Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[bababooey32]

But I wouldn't characterize someone who has unlawfully entered my domicile at night as a trespasser.

:barf:
Huh? Is this a typo?


Merriam Websters Dictionary - Trespass

1tres·pass
Pronunciation: \ˈtres-pəs, -ˌpas\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English trespas, from Anglo-French, passage, overstepping, misdeed, from trespasser
Date: 13th century
1 a: a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression ; especially : sin b: an unwarranted infringement
2 a: an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another ; especially : a wrongful entry on real property b: the legal action for injuries resulting from trespass

If "someone who has unlawfully entered my domicile at night" is not a trespasser, what the he!! is a trespasser? Technically, they may actually be a burglar in this instance!

[NGIB]

Quote:
I will not retreat in my home and I will proactively protect my home. I've worked for 37 years to acquire the things I have and I will not, repeat, will not hide in a bedroom while I'm being robbed.

Yet another person willing to kill or die for 'stuff'.

Three words: Replacement value insurance.

Nope, a line has to be drawn somewhere and my home is where that line is. If our justice system actually kept BGs off the street instead of kicking down my front door - maybe I'd feel differently.

You won't change my mind and I won't change yours so we'll just agree to disagree...

[Donn_N]

He said he will not hide while being robbed. You are the one that made the leap to deadly force being the only option...and implying that if deadly force did become necessary due to the actions of the assailant that the victim is somehow responsible.

The victim is not totally responsible, but shares responsibility for escalating a simple burglary into a confrontation that may then require the use of deadly force either by the homeowner, the burglar, or both. To enter into an armed confrontation when it can be avoided cannot be logically explained.

Every respected security expert in the country recommends avoiding a confrontation with someone who breaks into your home. Why would anyone ignore that advice?

[Wildalaska]

1) Your in my house
2) you are definitely a BG
3) I cannot retreat further

Many folks have alluded to the fact that the self defense shooting is the "fault" of the criminal actor and that his death or serious physical injury was caused by his/her actions. I would posit that that position is entirely correct if, and only if, the third step alluded above in included in the continuum of force.

To take a life other than with the certainty that you had no other choice is unethical/immoral IMHO.


WildtheyarecryinginmadridAlaska ™

[Playboypenguin]

The victim is not totally responsible, but shares responsibility for escalating a simple burglary into a confrontation that may then require the use of deadly force either by the homeowner, the burglar, or both.

Why? That just does not make sense. The victim did not initiate the conflict and they are in their own home...not a public place where they share the responsibility of public harmony.

Every respected security expert in the country recommends avoiding a confrontation with someone who breaks into your home. Why would anyone ignore that advice?

Yeah, for two reasons. Liability issues and the fact that they rely on you needing their aid in protecting yourself and society continuing to play the role of victims to make a profit.

[Playboypenguin]

To take a life other than with the certainty that you had no other choice is unethical/immoral IMHO

And if you find yourself in a situation where you need to certainly and immediately defend yourself while engaging in less than deadly force to protect yourself you are not the one to blame if you do not escalate the situation...and responding with appropriate force is not escalating a situation. Just because deadly force is not immediately appropriate does not preclude lesser levels of force being implemented.

[OldMarksman]

It sounds like you are confusing how and when someone determines how much danger they are in and whether they chose to defend the sanctity of their own home with your own personal opinions.

Not at all. If there's someone unlawfully in the house at night I will assume that imminent danger exists, and I will defend against it.

It also sounds like you are failing to understand that running away is not the only alternative to using deadly force.

Not clear what you mean. I won't "run away" in the house, but I will defend from an advantageous position if I can.

Outdoors, if there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, deadly force would be in justified, unless safe retreat (in my jurisdiction) is possible.

Other alternatives? Well, I do carry a Kimber Pepperblaster as a less-than-lethal alternative, but I don't think I'll use it if imminent danger of death actually exists. And I sure as heck don't intend to wrestle with an armed assailant. But perhaps I miss your point.

Stop with the "you better run away or you are going to be in trouble" spiel. It just isn't true and does nothing but perpetuate the idea that anyone that defends themselves is asking for bad things to happen and somehow responsible for the outcome of another persons choice to break the law and endanger innocents.

Where I live, if outdoors, I must retreat before using deadly force if I can do so safely, or I will indeed be in trouble, one way or the other. I may either be killed or injured because I did neither, or charged and perhaps convicted because I used deadly force without availing myself of a safe avenue of retreat.

