|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Does an Armed Citizen have a Moral/Ethical Duty to Retreat (complete safety) | |||
Yep, at all times | 30 | 13.89% | |
Nope, Never | 92 | 42.59% | |
Yep, but only on the street, not in the Home/Business | 63 | 29.17% | |
I'm not ansering because I dont want to seem either wimpy or bloodthirsty | 15 | 6.94% | |
I'd rather have pic of you and Spiff iwearing spandex loincloths lard wrestling in a baby pool. | 16 | 7.41% | |
Voters: 216. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 27, 2009, 06:19 PM | #701 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Someone who's, in effect, legally insane, who doesn't understand the nature and consequences of their actions, cannot be said to have CHOSEN death by breaking in my door or coming in through my window, any more than ... a drunk who thinks it's his own house... ... or an eight-year-old on a dare... ... or that (drunk?) woman who really, really needs to use the bathroom... is proving, by forcing their way into my house, that they've CHOSEN death. You can't claim to know that someone has "chosen death" any more than you can tell at a glance if they're mentally ill; you have to decide what to do based on their behavior, not on inferences about their mental state. So if you believe that anyone who comes into your house without permission is automatically an immediate threat to your life, then you'll immediately be willing to use lethal force to defend yourself. If you believe that there's more than one reason someone might force entry, and that more than one kind of person might do so, then your response might be more conservative: retreating upstairs or to a safe room, or just getting some distance between you while you see how much of a threat they actually are: is this person a child? is this person falling-down drunk? is this person showing a weapon? is this person a huge guy who isn't showing a weapon, but outweighs you by a hundred pounds or so? All of these are things you might be able to determine more or less quickly, perhaps in a second or two, if you give yourself the opportunity to do so. Another thing comes to mind here: if you've decided, before the fact, that anyone who forces entry is a lethal threat, then you're probably more likely to miss cues that they might not be. As I recall, there's a good bit of evidence for this kind of effect of belief on perception. (Care to comment on that, Glenn?)
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; June 28, 2009 at 03:58 PM. Reason: typos |
|
June 27, 2009, 06:27 PM | #702 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
But, as I've said before, such action in my mind is NOT immoral or unethical.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
|
June 27, 2009, 06:35 PM | #703 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
June 27, 2009, 06:39 PM | #704 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
June 27, 2009, 06:41 PM | #705 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
IF they remain alive they will always be a threat to someone. Or, we can drop the whole 'complete safety' issue as it amounts to nothing more than nonsense anyway. Interresting for a thought experiment, sure, but nothing more. We're discussing a moral issue but trying to do it in a complete abstract reality that does not exists. If the moral question has any real bearing it must be a question of this reality that we live in, not one created to ask an interesting question. If one retreats, the attacker gets away. That freedom will only give them the chance to attack someone else. That chance, no matter how slim (they could be picked up five minutes after you retreat by police, or die of heart attack while making their own escape) precludes the possibility of complete safety. The mere fact that anyone of us has made the choice to bear arms for defense is the most damning evidence that we've already dismissed the idea of complete safety.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08 |
|
June 27, 2009, 07:03 PM | #706 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Quote:
And in any case, even although one can argue whether or not "complete safety" ever exists in the real world, it is a useful way of thinking about the moral issue.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|||
June 27, 2009, 07:16 PM | #707 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
If there's one thing I've learned from this threat. I'm damn sure not taking up the pharmacy trade in Oklahoma.
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
June 27, 2009, 07:18 PM | #708 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, that consideration is completely irrelevant to any case involving a defense of justifiability for the use of deadly force. Quote:
If you haven't read this now is a good time to do so: http://www.useofforce.us/ Some relevant excerpts: Quote:
You cannot use deadly force on the basis of what someone may do later, unless you want your street address and zip code replaced by a prisoner number. |
|||||
June 27, 2009, 07:26 PM | #709 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,391
|
Quote:
If someone poses a deadly threat, then they need to be dealt with apropriately.
__________________
How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? |
|
June 27, 2009, 07:30 PM | #710 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
June 27, 2009, 07:42 PM | #711 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Not one person in this thread has ever denied that someone who poses an imminent deadly threat should not be dealt with in accord with law. The issue here, I reckon, in one sense, is what constitutes imminent...for some folks it is the attack qua attack that makes it imminent in ALL circumstances. For others, such as myself, an attack is only iminent if I cant get away in complete safety. And I will, to follow up on Vanyas point, allege that it is in fact a moral issue due to the fact that one will not know until too late who one is killing, unless one takes every possible step NOT to kill, and by doing so, one may kill unecessarily, which is immoral or unethical. In response to that point, the if and when scenarios posted, while interesting, skirt the moral/ethical issue. Other posts, even by those who posit no duty to retreat on moral and ethical grounds, take a reasoned view of the issues and conclude that there is no duty, even when one can retreat, and point to a line of Western philosophy and thought that supports their view. And thats fine, although I would be interested in the reactions of folks to my Mental illness question (and thats directed to Al, Glenn and Pax ) Or to put it broadly, is it not the duty of any man not to kill, except under the most extreme circumstances, and if you can retreat in COMPLETE safety, do those circumstances exist? WildthisthreadisaninternetmilestonebroughttoyoubythefiringlineAlaska ™ |
|
June 27, 2009, 07:46 PM | #712 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 29, 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,391
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? |
|||
June 27, 2009, 09:25 PM | #713 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 389
|
Quote:
While I do not agree with the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mentality, I do not feel any obligation to spend a great deal of time evaluating a threat within my own home. I feel that this train of thought can be quite dangerous. I could sit here and type up a number of scenarios where taking time to identify a threat could lead to my demise as well as instances that show where the same action saves a life. There will never be a concrete answer for this. It is something that must be determined on a case by case basis.
