Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[NGIB]

My final analysis on this:

While I hope I'm never in this position, I've accepted what my reaction will be. Trying to gauge the threat, trying to determine if the BG is armed, talking to the BG, waiting a few seconds to see what happens - all involve risk I will not take.

Trying to second-guess the intentions of a BG is just to risky in my book...

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

You might recall this is the state where a man shot someone for stealing something from his NEIGHBOR'S yard and was no-billed by the Grand Jury.

I think they got it right.

And yes, in some jurisdictions, the law is more restrictive than morals.

Again I say, God Bless Texas.

[Wildalaska]

The question (and the poll) is therefore in tension with itself and is unanswerable.

Aw, Al you just want the lard wrestling pics and are trying to justify that answer

One of the problems I confronted in trying to phrase the poll, and which has been pretty carefully skirted here, is the source of the moral or ethical (and I should have used an or instead of an /) duty to retreat.....and in addition thereto, the wisdom of the ancients in that vein....

That wisdom may lead to religious discussion or at least quotations from religious texts and philosophers which I know is verboten...perhaps an exception can be made with careful monitoring? We need more of you in this thread.....

WA, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd set the chinning bar at reasonable belief that the act is necessary.

Reasonable belief is a legal fiction....certainty is reality....

Lets look at it not like Paxs cat but Shroedingers cat

1. You live alone. Door crashes open and it wakes you up. You grab your gun and surefire, open the bedroom door, light up across the room, see a guy standing there who has a baseball bat and says I'm gonna beat your chicken butt you nerd. He takes a step towards you. You legally and justifiably shoot him under the laws of your jurisdiction......yet in another world


2. You live alone. Door crashes open and it wakes you up. You grab your gun and surefire, open the bedroom door, light up across the room, see a guy standing there who has a baseball bat and says I'm gonna beat your chicken butt you nerd. He takes a step towards you. You flee into the bedroom and slam the door while shouting Im gonna shoot. You hear him leave...yet in another world

3.You live alone. Door crashes open and it wakes you up. You grab your gun and surefire, open the bedroom door, light up across the room, see a guy standing there who has a baseball bat and says I'm gonna beat your chicken butt you nerd. He takes a step towards you. You flee into the bedroom, slam the bedroom door, start dialing 911. He kicks the bedroom door open as you cower behind the bed, gun pointed at the door. You then legally and justifiably shoot him under the laws of your jurisdiction...

What are the differences between the three realities from an ethical OR moral standpoint? Which one would be certainty in your mind?

WildijusthadtotossthecoweringinformyownstrangereasonAlaska ™

[Playboypenguin]

Instead you draw your (insert favorite TEOTWAWKI weapon) and put two in his chest. He falls over dead.

There is that assumption that deadly force is the one and only course of action outside of running or hiding. I refuse to accept that flawed concept.

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is that assumption that deadly force is the one and only course of action outside of running or hiding.

There is no assumption. It is plainly stated. The guy was shot dead. I didn't ask what else COULD have been done. He was shot dead.

Good shoot or bad shoot?

[Microgunner]

Let me clarify the question a bit, see if I can take out the ambiguity some:

Your name is Ted Tactician. You live in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine. Your home is built to withstand zombie attacks, except that, for some reason, you never got the front door very well fortified.

On this particular day, you are standing at the entrance to your bedroom, which you have designated the Safe Room in your house. Your wife is in the bedroom folding laundry. Your kids are in the room playing. Your "Safe Room" is essentially a bank vault that you sleep in. It has it's own filtered air supply, the door is literally a vault door and you've got food and communications equipment in there too. There is one window. It can be shielded from the inside by 2" thick steel shutters. As you are standing there talking to your wife, armed of course, you here two quick kicks on the front door. The door blasts open on the second kick. In jumps an intruder. He says "BOO! I'm here to rob you." and starts grabbing stuff. He's 50 feet away, because you have a big house. You KNOW without a doubt in your mind that you have time to get in your "safe room" and call the police.
Instead you draw your (insert favorite TEOTWAWKI weapon) and put two in his chest. He falls over dead.

Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

Lord have mercy. What a fantasy world you must live in. He's in your house, he's dead, good job. Where you want us to send you your medal? Good shoot.

[Playboypenguin]

There is no assumption. It is plainly stated. The guy was shot dead. I didn't ask what else COULD have been done. He was shot dead.

There is a huge assumption. The assumption that firing shots would be the next course of action after noticing the perp. Why did he immediately open fire? Why did he not address the perp verbally? Why did he not then physically restrain the perp if he did not flee upon being addressed?

[stargazer65]

WA said:

That wisdom may lead to religious discussion or at least quotations from religious texts and philosophers which I know is verboten...perhaps an exception can be made with careful monitoring?

