The Moral Duty to Retreat

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...

In either case, . . . my first moral duty is to my wife, son, daughter, employee, customer, maintenance person, maid, . . . or any of a number of other folks whom have come to trust me and look up to me as a part of their safety network. Maybe others do, . . . I do not live in a social group where it is every person for their own self.

I do not know what is going on in the other room and I do not know for sure who all is in there, . . . I need to investigate, . . . and will do so 1911, AR, AK, M1A, 870 or whatever in hand as I investigate.

The BG has already shown a total and irreverant disregard for morals, ethics, legalities, etc. and is in all liklihood, . . . hell bent on rape, robbery, thuggery, and other mayhem.

Should I give him a free pass to do so while I run down the alley hoping 911 will be faster acting than 1911 would have been? Give me a break!

Should I take flowers to my daughter who was savagely raped by 4 while I was cowering in the shed out back?

How about a box of candy to my secretary who suffered a broken arm trying to defend herself from three gang bangers?


May God bless,
Dwight
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am just trying to get ideas on how other people look at this situation.

Its a discussion on how people look at the idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dwight,

I do believe that it is safe to make the assumption that retreating would be prefaced by complete safety to all innocent parties.

I'm not quite sure why every time the idea of retreat comes up every thread is filled with replies about people getting hurt.

It should be understood without saying that retreat is only an option when it can be done safely.




We also don't need to have the discussion about "how can you KNOW it can be done safely" because, on the internet, we can't know. Every situation is different. There are an infinite number of scenarios.

Make the assumption that retreat is possible with complete safety for all innocent parties but is not required by law.

Are you morally obligated to avoid shooting someone if you have another option?

Frankly, I'm a little disturbed that it even requires discussion.
 
Some of you guys really scare me…

The glibness with which you talk about taking another human being’s life is quite repugnant to me. There is only one correct answer to this question: if you can retreat safely, you have a moral obligation to do so. And if your moral compass doesn’t lead you to that conclusion, consider this: your actions WILL be referred to a grand jury, and you will have to explain why you did what you did. You may be indicted, in which case you will be defending yourself in court, with the attendant press coverage and legal expenses. You may be convicted, in which case you might serve time in prison and/or on supervised release, and will lose many of the rights you take for granted, not the least of which is your right to keep and bear arms. Even if you are exonerated, you will probably lie awake nights wondering if you did the right thing. You will be subject to ostracism from the family and supporters of the person you killed, and you may face a civil suit for wrongful death, which, if you lose, could deprive you of everything you’ve worked hard for during your life. Even if you prevail in the lawsuit, you could lose your livelihood if your employer decides he doesn’t want a gun-totin’, trigger happy employee on his payroll.

I fully support the right to carry, but if you think it’s OK to shoot someone even if you can safely withdraw, you should seriously consider whether you’re carrying a firearm for the right reasons. As Peetzakiller says, it’s disturbing that that this topic even requires discussion.
 
Understand, I'm not a wisher of violence but if an intruder is brazen enough to violate my home while it's occupied I must assume he has nothing but bad intentions for me and mine. I want him dead, oh so completely dead if possible. This intruder will kill or maim eventually and needs to be stopped now. My moral obligation is to my community.
 
I want to clarify something. The only entity that can legally kill someone in the United States is the state or federal government and only after considerable lengthy court room trials and decisions. You cannot kill someone else, but you can try to stop someone else in self-defense or the defense of others. Now if that person dies as a result of you trying to stop them then on a case by case basis the local authorities will study the issues and make a decision if they want to prosecute you. They will see if your actions closely align with the laws in question.

I would never post on a public message board that my intent was to kill someone else as one of the posters just did. That type of intent does not closely align with the laws that are out there. Your intent, at all times, should be to stop the threat...that is...if you do not first have a duty to retreat. I cant think of any laws where they will allow you to kill someone else.

You never (well almost never) see a LEO in the United States put any more bullets into a suspect then they need to. For example, at Fort Hood. The officer only fired off as many bullets as she needed to stop the threat. She didnt keep going and finish off the suspect. Her intent was to stop the threat. Had she put more bullets into the suspect then was needed to stop then she could have been prosecuted for manslaughter or murder in theory.

