|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
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 16, 2009, 02:40 PM | #126 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 479
|
Quote:
By retreating when the law is allowing us to defend ourselves and others we're essentially saying "Let somebody else handle it." Now, some of us have better reasons than others for letting somebody else handle it. But that's still what you're doing by retreating in that circumstance. That having been said, I REALLY don't want to EVER have to shoot ANYONE. Not because of the legal mess it creates, but because I hope I never "take everything a man has or is ever gonna have" to paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Quote:
As far as proactive killing being moral or not, I suppose that depends on what side of the concept of the death penalty you stand. Obviously in practice it (the death penalty) doesn't work because of the errors that can be made and the amount of money it takes to follow through with, but the theory is sound IMO.
__________________
-- Sparks AKA J.M. Johnston |
||
June 16, 2009, 02:58 PM | #127 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Is every person who commits a felony equally culpable? How about an "armed" felony? Blanket "deserve to die" culpability? No matter what? Your view brings back the Bloody Assizes, albiet now its private.... Here: Isn't a retreat, even in one's home, a personal means to determine the true culpability of the criminal actor? if one doesnt retreat, and merely just fires away, doesnt one have a measure of moral culpability in a death? Is it all a question of degree, or a simple act/react? if the latter, why should even the law have nuances? WildgunsgunseverywheretodayAlaska ™ |
|
June 16, 2009, 03:06 PM | #128 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
stargazer65 said
Quote:
|
|
June 16, 2009, 03:21 PM | #129 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
This one of those issues where it is way too easy for emotion to overwhelm intellect. When you start talking about "moral obligations" you not only are getting into territories that are way too subjective but areas where you would be making decisions based on emotional responses and speculation. I am one that would very easily "want" to remove some people who engage in such activities from my society but I also understand that it is best to deal with the current situation at hand and go no further. If you start trying to prosecute people for crimes they may or may not commit you are in very dangerous territory. I know I would not want my gun rights removed from me because I fit someone's baseless "profile" of someone that might misuse them.
|
June 16, 2009, 03:26 PM | #130 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
GSUeagle1089 wrote:
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 16, 2009 at 03:33 PM. Reason: cite source |
|
June 16, 2009, 03:39 PM | #131 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2008
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 607
|
I agree with GSUeagle and Stargazer. We can only respond to a persons actions, and we should do so only when they are a direct threat to a person's life.
|
June 16, 2009, 05:16 PM | #132 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
If you (and yours, however defined) are able to escape, then as far as I'm concerned, you ought to do so. If you can't safely do so, then of course, do what you need to do protect yourself from the immediate threat; but no individual has a right to decide that another person deserves to die because he might be a potential threat to someone else. Quote:
What's more, as gun owners, many of us profess a greater concern than usual about the Constitution and the rights it secures to us. Among other things, it secures the right to due process of law to anyone accused of a crime. So, in the first place, how do you "proactively" kill someone without violating their right to due process? And secondly, even within the legal system, there is ZERO provision for taking away someone's life or liberty, without their having been convicted of a crime, just because they might commit one in the future. (Granted, the treatment by the US government of so-called "unlawful enemy combatants" egregiously violates this principle, but that's another subject.) So if it can't be done within the framework of the criminal justice system, how can an individual possibly be justified in doing it? (This, by the way, is why the issue of what any of us thinks about the death penalty is pretty much a red herring. Even if you're in favor of it, that's not a justification for taking the law into your own hands.) "Proactive killing" = vigilantism = murder, as far as I'm concerned. We of all people should have more respect for the Constitutional right to due process than this.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
||
June 16, 2009, 05:36 PM | #133 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Not to be unduly argumentative
because I agree with Vanya's moral argument. Preemptive killing should not be what we're about as a society.