Oh yeah, good idea WA, I can see that going pretty well.

[Brian Pfleuger]

There is a huge assumption. The assumption that firing shots would be the next course of action after noticing the perp. Why did he immediately open fire? Why did he not address the perp verbally? Why did he not then physically restrain the perp if he did not flee upon being addressed?

So, then your answer would be that a responsible citizen should take some alternate action beside shooting, when possible, even if shooting is plainly legal.

I don't know why so many people (not necessarily you PBP) have such a hard time just saying THAT.

[bababooey32]

Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

Easy. Good shoot. (legally). Morally/Ethically/Whatever - not clear. If all he's doing is stealing "stuff", I'm not sure how I feel about using deadly force.

[Playboypenguin]

So, then your answer would be that a responsible citizen should take some alternate action beside shooting, when possible, even if shooting is plainly legal.

I don't know why so many people (not necessarily you PBP) have such a hard time just saying THAT.

Most people are not having a problem with that. In fact I have stated it clearly multiple times. What I am having a problem with is people blaming victims for fighting back. They pretend there is no room for defending yourself without resorting to deadly force and that if deadly force becomes necessary while defending yourself that you are to blame.

[Al Norris]

Oh, I'm well aware of what Ken was trying to ask.

Since much of what Ken does is to try and get people to critically think about things, I have.

In order to "play along" with Ken, I finally had to really look at his question. My conclusions, based upon the initial question only, is that the question, as phrased, is unanswerable.

Ken did not ask what my moral responsibilities are. Nor did he ask what my ethical duties might be.

I can answer the question, based upon my personal moral values: If a thief (is caught) breaking into your house (at night), there is no bloodguilt (no unlawful act) in his death. (this is the basis for all "castle doctrine" laws)

I can answer the question, based upon my ethical duties: Lethal force can be used if I reasonably believe to be in danger of life and limb; if I reasonably believe my family/guests to be in danger of life and limb; if time constraints do not allow for a reasonable man to make a decision to stand or retreat. The foregoing is premised upon a forceful entry into my home.

But I can not answer the question to both.

Ken wants critical thinking? He's got it.

[bababooey32]

Why did he not then physically restrain the perp if he did not flee upon being addressed?

Because that is a horrible idea. Not legally or morally, but tactically. From a practical standpoint, your (reasonable) choices are:

1) retreat, arm, call 911

2) verbally engage, arm, call 911

3) engage with LTL weapon (CS, tazer, baseball bat(?)), call 911

4) engage with deadly force (gun, baseball bat, flamethrower (not recommended)), call 911

Wrestling, punching, tripping, kicking, spitting, pinching and pulling hair are not very good ideas.

[Wildalaska]

Oh yeah, good idea WA, I can see that going pretty well

Well heck if we can get into the early Christian fathers and the Talmud and continue the civility and excellent discourse we can probably run another 500 posts....this thread could be the ultimate net resource on the Ethical and Moral quandries involved in deadly force...

Who says us gun folks is Neandertals...we are thinking yahoos! Eat it Sarah and your hoplophobe ilk!

Its a new day....support for guns in private hands is rising, we beat the prissy Euros at their own game

WildilooklikethegeicocavemanAlaska ™

[Playboypenguin]

Because that is a horrible idea. Not legally or morally, but tactically. From a practical standpoint, your (reasonable) choices are:

Really? And what makes that so? Because someone has went through and tried to impose statistical opinions upon unpredictable situations? I cannot count the time I have dealt with potential threats, both in the line of duty and outside it, with simple restraint. In fact in the mental health field we are trained to do just that.

[bababooey32]

Ken wants critical thinking? He's got it.

Fair enough.

[Microgunner]

Here in Florida, some years back, my brother was standing in front of the pawn shop smoking a cigarette when a 16yo armed robber with a ski mask on his head, a .25ACP pistol in one hand and a bag of cash in the other came running from the Vietnamese restaurant that occupied the end unit of our building. He was followed by Nam Quash (sp?) screaming " HE ROBBA ME, HE ROBBA ME" My brother drew his Colt's Government .45ACP and promptly plugged this armed robber. The assailant survived. My brother was heralded with congratulations of good shooting and called a hero in the press for stopping this one man crime wave. No charges or lawsuits were filed against my brother and he retained ownership of his pistol. Now, this is real life.

[Evan Thomas]

Let me clarify the question a bit, see if I can take out the ambiguity some:

Your name is Ted Tactician. You live in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine. Your home is built to withstand zombie attacks, except that, for some reason, you never got the front door very well fortified.