That's the law. The requirement stems from laws established around 1200 A. D. and later adopted by most of our states.

In practice, it has changed due to the advent of firearms. If the perp has a gun, it's highly probable that I cannot safely retreat.

In some places, retreat is no longer required.

[Donn_N]

If I am in my car and someone comes up and says "give me your car or I will take it from you!" and I decided to drive away instead of giving him the car am I then responsible if he pulls out a gun and starts shooting at my car and hits a bystander? And if he did pull out a gun and start shooting would I be justified in stopping my retreat and returning fire to stop him from harming anyone or am I "escalating" the situation?

No, you are not responsible if he hits a bystander. No, you would not be justified in stopping your retreat and returning fire as your life is no longer in danger. While it is possible that the hijacker will make another attempt at some point, it is not your duty to prevent him from a future act.

If I see a teen beating up an old woman should I walk away and call police or should I attempt to stop him. If I do attempt to stop him and I responsible for his actions if he then pulls a knife and attacks me? Did I cause that to happen?

Did you cause it to happen? Of course. Had you not interfered, the knife would not have been drawn and you would not have had to shoot. Does that mean you shouldn't have helped the old lady? Of course not, but to say that the knife being drawn was not a direct result of your decision to help would not be true.

These are amusing scenarios to discuss but neither case is really the same as a voluntary armed confrontation with a burglar in your home.

[Playboypenguin]

Did you cause it to happen? Of course.

I completely disagree with you there. I did not "cause" the attacker to pull a knife. I "caused" him to stop attacking a defenseless person. By your line of thinking would have "casued" myself to get mugged by going downtown...or "caused" someone to steal my car by owning one in the first place. A woman does not cause a man to rape her by flirting or wearing provocative clothing.

[bababooey32]

I would posit that that position is entirely correct if, and only if, the third step alluded above [I cannot retreat any further] is included in the continuum of force.

I think it is important to note that "not being able to retreat any further" may very well be precisely where you stand when the BG kicks in the door. There may be no TIME to retreat, no PLACE to retreat or no way to retreat SAFELY (scatterd children around the house). You may be jsutified in acting without taking a step, yet have progressed through those three steps.

GO USA!

[Donn_N]

Why? That just does not make sense. The victim did not initiate the conflict and they are in their own home...not a public place where they share the responsibility of public harmony.

Not true. The victim did not initiate the break in, but most certainly did initiate the conflict if he confronts the intruder. Whether you agree that the confrontation is a good idea or not, the victim did initiate it since he could have done what security experts recommend - take up a protected position and call the cops. Now if the BG then breaches the victim's position, he has initiated the confrontation and that's when the use of deadly force may become necessary.

Yeah, for two reasons. Liability issues and the fact that they rely on you needing their aid in protecting yourself and society continuing to play the role of victims to make a profit.

That just doesn't even make sense.

[Donn_N]

I did not "cause" the attacker to pull a knife. I "caused" him to stop attacking a defenseless person.

No, you attacked him. The attack made him stop his attack on the woman, but your action was to attack him. The law may allow your attack because it was in the defense of another, but it was still an attack.

That attack caused him to pull the knife to defend himself.

[Playboypenguin]

Not true. The victim did not initiate the break in, but most certainly did initiate the conflict if he confronts the intruder.

No, I most certainly did not initiate the conflict. The intruder initiated conflict by breaking in...I simply responded to the situation.

That just doesn't even make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Security specialists rely on society having bad guys and needing protecting to make a living. They do not make money when you handle situations yourself.

No, you attacked him.

NO...that is not true at all. Defending one person does not entail attacking someone else. To attack someone involves setting upon them as an aggressor.

at⋅tack  [uh-tak] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.

[OldMarksman]

To take a life other than with the certainty that you had no other choice is unethical/immoral IMHO.

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

That's what the charging authority and a trial jury would evaluate.

The decision must be made quickly based on what the actor knows at the time. Certainty would be not only unreasonable but unattainable.

Now, going back to your original post, the question becomes one of "necessary for what?".

If it's to protect property at night, it's legal in one state, but I wouldn't do it. If it's to effect a citizen's arrest for certain dire crimes under certain circumstances, it's legal in one (different) state, but I probably wouldn't do it.

But to protect against death or serious bodily harm? No second thoughts about it.

