Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[Tucker 1371]

This is one of those things that I'm still trying to sort out for myself. I really have to rack my brain to try and form an opinion that I can agree with. While I don't like the idea of watching someone get mugged or raped or watching a store get held up, I'm also not sure it's my place to intervene with deadly force. I honestly don't think I could just stand there.

I would have to at least say something.

[5whiskey]

This is awesome guys, because of semantics and religious differences you're going to end up getting what could be a very good thread locked. I think this is a great question that bears reasonable discussion. Not banter about what defines morals and where they come from.

[bababooey32]

I voted "Yes, but only on the street"

I think one's first instinct should always be to escape, if possible. As you step through your alternatives (very quickly) in a scenario, that thought may quickly vanish, but I think it should always be at the top of the list. Frankly, even in your own home. If I'm standing at the back door, and someone comes in the front, why not vamoose and call LEO? Yes, legally (and even ethically) you could stay and fight in your own home, but that is dangerous and unnecessary. If the BG is there for your stuff - it's just stuff. If he IS after you, then he'll follow and you'll get your chance to "clean the gene pool".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

5W - speaks the truth - deal with the OP.

[csmsss]

I think one's first instinct should always be to escape, if possible. As you step through your alternatives (very quickly) in a scenario, that thought may quickly vanish, but I think it should always be at the top of the list. Frankly, even in your own home. If I'm standing at the back door, and someone comes in the front, why not vamoose and call LEO? Yes, legally (and even ethically) you could stay and fight in your own home, but that is dangerous and unnecessary. If the BG is there for your stuff - it's just stuff. If he IS after you, then he'll follow and you'll get your chance to "clean the gene pool".

Well, it's never "just stuff" - if it was just stuff, you wouldn't keep it in your home - you'd throw it out with the trash, wouldn't you? The things you own are the product of your own labours, and have value - at least to me they do. And in your hypothetical above, how do you know there isn't a bad guy waiting just outside your back door?

[#18indycolts]

because of semantics and religious differences you're going to end up getting what could be a very good thread locked.

The op's question and the title of the thread invites all that.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Sorry, Glenn, I'll take it to PM. I do think that the source of morals is necessary to inform the discussion but I understand why the controversy detracts from the purpose of TFL.

[Playboypenguin]

Morals are pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it. They vary so vastly from country to country and culture to culture. To try and pretend you or I somehow have the hard and fast moral set down pat is very naive and self centered to say the least. This question has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with pride and ego. Beyond that it is about person belief and not so called "morality."

[Maromero]

I would definetly divide the issue in two scenarios: home and street.

At home, once someone has forcefully entered the premises you either confront the individual or hold your ground.

On the street I avoid a confrontation at all cost and that means retreat unless the situation forces you otherwise.

[stargazer65]

Sorry for mentioning religion. I removed my posts. I'll go crawl back in my hole now if you're done spanking me.

[.22lr]

I will avoid conflict (particularly violent conflict) whenever feasible.

For the purpose of this discussion the ground rules are that I can escape safely (I'm assuming that family members are included in that safety). How highly do I value my life? What do I place above my life and the lives of those I love? So for all cases IN THIS DISCUSSION, I will always retreat in perfect safety, rather than escalate the situation.

Escape in safety poses no risk to my family. Confrontation and conflict poses many risks:

1) Gunfire goes somewhere, and while I am perfect and would never miss, the incompetent (Please God, let him/her be incompetent!) criminal attacking me will probably miss, and those bullets go somewhere.

2) I have no greater duty than the duty to my family. Nothing else supersedes this. Escalating a situation could bring harm to my loved ones. There is no way to accept this risk. My death or injury (very possible) will slightly impede my ability to care, provide for and protect my family.

The situation obviously changes when the ground rules of this situation give way to reality. When in my home, perfectly safe retreat becomes very problematic.

-Is there someone outside?
-Can my entire family exit the house and get to "safety"?
-How do we complete our escape?

Because of these uncertainties I would probably retreat to one room where I have the best chance of keeping my loved ones safe. Even if that means being forced to fight.