__________________
"You can all go to hell, I'm going to Texas." ---Colonel David Crockett Matt 6:33 |
|
June 27, 2009, 09:36 PM | #714 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
In my opinion, it is essential to identify a threat as not being a neighbor or friend, for example, before using deadly force. Evaluating is a different story. Your thoughts? |
|
June 27, 2009, 09:47 PM | #715 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 389
|
OM,
I was not making any distinction and was actually using the terms interchangeably, but I would tend to agree with you.
__________________
"You can all go to hell, I'm going to Texas." ---Colonel David Crockett Matt 6:33 |
June 28, 2009, 01:38 AM | #716 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2007
Location: "State of Discombobulation"
Posts: 1,333
|
Quote:
Yes, I've heard the term "the great equalizer". The difference between you and me is that I have used a gun in self defense, or in the performance of legal duties, and have read and heard both terms. Biker |
|
June 28, 2009, 03:56 AM | #717 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
WA
Quote:
By making this a moral issue, you continue to impose your personal definitions of morality upon others. And it is indeed a difficult task to change an opposing viewpoint in a debate; usually it is for the "undecided" that the debaters are arguing for. I again (post#193) will quote: "For me there is only one true morality; but it might not fit you, as you do not manufacture aerial battleships. There is only one true morality for every man; but every man has not the same true morality." Undershaft from George Bernard Shaw's Major Barbara
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure... |
|
June 28, 2009, 05:40 AM | #718 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
It's an inane question to start with. conforming to the rules of right conduct is what morals are. I do not make the rules, others before me have.
You're asking us to judge the rules of others as it pertains to our personal conduct...something you have vociferously been against since the beginning. opinion and situation will differ so much in variable that there is no way one could attempt to answer this question with any degree of accuracy. What is acceptable in one situation would not be acceptable in another situation. |
June 28, 2009, 10:21 AM | #719 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The mental status of the intruder is irrelevant to your actions if you determine that the intruder is up to no good in the metacontext.
If you want to try to determine their mental status and limit your self-defense choices and put yourself at more risk - go ahead. You can't do it in real time. Since you can retreat in full safety for the OP game, then it makes no difference for the retreat option. If you decide to confront - well, get out your DSM-IVR and diagnosis a stranger. If the intruder is your paranoid uncle with an ax who thinks you are a tool of the UN and is here to chop your chitlins and you want to confront him go ahead. If you want to discuss diminished capacity and the legal ramifications, that's not a tactics issue but a civil rights issue and you should studied up before opining - it is a legal, neurological and psychological issue.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 28, 2009, 12:45 PM | #720 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Consider: I think killing is wrong under all circumstances. I think killing is justifiable under certain circumstances. I think killing is the answer to all lifes problems. Which one is immoral or unethical? WildistheranyonewhothinksthethirdisocorrectAlaska TM |
|||
June 28, 2009, 12:52 PM | #721 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
But that's a different thread to discuss the metacontext of killing.
We are better off focusing on the OP that you suggested Ken.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 28, 2009, 01:31 PM | #722 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildkickoffinafewminutesusavsbrazilAlaska TM |
|
June 28, 2009, 02:15 PM | #723 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Strategy: Systematic plan(s) of action.
Tactics: Maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy. When executing plan A (strategy), always have a plan B (tactics), preferably more, in reserve. I have already opined that the OP's question is essentially unanswerable. With this new twist, the question becomes even more unanswerable. Quote:
|
|
June 28, 2009, 02:21 PM | #724 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Like the USA NOW LEADING MIGHTY BRAZIL 2-0!!!!!!! WildeatitoworldWEhavearrivedAlaska TM |
|
June 28, 2009, 03:26 PM | #725 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 389
|
Quote:
None of the above. Morals and ethics are a PERSONAL matter. I think certain sexual practices are immoral, many others disagree with me and I don't bother trying to force my views on any of them. You cannot impose your personal ethics upon others. To do so is incredibly presumptuous and arrogant. Additionaly, you cannot expect someone to hold up to your ethical/moral code. We see this right now in the Middle East. We have two cultures that views each other as backwards and neither is going to yield...I will stop here to hopefully avoid a political derail, but you get the idea I hope...
__________________
"You can all go to hell, I'm going to Texas." ---Colonel David Crockett Matt 6:33 |
|
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
|
|