The Moral Duty to Retreat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do I have a moral obligation to retreat from a threat if I can do so safely?

For me, that answer is yes.

While I have a moral and contractual/oath-based obligation to defend against all threats, I also have an obligation to my family for their physical and financial well-being.

If there is sufficient time and opportunity for me and mine to retreat safely, then we will retreat. I am not in a financially fortunate position of being able to finance a years-long legal battle when other options are available. To speak nothing of the moral gravity of taking another life; something I wish upon no person.

However, if there is no other option; I will use all available force to stop the threat with any and all means necessary to secure the safety of my family and myself.

There's been a lot of chest-thumping and such so far on this thread. Might I remind my fellow TFL members that we do not have the authority or obligation of being judge, jury, and executioner. We carry firearms to protect ourselves and our families; we do not carry firearms to enforce laws even if we think it's the right thing to do. Yes, I understand that the "BG" may harm someone else later on down the line, but are you willing to risk the physical and financial well-being of your own family in order to prevent the possibility of harm to an unknown stranger?

I am not, and I don't believe that any of you are willing to take that risk either. So let's get back to basics; if you can safely retreat from the threat, then do so, call the police, and be a good witness.

If you can safely retreat, you have removed the threat from yourself. In many cases, this will only leave your possessions to be plundered. Fine, take my stuff, that's why I have insurance. Everything I own can be replaced, even "priceless" heirloom guns handed down throughout my family. My wife and children cannot be replaced, nor can I be replaced as a husband, father, and provider if I am convicted and sent to prison. If I must shoot, I want to know in my heart of hearts that it was the only option available to me to save the life of my family or myself. Period.
 
Last edited:
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS



Deadly Force to Protect Property​

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

Now according to some of the posters in this thread, following the law in Texas is an act of moral turpitude. However, I will submit to you that whether the laws of Texas appeal to your sense of morallity, or not, they certainly help to deter thievery. :)
 
There is no safe way to answer a vague question like this, because there are no limits on the number of possible scenarios that will be encountered.

Easier to say, can a person honestly justify using force to counter a percieved threat under any possible circumstances, with no regard to outcome?

In specific, for example, we had a retarded teenager in my neighborhood who liked to play strange games. One day, I caught him sneeking through the gates into a neighbor's yard, carrying a toy gun, playing cops and robbers. He tried the back door of the house. I was on my way to kick his butt, and he took off down the block "bang-banging" all the way.

If the door had been open, if he had entered, had my neighbor caught him, WHAT THEN?

The castle doctrine and make my day laws are so simple as to be utterly fatuous, IMO. The answer is, that if the homeowner found him and perceived him to be a threat, killing him where he stood was totally justified. That toy gun, pre red tip vintage, was enough to pose a threat; there is legal precedent that a threat need only be perceived, even if it is an error.

Are any of you people here ready to face the consequences of putting a handful of rounds into the chest of a 6'1" tall retarded 19 year old, and killing him?

Just the fact that even 1 in 100 or even more encounters don't justify a lethal force response is enough to say that MORALLY, you must retreat unless, and until, the threat is absolutely clear. The fact that there will always be circumstances that should not be answered with lethal force is all it takes to show that there is a moral and ethical responsibility to back down, and to be certain of the threat before you shoot.

Down in LA, iirc, some boneheaded clod shot a completely unarmed japanese kid who was standing in his driveway, rather than just stepping inside his house and closing his door. I don't recall if he was ever convicted of murder, but if he wasn't, that was the grossest miscarriage of justice ever. He wasn't even threatened, he left his house and confronted this boy in his driveway, and shot him rather than retreat to safety.
 
nate45 said:
Now according to some of the posters in this thread, following the law in Texas is an act of moral turpitude. However, I will submit to you that whether the laws of Texas appeal to your sense of morallity, or not, they certainly help to deter thievery.

EMPHASIS ADDED
Click to expand...

That may very well be the case... However, a law that says you can shoot someone over a 4-wheeler would do nothing to curb the guilt of taking a human life over some petty possession.

Yeah, it's your possession.

No, the "BG" has no right to take it.

No, it's not worth shooting (and possibly killing) another human being for anyone with any variation of a sense of morality and right/wrong.
 
