|
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 11, 2009, 03:35 PM | #51 | |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Quote:
|
|
June 11, 2009, 03:40 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Actually, I think there are quite a few cultures where killing for revenge, etc... are perfectly acceptable and condoned. I think PBP is right in this case. So they would answer the question differently than I would.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
June 11, 2009, 03:47 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Cultures had sanctioned human sacrifice and practiced warfare to capture folks for later human sacrifice.
The killing of infants, for example - daughters, is not unknown. In a sense, those are limited but clearly some societies killing for reasons other than self-defense are accepted.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 11, 2009, 03:58 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Legal and Moral obligations? More to it...
If an armed BG wants to put me in a position where I feel the need to defend myself, I don't feel any moral obligation to shield him from his own actions. None at all.
That said, I would feel a moral obligation to protect innocent bystanders, assuming there were any. This could include people who were with me, and anybody else in the vicinity. Situationally, that protection could range from proper sight alignment and trigger control to de-escalation by any reasonable means. Any number of variables would impact this calculus, including but not limited to apparent intent of the BG, number and positions of BGs, number and positions of bystanders, etc. Additionally, assuming force were required, I would feel a moral obligation to use no more force than necessary to resolve the situation. IE once threat is stopped, no more shots taken, punches or kicks thrown, etc. Engage to stop the threat, quickly and efficiently as possible, but no further than stopping the threat. But morally, I'd feel no obligation to put the protection of the BG, per se, anywhere near the level of conscious thought. Legal obligations may vary. After avoiding the graveyard or ER, and preventing harm to innocents, avoiding prison time runs a close third - or maybe second, as the first two are kind of tied for first place. That's all well and good for Legal and Moral. However, a third and no less important consideration is Practical/Tactical. If a safe avenue of escape is available, then it doesn't make sense to engage. I'd define "safe" as safe not only for me, but for anybody I might care about in the vicinity. IE, if I drive away, or if I go around the building, do I just leave a bunch of people in harm's way? So, if I can in good conscience resolve the problem by exiting, that's the way to go. I'm a good shot, and I'm not bad with my hands, or knives or clubs for that matter, but a wounded attacker can still inflict damage; an armed and wounded attacker can potentially still inflict fatal damage. Engaging just for the sake of not backing down opens up a very big can of risk. So, from a Practical/Tactical or self-preservation perspective, I'd avoid the problem if a morally acceptable retreat were available. Note that while retreating, I'd keep whatever weapon I had in hand, as surreptitiously as possible; I'd also want to maximize use of cover and concealment. As soon as relative safety were reached, it would then be time for a 911 call. Last edited by MLeake; June 11, 2009 at 04:02 PM. Reason: spelling and grammar |
June 11, 2009, 04:10 PM | #55 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
|
|
June 11, 2009, 04:13 PM | #56 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
WildandonethatweshouldhaveAlaska ™ |
|||
June 11, 2009, 04:16 PM | #57 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
I guess the poll could also read...
Is it OK to shoot an aggressor when you don't need to do so for the protection of yourself and others? Now are my choices clearer (PBP) WildinotherwordsisstandyourgroundOKAlaska ™ |
June 11, 2009, 04:16 PM | #58 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I would posit that if what the proponents of "morality by majority rule" suggest is true then there is no distinction between "legal" and "moral". They are, by definition, one and the same. "Legal" would be the "moral" dictate of the majority.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
June 11, 2009, 04:36 PM | #59 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: sanford,mi
Posts: 590
|
for me knowing that I am about to die,or my family,is the only thing that allows me to pull the trigger.Some chump breaks in my house to steal my tv,i'd rather let him go if he isnt armed than shoot him.
|
June 11, 2009, 04:38 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,728
|
Given that morals are basically internalizations and formalizations of mores, the basic societal expectations or social contract, they cannot be truly individualized. They definitely share a broader context whether the foundations be cultural, religious/spiritual, or "other" in nature.
I think the true test here of whether something is "moral" or not (in this case the legally justified but morally questionable killing of an assailant) is whether you would freely and proudly admit to it in your town square, without reservation. If you have reservations about doing so, it probably isn't moral. If you feel you can proudly say, "No I didn't have to kill him to protect myself, but since I wasn't legally obligated to retreat out my back door, I was legally justified in doing so, I figure 'What the heck?'", then go right ahead....... Be prepared for outrage......... Since the killing of others is frowned upon when it can be avoided, then I would say we definitely have a moral as well as legal duty to retreat if retreat can be accomplished safely. The duty ends when "safely" ends.
