|
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 22, 2009, 02:07 PM | #351 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
Quote:
Agreed. Agreed. But add it to the other two I mentioned.
__________________
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 22, 2009, 02:09 PM | #352 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
I think you misunderstand me Playboypenguin. I merely meant to say I don't put animal life on the same plateau as human life. Especially considering I have a wife and five kids to protect. I didn't say killing animals for no good reason would be good. I was just making a statement that I would rather deal with the stress of having to put down my pet than being forced to shoot a person. The serial killer comparison was more than harsh, it was uncalled for. My wife loves animals (more so than me), and she was upset that you would make such a statement.
How about if we just agree to disagree on the relative value of human and animal life and leave it at that? If you want to discuss it any more we can do it via PM.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 23, 2009 at 06:47 AM. |
June 22, 2009, 02:15 PM | #353 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
there is little deterrent in the justice system.
there are not enough prisons and nearly all of them are over crowded. criminals and those in crimes of passion do not stop for a few days and mull over, "hmmm... I wonder what my punishment will be" if I go ahead and commit ___________. I like three strikes (felonies) and life in jail sentence. But there simply would never be enough facilities to house everyone. |
June 22, 2009, 02:21 PM | #354 |
Member
Join Date: May 19, 2009
Posts: 50
|
Legal Duty to Retreat v Moral Duty to Retreat. That is the topic!!!
|
June 22, 2009, 02:26 PM | #355 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2009
Location: California
Posts: 437
|
Only if the opposing party is willing to retreat as well.
If he leaves the house without causing me trouble, and never come back again, I don't see why anyone has to be hurt. I am not quite comfortable with someone pillaging through my house while I retreat. If he's not going to go away, I don't think I am either. |
June 22, 2009, 02:31 PM | #356 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
There is no legal duty to retreat unless your state legislates otherwise.
There is no moral duty to retreat. If one chooses and can get family/self to "safer room" and hunker down there then okay. To me, that is not really retreat. |
June 22, 2009, 02:35 PM | #357 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
|
To anyone on here that shoots someone in order to protect your dog, cat, hamster, etc. When it comes time to draw the jury please strike me when my name gets pulled.
|
June 22, 2009, 02:47 PM | #358 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
We are wandering - while it is nice to say there is no moral duty to retreat - this thread as gone on for so long because some do think there is.
To refocus and refresh on nuances: 1. You are in a situation where you can use lethal force but can also avoid doing it safely. The OP seems a property crime in progress. 2. Since you can avoid using lethal force with no detriment to your safety, should you? 3. Does the type of incident make a difference? Meaning: a. You can avoid using lethal force with no risk to yourself but you leave others at risk b. You can avoid using lethal force but your property is at risk. In this, the justification for lethal force is that local law says you can stand your ground and not have to flee. Fleeing means your property goes bye bye but you avoid shooting someone over the property. The rationale for shooting is not that your property is worth shooting someone for, per se but that you are at risk when you attempt to save your property - a subtle distinction. Is saving property worth a life? Is it moral to leave someone to their fate? That really, really depends on a whole slew of victim characteristics and situational characteristics. If you see 100 terrorists with AK-47s charge into the mall when you are driving away, does Captain J-Frame return to that fight vs. engaging a single nut in the food court about to shoot a child, when you could skeedaddle. The moral duty to retreat seems to mean is there a moral duty to avoid taking a life in an offense that would not merit it but you could do it legally. Stealing your VCR (in the old days) - may seem a great offense but not punishable by death in the courts. Are you saying it is because of a sense of emotional violation of your nest as compared to there being an active threat to you (which the OP says is not the case)?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 22, 2009, 04:15 PM | #359 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Where I live, the law reads "A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony [(there's no mention of retreat here)] or such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person." The law goes on to say that a person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. While there is no explicit wording specifying that there is a duty to retreat when outside, we are adised that said duty exists. Probably implicit in the word "necessary" and embodied in case law. Given that fact and the fact the duty to retreat stems from the common law, absent competent legal advice to the contrary I would assume that there is a legal requirement to retreat unless the state has legislated otherwise, or unless there has been a binding court decision to the contrary. Lay opinion. Any attorneys care to comment? |
|
June 22, 2009, 04:30 PM | #360 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 22, 2009, 04:37 PM | #361 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
In my particular home defense situation retreat is not an option as there are members of my family downstairs who are unarmed. Once I come downstairs and have eyes on the intruder he's going to have to be in a pretty defenseless position for me not to shoot. SO in short, yes I think even inside the home you have a duty to retreat from the use of lethal force if and only if you can do so without jeopardizing you or your family member's lives.