Sometimes a retreat may be the sound thing to do. Depends on a million variables.

Is Peet suggesting that retreat should be the planned response to evil? Should my kid give the bully his lunch money because violence is never the answer? Massad Ayoob thinks so. He says carry a fiver wrapped around a matchbook to toss to the mugger to give em a little gratification and they may break off the aggression. Not a totally bad idea if you consider a single scenario, I mean, what's five bucks, right?

The problem lies in the mindset of the masses. If everyone did this then the criminal element would catch on and crime would increase, time to go collect me a stack of fivers honey.

If you stand your ground then you do not have to necessarily shoot them. This is proven daily all across America. All you need show is that you are ready, willing, and able to do them harm and 99 out of 100 times the evil one will flee. So, no Peet, doing something does not mean only shooting. As usual, the best answer is between shooting and running. It is the rare case that running would have been a better option than standing up to the BG and sending the message that yes I am willing to fight.
 
Peet is suggesting no such thing.

Peet is suggesting that you find yourself in a situation wherein deadly force is authorized by law, but wherein there is an option that you see/know about where you could, by every belief that you have at the time, retreat in complete safety, to a position of safety, without shooting.

It doesn't matter how many scenarios there are. The situation is not vague in any way that matters.

There are only two important points:

1)You are legally authorized to use deadly force.

2)You are aware of a way of escaping in complete safety for all innocent parties.

Do you escape or do you use deadly force?

It really is not a complicated question and it has nothing to do with Hitler or with your 5th grader getting bullied in lunch.
 
Now according to some of the posters in this thread, following the law in Texas is an act of moral turpitude. However, I will submit to you that whether the laws of Texas appeal to your sense of morallity, or not, they certainly help to deter thievery.
Click to expand...

After reading that excerpt, it seems pretty clear that if I see somebody stealing my hubcaps off of my car, it, I can shoot him in the back with my 12 gauge, and take them back.

The legislature that passed that bill gave me permission to kill a guy for stealing my 5 year old DVD player, and take no responsibility for it. It's his own fault, after all, he is a thief, and deserves to die, apparently. Otherwise, why would I have the right to kill him bound clearly into law?

That doesn't qualify as moral turpitude, that is a sin of the highest order. That's just one step short of stoning adulterous wives, IMO.
 
Nice attempt at baiting...
Click to expand...

Nice blatant ad hominem


It really is not a complicated question and it has nothing to do with Hitler or with your 5th grader getting bullied in lunch.
Click to expand...


The Pizzaguy is correct. Especially with his earlier statement: Last Resort.

Cover. Cower. Conceal.

Wildbutheywehashedthisoneoutalreadyover30pagesAlaska TM


PS
Some of you guys really scare me…
Click to expand...

Ya think?;)
 
You do not have a duty to move as long as you have the right to be where you are. You have the right to protect yourself and the duty to protect those that depend on you for protection. You have the duty to protect yourself if others are dependent upon you(and this can mean high tailing it out of the situation).

If there is a duty to retreat, then you have no right to be where you are.

The future consequences of your action/inaction must also be considered as relevant to your decision when judging it.

The morals remain the same. Proper action according to moral principle varies due to the variables of the situations. Morality should shape law but is not dependent upon law for its definition.
 
peetzakilla said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said, PK.

I think it's worth reminding everyone that as private citizens, our right to use deadly force is one of self-defense: we have the right to defend ourselves, our families, and (sometimes) other parties from immediate threats to life. Period. Full stop.

Microgunner said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. What someone may do "eventually" isn't a reason for shooting him. We don't, as individuals, have the right to "dispense justice," to "cleanse the gene pool," -- or to "assert ourselves and stand up for our rights," if that means taking it on ourselves to use deadly force on someone who isn't an immediate threat.

Taking a human life is a terrible thing, and a huge responsibility. This is why the right to do so without facing legal consequences is severely limited.

We say all the time that we should shoot only to stop a threat, not to kill. As peetzakilla said, "Shooting some one is a... LAST resort." Surely it follows from this that if we can safely end a threat in another way, such as by retreating from it, we have a moral duty to do so.
 