__________________
NRA Member NC Hunter's Education Instructor PCCA Member (What's PCCA you ask? <- Check the link) |
June 11, 2009, 04:39 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,728
|
Quote:
I will agree that what is immoral tends to find it's way to illegal eventually.
__________________
NRA Member NC Hunter's Education Instructor PCCA Member (What's PCCA you ask? <- Check the link) |
|
June 11, 2009, 04:43 PM | #62 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
This is what we are doing now, discussing our mindsets. Erslands mindset may have been 'Shoot to Kill! Shoot to slidelock, reload, then shoot again!', and if thats how he set his mind, then that would be how we should expect his mind to respond. (Note I am saying 'expect', not saying its 100% beyond a doubt how the mind will react). Think of it this way: How do you want everyone to comment on your mindset, in the aftermath of a defensive shooting? Do you want your friends, peers, family, to say "He/She is a kindhearted person, never wanted to do harm to anyone, but if anyone put their life at risk or that of their children, they would do whatever it took to ensure their safety"? Or are those friends and family going to say "Gee I dunno, every time I visited them at home they greeted me at the door with a pistol in hand, and if I ever walked in the front door without them I heard the clicking of hammers being cocked, the sign at the door said "We don't call 911". Every time I sat on the couch I'd find I was sitting on a loaded magazine or gun (funny they never called it a couch, they called it a 'Tactical reload/rearming location 1')." Quote:
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
||
June 11, 2009, 04:45 PM | #63 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Therefore, in answer to the OP. If it is legal then it is moral. If it is illegal, immoral.... but tomorrow that may change.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 11, 2009, 04:57 PM | #64 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Yours ever, G. B. S. " The last words of G.B. Smith in a letter to J.R. R. Tolkien. Geoffry Smith was killed at the Somme. WildminorthreaddriftAlaska ™ |
|
June 11, 2009, 05:21 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,890
|
If it were perfectly safe for myself and anyone I care about to retreat, then I think retreating is definitely the thing to do. If there were no safe way to retreat, then there's not really a choice but to fight.
|
June 11, 2009, 05:29 PM | #66 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Wild, thanks for starting this poll and discussion. For some of us, the issue of when it's OK to take a human life is, or should be, the central question of ethics. 'Bout time we talked about it a bit, without all the posturing which seems to be brought out by particular cases.
rantingredneck nailed it: Quote:
Two points haven't been much addressed here: what constitutes retreating, and the difference between protecting life and protecting stuff. As to the first, "retreating" seems pretty situational to me. If I'm at home and someone breaks in, it means I'm either out the other door, or I'm headed upstairs to the bedroom, exactly as 5whiskey described: Quote:
Anywhere else, my first choice is always going to be to get out the back door, or drive away -- whatever gets me out of the situation. I'll be glad to throw a mugger my wallet, if that's what it takes to get away from him. I don't ever want to take a life over money or possessions -- I'll defend my person if I have to, but for me, anyone's life, even a criminal's, has more value than material objects. If I'm pursued, I'll do whatever I can to discourage a pursuer: go somewhere where there are other people if possible, etc. Back when I was in college, I was driving back from a camping trip on an empty highway when six guys in an old car tried force me to stop -- which seemed like a really bad idea. My "retreating" in that situation took the form of flooring it, passing them (my old Chevy was a lot quicker than it looked), getting chased by them -- and after a mile or two, snugging up to the bumper of the first car I caught up to, at which point the six guys drove off, with lots of obscene gestures, etc... If I'd had a gun in the car, I might've shown it to them, but I'm not sure that would have improved the outcome. Getting the hell away and finding some witnesses seemed like the best option then, and it still seems like the right thing to have done. So here's a question : Does "retreating" mean that you do whatever you'd do if you were unarmed, only knowing that you have a backup if push comes to shove? Or does it mean something different if you're armed: backing off and giving an attacker a chance not to come after you but intending to shoot if he does? In the case of a home invasion, I guess I'd say it means the latter, but out in the world, I'm not so sure.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
||
June 11, 2009, 05:38 PM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,728
|
Quote:
The thing is, it is not static. It evolves as society evolves. Example...........hopefully I don't stray too far afield here into verboten territory, if I do, my apologies and mods feel free to yank the leash..... 50 years ago would a gay man stand in his town square and admit to being gay? Today would a homophobe stand in his town square and admit to being a homophobe? (possibly in some locales, but not in most I would say) Societal evolution and the evolution of morality. As to "those in power". That is also not static. At least in functional societies.
