The Moral Duty to Retreat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh give us a break and give us at least one of several dozen possible scenarios so the question can be addressed. :rolleyes:

Might as well ask if it's moral to fight back without any details.:cool:
 
When, where? Pretty broad question. But I guess that's according to legal matters which you specifically asked us to set aside. I would prefer to never retreat because I would never be shooting at somebody that didn't entirely deserve being shot at. Just my opinion. But treat everybody around you as to how you wish to be treated and you will be allowed to live a long and happy life. I just don't believe in the whole "pitty the criminals" concept that a lot of people have.

While in High School, there was a man that had already been arrested twice, once for aggrivated assault, maybe both times but I'm not entirely sure. A judge decides to let him go after the second offense despite the death threats he had made to a lady and the ladies family. The guy comes onto my school's property during the hours that classes were dismissing for the day, forces the ladies' daughter into his truck right in front of half the school, proceeds to drive out off to a country road where he executed her by a gunshot to the head.

Just last week, somebody in my hometown that was released only 8 months ago on parole from a 18 year prison sentence for first-degree murder once again murdered a total stranger at a gas station. This fine gentleman should have been put away for good a long, long time ago.

I'm sure you could find a million other stories that are more or less similiar to these stories. I don't believe that these people ever deserved a second or third chance. If a person will kill once, they will kill again and again. It was only 100 years ago that cold blooded killers were hung in the middle of a street at 12 o' clock noon. Boy what I would give to have been born in the 1800's...... :(
 
Haha Nnobby45, you beat me to the punch on the endless number of scenarios involved in such a question as this. :rolleyes: Please don't think I'm crazy people, I just get really distressed when speaking about bad guys. :)
 
Morally? No. If someone poses a threat to your safety, or life, there is no moral standpoint for giving the criminal an inch. They are breaking the law, they are a criminal putting you in jeopardy. The only moral obligations I feel are to get home safe to my family.
 
Alright, sorry to be posting so much but I can't stop thinking about this post. I want to ask you a question usaign. Would you feel a moral duty to take out a bad guy, assuming that you know for a 100% fact that the guy that you defended yourself against in a non-violent manner was only going to go down the street and murder somebody more defenseless than yourself? If you had absolutely no choice but to choose between a violent criminal's life and a comepletely innocent person's life, which would you choose?

I feel that maybe I'm getting a little too off topic or just headed in a really bad direction, and for that I would like to sincerely appoligize. However, I'm just curious if anybody else sees eye to eye with me in my "preserve a bad guy, kill a good guy" perspective. And I'm not volunteering for any kind of firing line duty or saying that I am of the slightest bit interested in a violent encounter with a bad guy so please don't ask me any scenarios of "would you pull the trigger on a drunk, trash talking outside of a bar" or something of the sort. Again I ask please.
 
Moral Duty?

One day I heard Mike Huckabee say (about radical islam) its nearly impossible to reason with evil, sometimes you have to kill it!

I suppose this could also apply to a BG anytime anyplace, if the BG doesn't withdraw while looking down the barrel I'd say he's unreasonable & if not evil he woulnt be threatening you/yours in the first place.
 
WildAlaska said:
Thou shall not commit murder
Click to expand...
Nice attempt at baiting...

Murder (transient verb) from Merriam-Webster
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly

Legal technicalities aside, if a conflict arises wherein another person presents a grave threat to my life or safety, or that of my family (or pehaps others), then no, I don't feel a moral obligation to retreat. The moral obligation is to prevent him from causing me great bodily injury and/or death.

There is, as Col. Cooper explained, a moral imperative to stand up to evil and defeat it. The more this happens, the safer a society will be. Defeat can be as simple as calling the police quickly and aiding in the prosecution or using lethal force when called for.

With that said, where I might feel a moral obligation to retreat is dependent upon known circumstances. That guy standing in the street screaming like a lunatic while waving a sword can be handled by simply staying away until the police arrive.¹ Until he starts to chase after people. At that point, exigent circumstances dictate stopping him from causing injuries.

¹ Or via the "Indiana Jones" school of threat management.
 
Moral duty to retreat? I don't want to hurt anyone. At the same time I don't want anyone hurting me. The only moral duty I have is to protect myself and my family.
 
I run like a tree, this problem has always worked out for me, no matter the situation I have never had a plan, when I am approached and someone says "SAY MAN!" I say "MAN!!!!!!.

F. Guffey
 
Since the question is so general, the response can only be general. I have no desire to take another person's life. I carry a gun, but I am resolved to use it only as a last resort to avoid the death or serious injury of innocents, including most importantly my family. If backing up a step or several steps defuses a situation and causes no shots to be fired, I am willing to put aside my ego and be the one who retreats. If I can get in my car and drive away from a threat I will do so. I will cover any such retreat with a firearm, already drawn if the threat is imminent enough to justify it, but I will retreat from a threat as long as it is tactically safe to do so in order to avoid the grave consequences of taking a human life. I want to be able to say, not just in court but to my Maker, that I had no choice left to me when I pulled the trigger.

Some will call me a coward, I suppose. That is another price I am willing to pay in order to preserve my personal integrity and conscience.
 
Ohio's self defense laws used to contain a "duty to retreat" which meant your first attempts at self protection should involve attempting to flee the situation to safety. That was changed last year with some new laws that were put in place and there is no longer a "duty to retreat" here in Ohio.

If you want to talk "morals" my moral obligation is the protection of myself and my loved ones. If there is a threat to either of us, I'm not going to hesitate. I'm going to kill it and leave the debate over the morality of it to people who have too much time on their hands and too little understanding of real life.
 
Let me clarify a little.

You have the legal duty to retreat in certain states where it basically says that you have to retreat when possible. For example, you are in your house when someone breaks through the front door. You are near the back door of the house and can easily escape through it. Another example, you are at work alone in the backroom afterhours where there is an exit. You suddenly hear someone force open the front door.

I could go on and on, but in each example you could either stand your ground in defense of your home or work or simply exit through the door. So when its possible do you have a moral duty to retreat?
 
Usually, there is no moral duty to retreat, but moral imperatives to protect can sometimes create circumstances where retreat is the correct moral action.
The most obvious example comes into play when engagement in the battle would result in you losing. If you have good people and/or good works that are dependent on your continued existence, your primary moral obligation can be to them. Another that comes to mind is when your right to remain in place is removed. If, while facing an aggressor on private property, the owner asks you to leave, you become obligated to attempt retreat out of protecting his right to property.

Life, like money or any resource is not meant to be hoarded, but to be used and spent to promote good. Life is simply our time that we have to be "in action" in the world around us.
There is no moral duty to protect the life of an aggressor. His life is his property, and he is spending it in the way he sees fit.
There is also no moral duty to protect you own life (and the lives of innocents) aside from the good that can be done with it : in the present and future. It is the good that we are obligated to protect. All else is property that we each control as our own for a limited time, and that includes life.

We do have an additional choice that is outside of moral duties, but I believe laudable. The principle of forgiveness can allow us to walk away from a fight if the aggressor allows it or if we have achieved the strength necessary to make his strength irrelevant. Forgiveness must never be codified into law or forced upon someone else because the ability to forgive is dependent upon the relative strengths of opponents. Imposing it as a duty, leads to tyranny over the weak.
 
I believe that if you can retreat with complete safety to yourself and others (when and how this happens you can decide in your own mind) then you are morally obligated to do so.

Shooting someone is a last resort.

LAST resort.

Last means that it is final, there are no other options after it. That means that if retreat is an option then it comes BEFORE shooting.


Besides the moral implications, there are legal, financial, social and mental reasons to do everything possible to avoid shooting someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top