|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
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 17, 2009, 05:19 PM | #201 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Let's stay with the issue and not name call.
Also, it's a thread drift to argue about bystander intervention - that wasn't the main thrust. I think KingEdward is trying to focus the issue.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 17, 2009, 05:20 PM | #202 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you really think that the Army recommends that a civilian acting alone try to clear a house? Quote:
By the way, I'm told that the answer is universally "no.' I've come to that conclusion based on reading books, reading internet posts from people who have attended such training, and yes, from a police officer I know who has been to Gunsite and who trains SWAT teams and snipers along with other officers in his department. He has never indicated any disdain for me as an armed citizen, though he knows that I haven't had his level of training. |
||||
June 17, 2009, 05:22 PM | #203 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Spiff, Pastor Mielke is an excellent example, good call WildgoogleitAlaska ™ |
|
June 17, 2009, 05:28 PM | #204 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
Also, you'll note that I am not nit-picking your terminology of "hit him with the surefire" by claiming I would not get close enough to physically assault the creep with a flashlight. In the situation you describe, from a purely legal standpoint, if you shot the burglar the moment you identified him as an intruder, you'd be legally justified. It could be morally justified in the sense that the if the criminal has such disdain for his own personal safety by invading an occupied home that he will resort to any means he desires to carry out his goals, including homicide. One set of "morals" can be countered by another set of moral values. If you really believe that it is morally superior to step out of the side exit of a McDonalds and walk away when a homicidal nutjob is killing people, rather than use an effective tool to stop him when the opportunity is immediately available, then I hope you have the fortitude to think about all those who died after you made your choice.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
June 17, 2009, 05:35 PM | #205 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
What I said was that you have such an obligation, if you can protect yourself by other means than the use of deadly force. No one who is arguing for a moral duty to retreat has said that you have an obligation to be a victim, or that you shouldn't exercise your right to self-defense. But self-defense means protecting yourself by whatever means are available and necessary, up to and including, as a last resort, deadly force. The use of deadly force is, and should be, a last resort -- what part of that isn't clear to you? If a lesser means of defending yourself is available, then you have a moral duty to use it in preference to deadly force. The reason for this has everything to do with the moral good of not harming someone else if it's avoidable... it's also true that it has a bit to do with common sense, i.e. protecting yourself from the legal ramifications of using deadly force, but that's a separate issue.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
||
June 17, 2009, 05:40 PM | #206 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
If you can avoid shooting, is the shooting necessary? If it is not necessary, can it be legal? Maybe in some states, probably not in others, I would surmise. Yeah, I know, a lot of lay people have, though applying dictionary definitions in the absence of legal education, interpreted their castle laws as permitting shooting simply because of a break in. However, many such laws simply state--explicitly, as a matter of fact--that the fact of the break in creates a presumption of reasonable belief of necessity. That pesumption may be rebuttable. It's gonna depend on the evidence. And in how many other states does the context of the entire legal mosaic, or the case law, say the same thing? Doesn't matter to me. If I can avoid shooting, I will not shoot. |
|
June 17, 2009, 05:51 PM | #207 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
IIRC WildihaveotherexamplesAlaska ™ |
|
June 17, 2009, 05:56 PM | #208 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
|
|
June 17, 2009, 05:57 PM | #209 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
In the example I gave above, to WA, "retreating in safety" from a restaurant where an active killer is shooting people when you have the means and opportunity to stop him can be considered both "moral" (you retreated rather than to employ deadly force to protect yourself) and immoral (you let some number of others die instead of using the means at your disposal to prevent those fatalities). How would you decide?
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
June 17, 2009, 06:05 PM | #210 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
In the Xbox example I would probably call 911 and wait with my family with a gun in a room. King Edward said he would cover the BG with his muzzle while the BG left with his property. His may be the better decision, not sure yet.
In both cases we came to the same conclusion that shooting the BG was not necessary, and maybe even immoral. Yet, I said there is a moral duty to retreat, he said there is not. Are we splitting hairs?
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
June 17, 2009, 06:06 PM | #211 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
As long as he is inside the house, doesn't matter...fire away with impunity WildcheckyoulocalsatatutesofcourseAlaska ™ |
|
June 17, 2009, 06:16 PM | #212 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
Quote:
A man enters, and pulls a gun to rob the host at the register. He fires the gun in the ceiling, and is paying little attention to the crowd, he only wants the bag filled with the money from the register. You have the choice, to move your family towards the kitchen were you can escape through the backdoor, or you can choose to engage and have a gunfight across tables of other restaurant patrons. You can 'retreat in safety' and keep you and your loved ones as secure as possible. Are you responsible for the safety of everyone else in the restaurant?