[OldMarksman]

I think it is important to note that "not being able to retreat any further" may very well be precisely where you stand when the BG kicks in the door. There may be no TIME to retreat, no PLACE to retreat or no way to retreat SAFELY (scatterd children around the house). You may be jsutified in acting without taking a step, yet have progressed through those three steps.

Yes indeed!

[bababooey32]

but I'd set the chinning bar at reasonable belief that the act is necessary

I agree with you. That is a very good point.

If it's to protect property at night, it's legal in one state, but I wouldn't do it. If it's to effect a citizen's arrest for certain dire crimes under certain circumstances, it's legal in one (different) state

Both are legal in my state, I do believe. The defense of proporty is the one I strugle with the most. On the one hand, it is just "stuff", but on the other hand it is MY stuff!! And if I don't have a right to keep my stuff, then we are no longer a civilized society. I hope I can keep you from taking my stuff without resorting to deadly force but, gosh darnit, that's MY STUFF!!! But then again, it is just "stuff".....So I still struggle....

[Al Norris]

I've been reafing this thread (and a couple of others, here in T&T) since shortly after they started.

I've reached a point where I feel I can answer with my own views. So....

Originally Posted by Wildalsaka

Most progressive states have some form or another of Castle Doctrines, which eliminate the Legal Duty to Retreat in ones home, and frequently a place of business.

Many other jurisdictions have extended that Doctrine into Stand your ground laws applicable to areas outside the home.

There fore, the armed citizen, under these laws, has no legal duty to retreat, even if he can do so in complete safety.

The above is the "setup" to the actual question, below.

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does.

Morals are our motivations (and to a large extent, our subsequent actions) based upon our (usually personal) ideas of right and wrong. Ethics are the philosophical underpinnings of moral values and rules, as they relate to a particular social group.

By conflating morals and ethics, the question, as it was presented, is essentially unanswerable. That is the simple and short answer to the OP's question.

However, I feel a slightly expanded answer is necessary to explain why the question cannot be answered.

The moral responsibilities of an individual within a specific situation, do not always fall neatly into place with respect to any particular societies ethos, and the participants responsibilities to their social ethics.

Further, by choosing the word "duty" over "responsibility," to contain the actions of the individual, Ken has conflated the meanings of duty and responsibility, as they relate to the moral/ethical imperative of the question.

A duty is something one is obliged to perform for moral or legal reasons. A responsibility is something that binds one to an obligation and encompasses certain courses of action that are demanded by a force. In this case, morality. The legality of an actors actions have no bearing upon the actors moral responsibilities, whereas, such legalities do enforce (contain or restrain) the actors actions in the case of duties.

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

[Brian Pfleuger]

Just from a rational perspective is is pretty unwise to shoot someone when you have a choice. The cost ALONE should be a MASSIVE deterrent, even if the moral question is not.

[bababooey32]

So would you shoot or not?

Though I suppose boring the intruder to near-death with a treatise on morals vs. ethics and the societal impacts of shirking one's responsibilities might be a nice non-lethal way of "ending the threat" (though it might be considered cruel and unusual!).

But seriously, we can parse the question all day and all night. I think it is evident what WA is asking.

[Big Ugly Tall Texan]

If someone attacks me, I may have a legal duty to retreat in some states - thank God, not in Texas - but I have no moral duty to do anything except defend myself and/or my property.

If my attacker loses life or limb in the process, the choice to start the trouble was his, not mine.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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

Yet a large number of us have no trouble understanding the intent and answering the question.
I think you may be suffering from a serious case of "Analysis Paralysis".

[Playboypenguin]

Yet a large number of us have no trouble understanding the intent and answering the question.
I think you may be suffering from a serious case of "Analysis Paralysis".

Many have answered, but none have "definitively" answered the question. A few have pretended that they have...but they have not.

[Playboypenguin]

If someone attacks me, I may have a legal duty to retreat in some states - thank God, not in Texas - but I have no moral duty to do anything except defend myself.

That actually raises the question of whether the law is actually the more restrictive of the two principles. Would morality be less limiting than legality when confronting an attacker?

[Microgunner]

Here in Florida we have it so simply. Use of deadly force is permitted to prevent grievous bodily harm to anyone and you are not required to retreat in any circumstance. Beyond that the moral call is all you. Personally, I decided many years ago not to hesitate in a potentially deadly confrontation. Hesitation is the worst possible avenue of response.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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?