But in keeping with the ground rules of this discussion, I find myself answering that I would ALWAYS retreat. I'm somewhat surprised by this. But the ground rules constrain the situation.

VR

Matt

[mikejonestkd]

My #1 goal is to get home to my family, so running away screaming like a little Austrian girl from the ' Sound of Music' is definitely in my tactical training plans.

Protecting an innocent person would be the only thing that would cause me to stay in a dangerous situation.

[BlueTrain]

It may be a fact that morals as well as legalities vary from culture to culture and country to country but that is irrelevant because you only live in one country and one culture, at least at any given point in time. But the rub is in actually making the decision and quickly.

[Playboypenguin]

you only live in one country and one culture,

This country contains multiple cultures and many different sets of "moral" beief systems. Not just divided among political or religious lines either.

[spacemanspiff]

Perhaps everyone discussing the OP should bear in mind that 'Retreat' in this context does not necessarily mean 'turn your tail and run screaming like a eunuch'.

Consider the scenario that sparked this thread. "Retreat" for the pharmacist could have been taking cover, while keeping the wounded suspect on the ground covered.

The question here is: Would your conscience allow you to escalate a situation that you could possibly walk away from without firing a shot?

Remember, escalating the situation, as I am posing the question, means 'using deadly force'. And 'possibly walk away from' means "the threat that you are reacting to is diminishing".

[csmsss]

Consider the scenario that sparked this thread. "Retreat" for the pharmacist could have been taking cover, while keeping the wounded suspect on the ground covered.

I would not consider taking cover retreating. Retreating is when you leave the scene entirely and yield it to the aggressor.

[PT111]

There are those that deep down want someone to break into their house so they can shoot them and can hardly wiat for it. Some that have their gun so tricked out that they long for the day that they can actually use it.

However most on here do not and fear the day that they will actually be confronted with the decision of what to do. I think that morally everyone has to take into account all of the surrounding facts and make that decision of whether to retreat in about one second. Home or street doesn't matter and thankfully in most states it is recognized that few people can analyze all the factors in one second. In the end I don't think that it is any difference for most people whether it is legal or moral, just thayt they are defending themselves. If someone breaking into my home or sticking a gun into my face on the street, I am not going to be thinking is this legal or moral, I am going to be thinking "I don't want to die". Unless you are a very rare person the taking of another person's life no matter how thuggish is going to change yours forever.

[Playboypenguin]

Another aspect to consider regarding retreat is "does your retreat leave others in immediate danger with no defense?"

If I see, from a safe distance down the hall, an armed man burst into a schoolroom and I can easily and safely retreat should I still do so?

[#18indycolts]

an armed man burst into a schoolroom and I can easily and safely retreat should I still do so?

I think I might since I wouldn't be armed at a school. I try and follow the rules of carrying here in Indiana.

[5whiskey]

Another aspect to consider regarding retreat is "does your retreat leave others in immediate danger with no defense?"

That's why I worded it this way

Duty to retreat outside of your property at all times unless you are protecting the lives of others.

In your armed man in the school scenario, I would engage the assailant.

[OldMarksman]

I think Matt covered it pretty well in post #38.

I might add that what one might assume to be legally justified just might not be seen quite the same way by others after the fact. Even with a stand-your ground law-there may be risk.

For me the gun is a last resort in all cases.

Let me rephrase that: firing a gun is a last resort in all cases. I have presented a weapon without firing in what might well have ended rater badly had I not been armed.

[stargazer65]

At this time I'd have to say if everyone can be safe by retreating (including my family, myself, all bystanders that the BG could reasonably harm) I would choose retreat. But that's an awful lot of ifs.

[OuTcAsT]

Vote and discuss.


Dance monkeys, DANCE !!!

I will not vote, nor offer an opinion as the poll questions are too broad.

[Playboypenguin]

I will not vote, nor offer an opinion as the poll questions are too broad.

I hate to break it to you, but you just did.

[Wildalaska]

Morals are pretty irrelevant when you get right down to it. They vary so vastly from country to country and culture to culture.

Cant think of one culture or belief system that condones killing except under limited circumstances

WildtheuniversalruleAlaska ™