "SAFE" in one room of your house while an intruder (whom you have no idea whatsoever is planning) is in another room in your house is foolish at best.

I agree. The only thing more foolish is to try to clear one's house alone when you have no idea what the threat is or how many BGs are out there.

If someone sets the house on fire or starts shooting through walls, I'll still be safer hole up in a room than wandering around the house looking for bad guys as I can always exit the room to outside the house without confronting the BG.

Unlikely?
Sure.

Now apply that same quote to the odds of being killed or injured while attempting to clear your house by yourself. It no longer applies.

So while it is foolish to think you're 100% safe anywhere in your home if there is an armed firebug breaking into your house, you're still much safer than you would be confronting the armed firebug.