|
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 23, 2009, 12:02 PM | #376 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 23, 2009, 12:16 PM | #377 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
so if one retreats, then BG can finish in that room and move to the bedrooms where daughters are sleeping?
let's go with that logic and sleep easy. no thanks. he's broken in, he's stealing, he sees homeowner with firearm. He stops stealing and tries to harm homeowner versus seeing homeowner and fleeing. under the logic here of some, if the BG gets shot WHILE HE IS ATTACKING A HOMEOWNER (who did not stay under the covers asleep or go back to bed) then the HOMEOWNER is a murdering hate monger. Correct me if I'm at fault here. Oh, already at fault for not retreating. |
June 23, 2009, 12:18 PM | #378 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
June 23, 2009, 12:26 PM | #379 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
no no, homeowner is in question / at fault for seeing BG and not
retreating. regardless of the scenario / situation. there can be dozens of reasons why a homeowner would stand and watch. gun cabinets in the adjoining room, etc. the homeowner is at NO fault of any kind for being a witness in his own home to a crime. how do people come up with the logic then that any pain for the BG to follow if the BG goes from thief to attacker is immoral for the homeowner because he didn't walk away? I'll step up and say there are situations when I see BG(s) in the kitchen at 2am that I might retreat back to the bedroom. Or I might decide that since girls rooms are between kitchen and my BR that there is not time nor quiet to secure / retreat. |
June 23, 2009, 12:28 PM | #380 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||
June 23, 2009, 12:33 PM | #381 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
ONLY in those safe situations.
Okay and thanks. Then my answer is the same. I will observe (and from cover if possible) while spouse calls 911) I may or may not retreat. There is no moral duty to do so. |
June 23, 2009, 12:37 PM | #382 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
Is this a complex situation/question?
The way I understand this, you are going to shoot some one dead as a brick, because he is in your house, broke in?
Or you are going to leave them in your house, and retreater, because you can safely do that? I can not see any circumstance in which you can know for sure you would be safe, "for sure" leaving the safety of your home. But saying yes in this hypothetical situation, and putting you in a vehicle, with a Cel phone? Go for it! "911, there is a thief in my house, I have left him in my house, this is the address, my 10-20 is here, my vehicle Tag is. Oh, and my buddy has parked his School bus behind the unknown vehicle, on my drive. I have a visual on the house, and vehicle. I will stay on the line. Not perfect, but easy. |
June 23, 2009, 12:38 PM | #383 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
June 23, 2009, 12:41 PM | #384 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
For example, I would retreat to my bedroom with the wife on the cell to 911 and the kids in the closet. The bedroom is "stand your ground" territory. I have no way out and there would be a locked door between me and Mr. Burglar. He would be in for a very bad day if he failed to heed my warnings about coming through THAT door.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 23, 2009, 12:46 PM | #385 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
You both are missing how the word "retreat" is applied. It is not a retreat in the military sense of the word, such as a battlefield retreat or breaking of contact with the enemy. It is a retreat from the use of lethal force.
Retreating from the use of lethal force includes just standing there and staring the guy down until he runs out as KingEdward is suggesting.
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe |
June 23, 2009, 12:57 PM | #386 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
Stargazer,
some moral duty to retreat seems more logical to me on the street with regard to possibly bystanders, the back stop, maybe there is lots of room and lots of cover (large parking garage) maybe retreating to a public place presents lots of witnesses, etc and a deterrent for the BG In my home, moral duty to retreat seems less logical because for the BG, there are no witnesses, there may be very little or no resistance and yes he may grab the nintendo and flee. Or, he may stay a bit and invite in his partner who decides to "go have fun" with the occupants. I'm for the shotgun behind the saferoom door and if situation/time permit, that is the first option. Implying there is a moral duty to retreat is to me stating that I'm culpable if I'm standing there minding my own and observing and a BG charges towards me with the crow bar and I protect myself with a firearm. I would not need to protect myself with a firearm or anything else should he choose to steal the next few items and leave. Why do people want to question the homeowner for observing in his own home and then point the finger when he is forced to defend himself. by the way, retreat to where, 2 rooms away. Why is that safer? if the BG comes in that room then am I to retreat up through the closet ceiling or out the window? |
June 23, 2009, 01:05 PM | #387 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
Leaving oneself in proximity to the intruder increases the possibility of violent confrontation. It also implies that you have approached the intruder close enough to observe. Approaching an intruder also increases the chance of a violent confrontation. Retreat means retreat, physically removing oneself and others from a threatening situation. By not retreating when possible we are leaving our family at risk. Put that sentiment into the mall shooter scenario. "Kids, hide behind the Sears manikin, while daddy observes the guy with the AK-47". That simply is not a sane option when retreat is possible. |
|
June 23, 2009, 01:33 PM | #388 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
Practical considerations
Have you seen the mess that a person makes bleeding out, the noise on old ear drums a +P+ 9mm makes, indoors, forget your Cel phone after, you can not hear squat! And who said you would not be on your own?