As far as others lives being in danger I almost feel a moral obligation TO act if I can do it without further endangering them. However I would have to limit this to situations in which the BG(s) had already fired shots or someone was being raped.
__________________
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 22, 2009, 05:03 PM | #362 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida & Miami
Posts: 3,208
|
the original question is poorly worded. Retreat or not is more of a factor of the totality of the situation, not just the pre selected choices here.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan |
June 22, 2009, 07:58 PM | #363 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
B. Since there is no threat to a person, I would say they should retreat. Although, I may make an exception for property that is a significant source of a persons livelihood (i.e. robber tries to clean out your jewelry store, which most of your life savings is invested in the inventory). It gets a little more grey, IMO. |
|
June 23, 2009, 07:08 AM | #364 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
How could it be moral to take a life, if the offense would not merit it? Are you going to take a life when the situation does not call for it, just because it is legal?
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 23, 2009 at 02:24 PM. |
|
June 23, 2009, 08:23 AM | #365 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 479
|
Quote:
Anyway, let's not go there.
__________________
-- Sparks AKA J.M. Johnston |
|
June 23, 2009, 08:39 AM | #366 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
How could it be moral to take a life when the situation does not call for it?
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 23, 2009 at 02:27 PM. |
June 23, 2009, 11:23 AM | #367 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 23, 2009, 11:28 AM | #368 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Moderator Note
Guys,
Drop the Lon Horiuchi thing, please. Not the thread to debate that whole debacle over again. The question is, Under what circumstances is it moral to take a life rather than retreat? Thanks, pax |
June 23, 2009, 11:31 AM | #369 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
Actually,
WA never brought up taking a life in the poll. Just moral duty to retreat. |
June 23, 2009, 11:40 AM | #370 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
|
Not bad discussion...
for a bunch of gun crazed rednecks. On a side note here, I'm impressed by the level of thought and discussion. I'm sure some of the philosophy grad students I know would be left stuttering. I'm proud to be clinging to my guns and religion with people like I have found on this forum.
__________________
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, 11:43 AM | #371 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
KingEdward,
If you stand your ground with gun in hand, you are saying that you are willing to kill rather than retreat any further. Let's not sugarcoat it. pax |
June 23, 2009, 11:49 AM | #372 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
The real question here is WHY?.
If you are in a situation wherein you can safely retreat without killing another human being but you choose not to.... why? The ONLY answer is because you believe it to be morally justifiable to kill someone over property, or to kill someone over violating what is, in essence, your "personal space". Both ideas equate to imposing the death sentence for trespassing and/or theft. There is no logical difference between shooting them on the spot and putting them in an electric chair when they get caught 6 months later. So, why? Why do you believe that theft or trespassing should be a capital offense.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
June 23, 2009, 11:59 AM | #373 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Not necessarily in that order. But it all comes down to Fear. Are we not men? “Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?” It all goes back to the savannah of Africa, from whence we all came, millions of years ago. WildwouldyoucaremetoexpoundAlaska TM |
|
June 23, 2009, 12:00 PM | #374 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2009
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 439
|
One can choose to not retreat AND not shoot.
Some seem to assume that if one does not retreat, the ONLY option is they want to kill or shoot a BG. A BG trespasser in the house who is stealing property will not get shot but I will not necessarily retreat if we are in the same area and I am between him and family. He might leave but he might not. Either way, I might sit tight. If he decides he doesn't want me to watch his actions and aggressively takes action accordingly then he may get shot. |
June 23, 2009, 12:02 PM | #375 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
I agree, bad analogy. What Peetzakilla is asking in post 372 is what I was trying to ask.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 23, 2009 at 02:28 PM. |
|
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|