However, the right to due process of law involves the individual's interaction with the government, not with other individuals. Constitutional arguments don't directly apply here. |
June 16, 2009, 05:46 PM | #134 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Would the crowd screeching in bloodlust as the executioner holds up the bloody flesh and yells "behold the heart of a traitor" be amenable to the concept of due process? “Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?” WildwithapologiestohgwellsAlaska ™ |
|
June 16, 2009, 06:09 PM | #135 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; June 16, 2009 at 06:22 PM. |
||
June 16, 2009, 09:51 PM | #136 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
I have a fundamental philosophical problem with the above posts - that yielding to evil is a superior moral choice than standing up to it. That the evildoer enjoys the right of first refusal to anything he chooses to take, and that my obligation is to shrink in deference to his aggression. Nope. I will not ever accept that assumption.
|
June 16, 2009, 10:06 PM | #137 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2007
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 547
|
I have good neighbors and worthless neighbors. Depends who needs help. As far as someone attacking me or mine, I'm not obligated to back down.
|
June 16, 2009, 10:32 PM | #138 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Dunkirk again. By the way, are castle doctrines remnants of less civilized times? WildcaughtmewithoutasigforasecondAlaska TM |
|
June 16, 2009, 10:41 PM | #139 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 389
|
This is a tough, but good, question. I honestly would probably retreat. Unless it was in my home. If I was at work, elsewhere I currently carry a firearm for my job so this is purely hypothetical, I would retreat. In my own home, I would shoot. I feel that more than just my immediate physical safety is breached when someone forces their way into my domicile. It brings with it a dis-ease that cannot be relieved very easily.
__________________
"You can all go to hell, I'm going to Texas." ---Colonel David Crockett Matt 6:33 |
June 16, 2009, 10:59 PM | #140 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 16, 2009, 11:31 PM | #141 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The notion that one must shrink from aggressors and submit to their tender mercies is what I would consider less civilized. |
|||
June 16, 2009, 11:34 PM | #142 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
June 16, 2009, 11:59 PM | #143 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
All evil? Quote:
Quote:
WildlasttimewesawthatwasinstalinsrussiaAlaska TM |
|||
June 17, 2009, 12:18 AM | #144 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
And your right to own property certainly isn't superseded by someone else's desire to illegally take it from you. Who said that? I wonder if you consider someone who commits a simple theft evil, what word do you reserve for folks like Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson? People who steal can be evil, but stealing in and of itself does not make them so. Some folks might also say that someone who would kill to protect property was evil. |
|
June 17, 2009, 01:09 AM | #145 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2008
Location: Karachi, Pakistan
Posts: 117
|
I think the assumption in the OP is "If you could shoot LEGALLY". Shooting a 9 y/o kid steeling a candy bar is far from legal. So why did u bring that up WA?
IMO if it is legally right to shoot a "BG" then it should morally be too. For me, the term BG denotes here some one who is in the act of a violent felony with third party. We have plenty of BGs here who "steals" (read rob on gun point) one off his/ her possessions specially cell phones, wallets etc & are pretty much trigger happy. If I see them doing this with someone, will I shoot? NO but IMO since at that time it would be legal to shoot them, it would be morally right too. I may have my other reasons for not getting involved, but not because of "the moral duty to retreat". |
June 17, 2009, 02:12 AM | #146 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 17, 2009, 07:00 AM | #147 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Kinda dumb to do something to protect property when one would end up without any. Anti-gunners have often mischaracterized castle laws as permitting the use of deadly force to protect property, but the intent is generally to establish a presumption for justification of self defense. The principle goes back about 4000 years. |
|
June 17, 2009, 08:59 AM | #148 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
csmss wrote:
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
June 17, 2009, 09:40 AM | #149 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 479
|
Quote:
__________________
-- Sparks AKA J.M. Johnston |
|
June 17, 2009, 09:54 AM | #150 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Two different things. The duty to retreat "to the wall" was incorporated in the common law numerous centuries ago to provide a means of establishing whether one who had committed homicide had done so in consensual combat, had committed murder, or had been forced to kill for the legitimate purpose of self-preservation. How else would people know? Sounds very civilized to me. Didn't apply in the home. Submission is something else entirely. Today some states have "stand your ground" laws. These obviate the need for proving, in a defense of justifiability, that safe retreat was not a viable option. Just thinking aloud, they may--conceivably--have the unintended effect of making it more difficult to establish that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary as a last resort if retreat has not been attempted, however. |
|
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|