On your own, step out through the garage, safe holds all the good stuff. |
June 23, 2009, 01:47 PM | #389 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
Quote:
When we say "retreat" in this situation it means not shooting. For example, (I've used this scenario a thousand times now), I stumble across Joe Thug in my living room with his hands full of TV... in GA I am legally allowed to blow him away, but I personally would retreat from the use of lethal force and order him at gunpoint to put my TV down and lie facedown until the police arrive. THAT (in addition to actually physically retreating) is retreating from the use of force.
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe |
|
June 23, 2009, 01:50 PM | #390 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Retreat: (military) withdrawal of troops to a more favorable position to escape the enemy's superior forces or after a defeat; "the disorderly retreat of ... a place of privacy; a place affording peace and quiet (military) a signal to begin a withdrawal from a dangerous position withdraw: pull back or move away or backward; "The enemy withdrew"; "The limo pulled away from the curb" (military) a bugle call signaling the lowering of the flag at sunset move away, as for privacy; "The Pope retreats to Castelgondolfo every summer" hideaway: an area where you can be alone retrograde: move back; "The glacier retrogrades" retirement: withdrawal for prayer and study and meditation; "the religious retreat is a form of vacation activity" make a retreat from an earlier commitment or activity; "We'll have to crawfish out from meeting with him"; "He backed out of his earlier promise"; "The aggressive investment company pulled in its horns" the act of withdrawing or going backward (especially to escape something hazardous or unpleasant) You can individually decide that a word has some new meaning, but don't think everyone else understands or accepts your new meaning.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 23, 2009, 02:01 PM | #391 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
Quote:
Enough with the word games already. Quote:
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe |
||
June 23, 2009, 02:01 PM | #392 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
"Leaving oneself in proximity to the intruder increases the possibility of violent confrontation."
or, The intruder increases the possibility of violent confrontation by not fleeing. |
June 23, 2009, 02:02 PM | #393 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
I have peacefully "retreated" to my home for the evening. This is a place of safety and security. In breaking into my home, the BG has ADVANCED into my place of safety and security. I have passively retreated, he has actively violated. In Florida, and most states, this is the basis of the CASTLE doctrine. Previously, I had to determine the threat level of the BG as well as his intent. In the dark from a sound sleep, this is, at best, a tricky proposition. That is why the CASTLE doctrine is so beneficial. The legal requirement for me to cognitively work through multiple levels of threat assessment is obviated. Now, the ACTIVE, CRIMINAL action taken by the BG automatically includes an inherent threat to my physical safety. Therefore, the BG has put himself in the place of the primary moral actor. In other words, his ACTIVE action has become the main focus of moral judgement. He lives in a state with a CASTLE doctrine, knows homeowners may be armed (and chose to ignore the got sig? bumper sticker on my truck ) and still CHOOSES TO ADVANCE into my "retreat," then whatever follows is HIS RESPONSIBILITY. HE IS THE ACTOR! THE MORAL STAIN FOR WHATEVER RESULTS FROM HIS CHOICE IS ON HIS SOUL! Now, in a public place, depending on the situation, everything changes. Quote:
Quote:
My idea of moral duty is to identify and warn. If I have the drop on the BG, or BG appears to be unarmed, I will give him a chance to surrender. That is my moral duty.
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware |
|||
June 23, 2009, 02:06 PM | #394 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
|
Forgot to include this.
Quote:
__________________
Remington Nylon 66 .22LR - Squirrels Beware Browning BAR Safari II .270 Win - Whitetails Beware Sig Sauer P229 .40 S+W - Burglars Beware Hi Standard Supermatic Citation .22LR - Tincans Beware |
|
June 23, 2009, 02:25 PM | #395 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
The question is "If you can retreat with safety..." If person has a gun or is attacking you then it is simple logic that you can NOT retreat safely and it would seem pertinent to engage the THREAT. A thief is not a threat to your personal safety. If you make the ASSUMPTION that he is then your answer to the question is a simple "No, I will not retreat." Let's not over complicate this folks. It really is as simple as Yes/No.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||
June 23, 2009, 02:27 PM | #396 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2004
Location: SE NC
Posts: 1,239
|
Ken, thanks for another book-length thread. I'm just sorry it got this far along before i got back to the keyboard- it's a pretty hefty read for one sitting.