So dont go telling your friends or posting on messageboards that you want to kill someone else even in self-defense. Now you have admitted to the intent of the crime.
 
I believe that as civilians we all have a moral duty, and personal responsibilty to avoiding dangerous situations. If the oppertunity exists. IME criminals tend to try and isolate their victims. You may not have the option of running away.
 
Water-Man said:
peetza, you sure get disturbed easily. In my opinion, it's a personal decision.
Click to expand...


Actually, there is very little that disturbs me. The idea that someone would shoot another person rather than take a safe option of retreat is certainly one of those things.


Morally, legally, financially, mentally, it makes no sense. It is disturbing.
 
peetza, while I think your responses are a great illustration of an individual taking on an additional responsibility to be willing to let go of unimportant stuff, I don’t think it can be justly applied by law due to differences in individual cases. If we are to accept the concept of unalienable rights, the concept of property must be one of them or all of them fall. How can you describe a right to anything, including life, without the concept of property … of "it" being yours? … And how can you describe anything as yours without having the ability to influence it’s future or determine its use? Retreat is giving up whatever right you had to the property you are retreating from. If you are required to retreat either morally or legally, you never had a right … morally or legally (respectively) to the property.

While your decision to prize life above all else might be laudable; even then, the personal moral obligation to retreat is dependent on the individual being strong enough (including financially) to give up whatever may be in danger. Cases in point when facing a thief:… property necessary for the survival of the owner and property that could pose grave threat to others if stolen.
 
usaign said:
You never (well almost never) see a LEO in the United States put any more bullets into a suspect then they need to.
Click to expand...

Polk County Florida
A Florida gunman, who shot and killed an officer and his police dog, was shot at 110 times and hit 68 times when SWAT team members found him the following day hiding in the woods under a tree trunk and he refused to show his hands. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said the fugitive would have been shot more, but the SWAT team ran out of bullets. Angilo Freeland (pictured), 27, a suspected drug dealer, fled from police after he was pulled over in a routine traffic stop by Deputy Douglas Speirs. The deputy called for back-up and Deputy Vernon Matthew Williams answered the call with his police dog.

As they followed the suspect into the woods there was a "burst of gunfire" and Deputy Williams and his dog were killed and Speirs was wounded in the leg. An autopsy report revealed that Williams, 39, was shot eight times. He was shot once a close range behind his right year and again in his right temple.

After a massive manhunt for the fugitive through the night, a SWAT team surrounded Freeland in a thickly wooded area hiding under a fallen tree. When he failed to show the officers both hands and they spotted a handgun in one of his hands, they opened fire. Freeland's autopsy showed that he was shot 68 times. An investigation of the scene revealed that police fired 110 rounds.

"That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told reporters.


Thanks for the advice.
 
The poster that said who's morals nailed it. There's sliding scale morals in this world. I like old school morals (eye for an eye) but nowadays the moral thing is an expectation to run or beg for your life, retreat within your home! haha.

How about this?
If you're 30< then you have a moral duty to retreat/surrender your money & valuables...

30-40 and torn between generations so general confusion

40+ Old school morals, do not back down and set in your ways (yay!)

It's a little amusing and a little scary how some reject the idea of engaging evil with deadly force. Repugnant to kill eh? Maybe so, I don't want to kill. However, open minded critical thinking quickly shows us that human beings are natural born killers. The evil prey on the innocent and kill. The good kill the evil or kill animals and such to eat. There's a pretty fine line between the distinction of evil and good behavior.

There's a world of difference between the sheepdog and the sheep. Not so much difference between the sheepdog and the wolf! Do you think that sheepdog wont kill the wolf? WIll the sheepdog run from the wolf? If the sheepdog kills the wolf, is that repugnant? Maybe, but killing the wolf was necessary. The sheepdog need not back down and retreat. The flock suffers if the sheepdog retreats. Sometimes the Wolf runs if the sheepdog bares its teeth, and the sheepdog will let it go.

These are basic realities of life. By reading the thread it is apparent that some have chosen to not engage evil but to run because they believe that it is the "moral" thing to do. Others have thought it through and realized that Usually it is better to stand your ground. More evil is derailed by giving defense than retreating.