On this particular day, you are standing at the entrance to your bedroom, which you have designated the Safe Room in your house. Your wife is in the bedroom folding laundry. Your kids are in the room playing. Your "Safe Room" is essentially a bank vault that you sleep in. It has it's own filtered air supply, the door is literally a vault door and you've got food and communications equipment in there too. There is one window. It can be shielded from the inside by 2" thick steel shutters. As you are standing there talking to your wife, armed of course, you here two quick kicks on the front door. The door blasts open on the second kick. In jumps an intruder. He says "BOO! I'm here to rob you." and starts grabbing stuff. He's 50 feet away, because you have a big house. You KNOW without a doubt in your mind that you have time to get in your "safe room" and call the police.
Instead you draw your (insert favorite TEOTWAWKI weapon) and put two in his chest. He falls over dead.

Good Shoot or Bad Shoot?

Legally, a good shoot, in that "strong-castle-doctrine" state. Morally, as far as I'm concerned, a bad shoot -- the fact that you may legally shoot someone doesn't automatically make doing so a moral act. As described, the intruder is grabbing stuff -- not trying to get at you, your wife,or your kids. So right then he's not a threat, he's a good distance away, and you know you have time to scoop up the family and make that "tactical retreat." Why in the world would you not do that?? And why have that safe room if you're not gonna use it? I'd say that having such a room makes choosing to shoot an intruder harder to justify...

[PT111]

A woman does not cause a man to rape her by flirting or wearing provocative clothing.

I have thought about this a lot and I don't know that I can completely agree with that statement in all cases. Just like the intruder having given up his right to not be killed while standing in you living room some people (both men and women) have given up that right by their actions.

[bababooey32]

Because someone has went through and tried to impose statistical opinions upon unpredictable situations?

No, because the very unpredictability of the situation mandates, or at least suggests, that you should remove as many potential bad outcomes as possible from the situation. Physically engaging the BG increases the number of potential bad outcomes due to the very unpredictability you mention. Keeping distance and finding cover reduces them. RETREATING reduces them and, frankly, engagement with lethal force reduces them.

Now, your skillset might be "above average" in hand-to-hand altercations, and that's great - but it is the exception, not the rule.

I cannot count the times I have dealt with potential threats, both in the line of duty and outside it, with simple restraint. In fact in the mental health field we are trained to do just that

A home invasion/burgalry is very different than engaging a patient in a hospital setting. And there are certainly different tactics that apply to each. I wouldn't recommend trying to handcuff a burglar, would you? I also wouldn't inject a sedative into a burglar, something which may be an option in a hospital setting.

[bababooey32]

Now, this is real life

Have you ever talked to him a bout the incident? Does he ever second guess himself? DOes he have any misgivings about shooting someone over "stuff"?

I am not suggesting he should, but I am curious if he has mentioned his feelings to you , or anyone else on those subjects. Would be interesting to hear, given where we are in this thread.

[Playboypenguin]

A home invasion/burgalry is very different than engaging a patienyt in a hospital setting

But it is not different that taking a badguy that is attacking someone and putting them on their backside and holding them until police arrive. Avoiding all possible bad outcomes is pretty limiting and not a way I would ever live my life.

I guess you are also saying the LEO's should never wrestle a perp to the ground or subdue them. They should simply shoot all resistors.

[bababooey32]

But it is not different that taking a badguy that is attacking someone and putting them on their backside and holding them until police arrive.

I was trying to keep the thread on-topic regarding WA's question which referred to these issues vis-a-vis castle doctrine (which applies generally to one's home/business). I agree that "out in the world" there are an infinite number of situations that may require an similarly infinite number of tactics, including kicking, scratching, tripping, biting etc.

Avoiding all possible bad outcomes is pretty limiting and not a way I would ever live my life.

Nice try. I never said that. I said "remove as many possible bad outcomes as possible" or, put another way "minimize the possibility of a bad outcome". That is significantly different than "avoiding all possible bad outcomes".

One is being smart and the other is being a hermit.

[Playboypenguin]

I was trying to keep the thread on-topic regarding WA's question which referred to these issues vis-a-vis castle doctrine (which applies generally to one's home/business). I agree that "out in the world" there are an infinite number of situations that may require an similarly infinite number of tactics, including kicking, scratching, tripping, biting etc.

And why in your own home is it somehow unacceptably dangerous to engage someone where it would not be in public?

Nice try. I never said that. I said "remove as many possible bad outcomes as possible" or, put another way "minimize the possibility of a bad outcome". That is significantly different than "avoiding all possible bad outcomes".

And just where does one draw that distinction between what is too much avoidance?

[Brian Pfleuger]

And just where does one draw that distinction between what is too much avoidance?

That is a significant part of the original question, is it not?