I don't know if you've seen it, but I've gotten a lot of benefit out of the work of Skip Gochenour and the folks at ATSA. One essay with a lot of application here IMHO is the one posted at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm . The first part of it reads as follows: You Maybe Whatever You Resolve to Be ATSA STUDY GROUP February 17, 2007 By: Skip Gochenour YOU MAY BE WHATEVER YOU RESOLVE TO BE YOU HAVE RESOLVED TO BE THE ULTIMATE MORAL ARBITER! YOU HAVE TAKEN IT UPON YOURSELF TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT A SET OF RAPIDLY EVOLVING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND DECIDE THAT THEY MEAN SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE LETHAL FORCE USED ON THEM AND YOU NEED TO DO IT. As a person who carries weapons about in society you have decided that you are a moral arbiter. You are obliged to prepare yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and morally for the role as a moral arbiter. You are obliged to train your body, mind and spirit for your role as moral arbiter. Failure to accept and exercise these obligations is an exercise in immorality. It is a failure of discipline and self-control. ========================= And here we are, right here and now- busy training mind and spirit in order to better exercise these obligations. Some good work has taken place here. Some serious self examination as well as examination of others' positions and thoughts. Skip covered the legal issues of self defense in another lecture, the notes to which are posted at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm . I was lucky enough to hear this one delivered live, at one of Andy Stanford's training events at Titusville, FL. It was the best presentation I've ever heard on the subject, and I wish everyone here could have been there or at Tom Givens' Polite Society event that year, where I understand Skip delivered the same lecture. So here we have the moral aspects of the question, and over there we have the legal aspects. Where does that leave us? Mostly somewhere between Scylla and Charybdis, as the length of this thread indicates. I usually bring up another lecture from yet another trainer in reference to all this- John Farnam. He said, ...The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don't be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people. Don't do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable. ... -- http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html From all of this, from all the training I have had, and from a reasonably long and (to me) certainly interesting life so far, I've learned this much. I don't want to have to shoot anyone. That isn't to say I wouldn't if I absolutely had to, but I don't want to. I spent a couple of license terms (six years total) as an EMT in years gone by. I saw enough stuff in those years that- well, I wish I could erase some of those memories. And I sure don't want to add any more like them. A few months ago, I was driving along behind another car which struck a teenager on a dirtbike when he pulled out on the hiway without stopping. So yet another memory got added to the film loops in my mind- this kid describing three full cartwheels in midair out of a cloud of tire smoke, over some mailboxes and down into the road ditch. Fortunately all he got out of it was a broken leg, but you couldn't have told it from what I saw originally. I figured I was going to find a dead kid in that ditch when I got down there. He was lucky. He used up a half dozen of his nine lives that day, and shortened the only one I have left a little bit too 8^). So the last film loop I want playing in my mind, IF I can possibly keep it from happening, is the image of my front sight on some thug's COM and the results of the shots. Is that enough to make me hesitate if I really need to press the trigger? No, I doubt it. But it doesn't keep me from not wanting it to happen. Skip winds up his legal lecture with the concept of ADEE- Avoid, Disengage, Escape, Evade. In my mind that is the ideal approach to these issues, if in fact it is possible under whatever circumstances prevail. It's a concept I'd like to see taught- and embraced- more widely. Thanks again, Ken- lpl |
June 23, 2009, 02:49 PM | #397 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Thanks Lee, there's a lot you wrote that I've pondered about and always suspected, but haven't had the experience to understand or express in writing.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
June 23, 2009, 03:27 PM | #398 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
ADEE- Avoid, Disengage, Escape, Evade.
Thanks Lee. I love a good acronym. This concept is what the CCW instructor taught. It can apply also to inside one's home which is the OP here but that is where it can get more difficult and complex. ADEE within a home and particularly a smaller home or condo may not be easily achieved. |
June 23, 2009, 03:52 PM | #399 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 23, 2009, 03:52 PM | #400 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
Interesting twist on the poll question...
Does an armed homeowner have a moral/ethical obligation to confront? |
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
|
|