These are not bloodthirsty people who quickly answer to not retreat but to engage the evil...these are intelligent people who have thought it through beforehand so have the answer ready is all. ;)
 
And then the idea of safety comes back into it.

I can't believe that this is so complicated.


It doesn't matter if you're 4, 40, or 95.

Retreat, with complete safety. Complete. Safety.

The 40 year may be able to retreat when the 95 year old can not. The man in a wheelchair may... blah, blah, blah


Complete. Safety.

This is not an exercise in coming up with scenarios that do not involve complete safety.

It is a question.

Why do we need to complicate this?

You can retreat, with complete safety, do you?

Even outside the moral discussion there are extremely compelling social, financial and mental reasons.


There's sliding scale morals in this world.
Click to expand...

There's a sliding opinion scale. The morals are what they are. Whether I believe it, you believe, anyone or no one believes it. They are what they are.

If they're not, then they literally ARE NOT, as in, there are none. There either is NO right answer to ANY moral question or there is A right answer to a moral question.
 
Make the assumption that retreat is possible with complete safety for all innocent parties but is not required by law.

Are you morally obligated to avoid shooting someone if you have another option?
Click to expand...

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. That includes retreating from evil and not opposing it
 
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. That includes retreating from evil and not opposing it
Click to expand...

So "doing something" means staying and shooting?

That's all that a "good man" can do to prevent the "triumph of evil"?
 
Let me see...do I get in my car and drive away in complete safety or shoot someone I don't absolutely, unequivocally HAVE to just to prove I'm someone who won't back down.

Wait, let me think....

D'oh!


Larry
 
So "doing something" means staying and shooting?

That's all that a "good man" can do to prevent the "triumph of evil"?
Click to expand...

It may, depending on the situation. In another thread, you talked about morals and Adolf Hitler and how he was absolutely wrong. Do you believe that we had a moral obligation to retreat from Adolf Hitler? Or do you believe that he should have been opposed, stopped, defeated?

A situation with a bad guy or a bully is a microcosm of that. Do you believe we have a moral obligation to submit to a bad guy or bully, and give him whatever he wants? Or do you believe we should assert ourselves and stand up for our rights? The bad guy does not have the right to make you take a single step back -- and if he is going to use violence to make you take that step, you have the right to defend yourself

It may be prudent to retreat in many circumstances, but I do not think you have a moral obligation to give a bad guy anything...except maybe space for him to retreat
 
The Florida SWAT team shooting the man 68 times is a different scenario where a lot of gunfire might have been warranted. It may sound ridiculous when you read it, but as you read further you find that it was indeed justified to stop the threat.

First, the person they were trying to arrest was very willing to shoot law enforcement officers. He had killed one officer with 8 shots, wounded another and shot at a police detective. So that person was very willing to battle it out with the police.

Second, the police were chasing the man through a forest in a dynamic environment. When the police finally had him cornered, he produced a loaded weapon.

Third, what have we learned from past incidents such as the Miami shootout. We have learned that there are certain willing and able men out there that can take a lot of shots before they go down and the threat has stopped. In this instance, the man would have fired on the officers even if seriously wounded. If the police only shot the man 2-3 times then he might have been still capable of action against them. I bet that even in a wounded state, he would have shot that .45 he was holding at the police and someone might have been killed.

Fourth, the more guys you have...the more rounds you shoot...the less chance you will hit the target. How many times have you gone to the range and missed the target from a distance?

So 68 shots seems excessive, but the police did what they had to do to stop the threat.

So each incident I believe will be judged on its own merits by the local authorities. I would say that you better not have the intent to kill in any defensive situation, because that will get you into serious trouble.
 
In another thread, you talked about morals and Adolf Hitler and how he was absolutely wrong. Do you believe that we had a moral obligation to retreat from Adolf Hitler? Or do you believe that he should have been opposed, stopped, defeated?
Click to expand...

Do you remember the part about complete safety to self and others?


Besides, it's hardly the same argument stopping international aggression and genocide or retreating from a single aggressive person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top