Oh, then I would agree with Peet that retreat would be the better option in his single very narrowly defined scenario. :)

But in my world things have NEVER been so narrowly defined or clear cut so I speak from a more realistic (to me) expectation of circumstances in a broader sense than you speak.
 
....in my world things have NEVER been so narrowly defined or clear cut so I speak from a more realistic (to me) expectation of circumstances in a broader sense than you speak.
Click to expand...


I fully agree that in the real world it is somewhat unlikely that you will have, one, the option to retreat, two, clear and concise knowledge of that option, and three, the mental wherewithal during what is admittedly a lethal force situation, to make the instant decision to take that option.

No doubt.

However, I also think that part of your awareness of your surroundings is to try to be aware of ways of escape should a situation arise. I also think that part of your home defense plan should include ways of keeping your family safe and waiting for police.
 
Last edited:
I think the armed citizen should make every effort to avoid trouble, but when trouble comes to you I don't feel that there is any moral obligation to run away.

What I think people fail to consider is that the criminal assault is not only an assault on your property. The mugger doesn't simply take your wallet. The burglar doesn't quiet away in the night with only your DVD player while you cower in the corner. These are assaults on your liberty, and have a detrimental effect on your sense of safety.

"The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" ~William J. Bennett

Link: On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs. By LtCol Dave Grossman
 
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.
Click to expand...

Pete. To me the decision is not based on moral grounds but on a practical one. If I have a viable and safe option for me and my family I will take it but not because I care for the agresor/intruder. I couldn't care less. The safety of my family comes first. No shootout is safer than a shootout. No confrontation is safer than a confrontation. Even if you rightfully kill someone in self defense the consecuences are horrible emotionally and economically.
 
Blue Steel said:
"The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?"

~William J. Bennett
Click to expand...

In no particular order...

What is worth defending?
- My family
- My country
- My rights
- My faith
- My life

What is worth dying for?
- My family
- My country
- My rights
- My faith

What is worth living for?
- My family
- My country
- My rights
- My faith

Take notice that my "stuff" is nowhere on that list. For good reason; no matter what the circumstance, objects of possession are not worth a human life. Period. And no, I don't give a damn what Texas law says; to me it's an issue of morality, not legality.
 
There is a time to stand and fight, even at the loss of my life, and there is a time to get out of the way. For me it is a tactical decision and not a moral one. I have no need to thump my chest or growl. I have a need to protect my family and survive. The goblin's safety and welfare simply do not enter into my thought process. When that person, or persons, decided to become a threat to my life and limb, or my family's life and limb, they have given up any right to safety and well being. I don't care about them. I will stop them however I can with whatever I have at the time.

I'll deal with the consequences later. I have a good lawyer in J. Noble Dagget.
 
You know, I'm getting a little more than ticked at people throwing around accusations of trollism simply because someone asks a question that someone else doesn't like.

It seems to be a growing tendency here at TFL.

If you think someone is trolling the board, you REPORT that individual and the moderators will make the determination, based on the content of the thread.

But if you start slinging accusations of trollism around in your messages, you're putting your own posting privileges at TFL in danger.

Do I make myself clear?
 
The question as it is posed is hopelessly general.

We've got several parallel discussions going as a result. Some discussing the situation where retreat is completely safe, some discussing retreat when it endangers the defender, some discussing retreat in one's own home, some discussing retreat on an international scale, retreat from attackers, retreat from evil in principle, retreat from dictators and their morally bankrupt policies, etc., etc.

AND, we've even got one minor attempt to spin up a sub-discussion on whether deadly force should be used to kill or to stop.

I'm gonna lock this one.

But before I do there I feel obligated to point out a seriously flawed interpretation of TX law found on this thread:
After reading that excerpt, it seems pretty clear that if I see somebody stealing my hubcaps off of my car, it, I can shoot him in the back with my 12 gauge, and take them back.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

First of all, based just on the excerpt, you will be committing murder unless the theft occurs during the nighttime. Taking hubcaps is simple theft.

Second, the excerpt clearly points out that deadly force can only be used if the owner "reasonably believes" there's no other option that won't expose the owner to "a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury".

Third, that excerpt is not a quote from the actual TX statutes. There's more to it than that. The TX statutes are online if anyone wants to verify exactly what they say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top