__________________
"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 Last edited by Shane Tuttle; June 17, 2009 at 07:31 PM. Reason: Removal of religious content... |
||
June 17, 2009, 06:23 PM | #213 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
If I thought I could intervene (by shooting) relatively safely, and without further endangering other patrons, which is a big issue in this situation, I might choose to do so. That would be a moral choice in this situation, but it would be a choice, not an imperative. More likely, my intervention would consist of doing the "call-911-and-be-a-good-witness" thing, which is, IMHO, a moral and responsible course of action in a situation like this. How I'd feel, emotionally, about having stayed out of the line of fire when intervening might have saved lives is another issue, but it's entirely separate from the ethical one.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; June 17, 2009 at 06:39 PM. Reason: too many semi-colons. |
|
June 17, 2009, 06:27 PM | #214 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
Quote:
Using your addition of the wife and family, certainly I want them heading out the door to safety, with me performing the rear-guard action. If they have fled to safety and I still have the opportunity to stop the carnage, I'll probably take the shot(s) to do so.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
||
June 17, 2009, 06:54 PM | #215 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not for the choice you made, but if others have your same outlook, why should any citizen expose his/herself to any liabilty or risk to pull you from a smoking car wreck, even at a time when the risk is low? If your choice is to always take the "retreat" option, then do you have any right to expect other citizens or emergency workers to take any risks for you, your daughter or other family members? Those who claim that their only duty is to look out for themselves and their own family are not, IMO, living up to their responsibilities as citizens.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
||
June 17, 2009, 07:04 PM | #216 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Sound advice? I don't think so. |
|
June 17, 2009, 07:13 PM | #217 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2009
Location: Cedar Springs, MI. 20 Miles due north of Grand Rapids
Posts: 5
|
The question posed is would you flee or fight or should you do either. If you're threatened or FEEL if your life is threatened you should be able to stand your ground and defend yourself. What good does it do to run but to reenforce violent behavior of the assailant. Just like running from an aggressive animal. Chances are they'll just repeat this behavior and it will be more violent the next time. Any one who defends themselves instead of running away should not feel guilty in anyway. The assailant made the decision to die, you didn't make the decision to kill them.
__________________
The more I know of mankind the more I like my dogs. |
June 17, 2009, 07:18 PM | #218 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
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 17, 2009, 07:23 PM | #219 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
Oh... Hi brinky, welcome to TFL.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
June 17, 2009, 07:30 PM | #220 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
Spiff wrote:
Quote:
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards |
|
June 17, 2009, 07:32 PM | #221 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
If I were, as you describe, "crouched behind some form of cover or concealment with gun in hand [with] an opportunity to shoot a mass-killer with what appears to be a high degree of success," believe me, I'd already be committed to taking the shot. With the proviso I added after you pasted what I wrote, of being able to do so without further endangering bystanders -- of course, given all that, I'd be shooting. To imply that I said I'd walk out at that point is to put words in my mouth that I never uttered, and I'd prefer that you not do that. That wasn't the situation I originally posited. It seems far more likely to me that a person in that situation wouldn't be able to get a clear shot without endangering herself or other innocents, and that, I think, muddies the ethical waters to the point that removing herself to safety and intervening by calling 911, etc., would be a valid, and probably a better, choice. As I said recently in another thread, EMT's and other first responders are taught that their first responsibility is to be sure the scene is safe, so they don't put themselves at risk of becoming another victim. I think this is a reasonable model for anyone who is contemplating intervening in a life and death situation. It's pretty to imagine oneself, as it were, riding to the rescue, but in the real world, the horse throws you, you don't see that other bunch of bad guys behind the rock, and the damsel in distress turns out to be Bonnie Parker...
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
June 17, 2009, 07:36 PM | #222 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
The legal advice is sound. The rest is irony WildandyestherearenuancescheckyoulocallawAlaska ™ |
|
June 17, 2009, 07:42 PM | #223 | |
Member
Join Date: May 2, 2009
Posts: 37
|
Quote:
I would say that I'm not sure if you have a moral duty, if noone else is in danger and the alternative is a firefight you probably have one. However, if it's either a firefight or a safe retreat, the safe retreat is the smarter option
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo This is scary stuff, tell congress no cutting off care. |
|
June 17, 2009, 07:43 PM | #224 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
|
I find it interesting in this discussion that most people seem to be assuming only two possible choices. Either you retreat in 100% safety or you defend with 100% success.
In a real world scenario, a total 100% safe retreat is probably rare. On the other hand, you could have a retreat that was 90% or 80% safe while engaging an armed BG may give you only a 50% chance of absolute success (i.e., no good guy injuries or deaths). It has to be considered that when you choose to engage the BG, you are taking a risk of injury or death to yourself and possibly bystanders. This of course depends on the scenario, but any time bullets start flying, injury or death is a possibility. And it doesn't always just happen to the bad guys. There was a recent story regarding a home invasion in College Park. Gunfire was exchanged and a complete innocent was hit. She survived, but in our perfect fantasy world, innocent bystanders getting hit never seems to be a possibility that is given much, if any, consideration. Also, take the recent attack on two men in a hotel room in, I believe, Virginia. While this was obviously a case where retreat was not even an option, the good guy did receive two life threatening shots. Fortunately, he survived and the two bad guys he hit did not, but it clearly demonstrates that engaging the BG can have a less than optimum outcome. |
June 17, 2009, 07:57 PM | #225 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
|
I understand your point Donn_N, and it's very true, but I don't see how we can address all these possibilities in one thread. We're having enough trouble trying to understand each other when we simplify the issue.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards Last edited by stargazer65; June 17, 2009 at 08:06 PM. |
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
|
|