__________________
NRA Member NC Hunter's Education Instructor PCCA Member (What's PCCA you ask? <- Check the link) |
|
June 11, 2009, 06:24 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
|
How about leave it up to the one being attacked as to if they want to retreat or not.
That was not in the poll selection but I feel if you are attacked, it's your decision. As long as you didn't provoke the attack, you are in the right, retreat or no.
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides |
June 11, 2009, 06:32 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
|
Well ultimately it is up to them. We're just doing a poll to discuss the matter. You never know. You can learn stuff, even from the internet, on occasion. If that weren't the case we probably wouldn't even have this board.
|
June 11, 2009, 07:01 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Lane County Oregon
Posts: 2,547
|
Obviously the answer to this is very personal.
We recently had "active shooter" training on the campus where I work. It was all focused on retreat and hide. And yes, we are a "non-carry" campus. Maybe I was in the Army too long, but I would have to run to the gunfire and try to get it stopped. I am better prepared to do that than most of the people I work with, and unfortunately even our campus security are not armed. So, no, I am not retreating.
__________________
U.S Army, Retired Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. -Potter Stewart |
June 11, 2009, 07:33 PM | #71 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
WA, While not a true "modern culture", the radical muslims are some persistant buggers. And with sharia law a father or husband may get to kill a daughter or wife for many reasons not related to self defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia Brent |
June 11, 2009, 09:47 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2004
Posts: 1,446
|
There is no right and wrong. too many grey areas, too many areas where every little detail from time of day, likely hood of someone else stepping up, etc all play a part.
you see an obvious little girl being dragged behind some cars while guys are Obviously preparing to rape her. NO grey area here, you can hear them, you can see her terror in her eyes, they want nothing to do with you, do YOU walk away? Two wannabe gansta's walking by. just slug an elderly woman in the head and start trying to rip her purse from her hands all the while screaming "don't make me kill you". Do YOU walk away. walking past a house, you hear two obviously drunk adults screaming at each other over "her," lots of "i'm gonna kill ya" being tossed back and forth. Do you enter the fray? so when do you walk, when do you drop the dime, when do you say enough is effing enough? |
June 11, 2009, 10:05 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
For me, I think you have no duty to retreat within the home. However, there are instances inside the home where you are in a position that under the law you are justified in shooting but you should not (i.e. you stumble across joe thug in your living room with hands full of TV in no position to hurt you or defend himself).
On the street it is a much tougher call. Some will say never intervene no matter what. Others will say it's your moral duty to help your fellow law abiding citizen. I tend to live in the grey area. Rape is a crime I abhor and one that is often followed by murder. If I stumbled across that occurring my stages of response would be this: 1) Yell at the guy (what's going on?, get the **** away from her, etc) 2) 1 fails and I draw CCW 3) 2 fails to get BG's attention and he either becomes violent toward me or moreso the victim, I fire ONLY if I have a PERFECTLY clear shot Joe Thug knocking over the 7/11 is a different story. There is no way I am using a gun to intervene in that situation unless the BG is already shooting. Even then I may not unless he is blocking my exit from the store.
__________________
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 11, 2009, 10:18 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,568
|
Given the OP's position as I understand it: situation is one where deadly force "could" be used, . . . but I have the option to leave safely.
If there were no other considerations, . . . when you get to my page in your coloring book, . . . color me gone. I'm outta here. No way am I going to get my total future involved with a shooting I could have safely ignored. Anyway, . . . that's how I see it, . . . given the parameters of the OP. May God bless, Dwight
__________________
www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran! |
June 12, 2009, 12:18 AM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2008
Posts: 295
|
Some may think me bloodthirsty, but I don't believe response to an agressor is ever unjustified. If bad things occur because I respond to a BG's actions, the moral stain is on his cloth, not mine.
Vanya wrote: Quote:
If a bank robber is being chased by police, and a bystander is killed, the bank robber is charged with murder, no matter who struck the bystander. The robber's actions set up the chain of events by which the innocent was killed. If I precipitate an action and someone dies, it's on me. My response to someone's agression, as long as it is appropriate and in context, not beating a downed man for example, leaves me in the moral clear.
__________________
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 |
|
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|