Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[Donn_N]

BTW Anyone who presents the threat of eminent danger, such as attacking with a knife or firearm, forfeits their individual rights.

Huh?

[hogdogs]

Donn, I agree with the remark to which you say "HUH?"...
Interfere with my rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness and I will treat the person as no more than a predator in the hen house. Prey upon me? Hope you Prayed!
Brent

[jjyergler]

Well, Alaska, I'll answer the question you asked today, which is definitively different than the question you asked in the OP. As someone who is so quick to leap on slips of the key with others, or point out the lack of thought exhibited by a post, at least have the integrity to admit that you asked a question that wasn't completely expressing your meaning. In other words, don't write a bad question and blame everyone else for not figuring out your thought process.

How far will you go to avoid killing in a situation where the law allows you to kill? Are you going to pull that trigger as a last resort? The last, final and ultimate resort? You have absolutely and positively no other choice?

I will go as far as reasonably possible. If it is reasonable that my life is in danger, and using my weapon will end the threat, I will use it. Reasonable is the crux. As I have before posted on other threads, reasonable is only definable in the context of the situation. For example, someone breaking into my house presents a threat. However the level of threat presented varies based upon events as interpreted in the moment. If it's my seven year old neighbor breaking in, not much threat. If it's a man with a knife in his hand, game over.

The simple answer is I am required, as a Christian to err on the side of life. However, if someone through their actions, places himself in a position where a choice is forced upon me, the margin of error shrinks considerably.

Since I am not the actor in this situation, any moral stain rests on the BG's soul, not mine. If I take reasonable precautions (in order, fenced in back yard, deadbolt locks on both doors, an alarm, two big dogs, firearms) and the BG overcomes all those, whatever happens is on him.

It's kind of like the reasonable outcome concept in the law. Let's say I rob a bank. If I run from the cops, and during the pursuit cause a fatal accident, then I can be charged with murder. The death is a reasonable outcome, something that is not a surprise, therefore the charge of murder can be brought. Same idea on a moral plane, BG breaks in, in a CASTLE doctrine state; BG gets shot, BG's bad, not mine. His death is a reasonable outcome of his action.

Final answer, BG with a weapon, I have no duty to retreat, if I'm where I'm supposed to be and have taken reasonable precautions

[Wildalaska]

Well, Alaska, I'll answer the question you asked today, which is definitively different than the question you asked in the OP.

Really? How so?...please advise how they are different, since you are so quick to ad hom after drawing your unsupported conclusion

WildorareyoujustannoyedyouareputonthespotAlaska ™

[jjyergler]

Peetza, you have the same problem as Alaska. On the one hand, you are calling me out, about a semantic difference. If this is a hair-splitting contest, I guess you are doing well. So, the BG isn't truly a home invader until he leaves my home having robbed me.

By that definition, I can't do anything until he acts. He's not really a threat until he shoots or stabs me. If he just waves a knife, he hasn't really done anything. So if the guy kicks my door down and runs when I produce my pistol, but doesn't actually steal anything, the DA can't charge him with home invasion?

So I call BS on you; I say this with great respect. However, you are going to try to have your cake and eat it too. You say I'm wrong for reading into the law, but then read into the OP's question. The OP specifically refers to the armed citizen, no one else.

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

The important phrase is "even if he can do so in complete safety." The important word is "he." The OP is asking about the armed citizen's duty to retreat, not worry about others.

The common sense definition, not to mention the legal one, of "complete safety" includes self and others.

So, to seal my victory in this particular hair-splitting contest, find me a definition of complete safety that says what you say it means.

At risk of being flamed, I'll quote another movie "You use that word a lot...I do not think it means what you think it means."

BTW, Peetza and Alaska, I love you guys, don't take this as some sort of attack or think I don't respect you.

[Wildalaska]

BTW, Peetza and Alaska, I love you guys, don't take this as some sort of attack or think I don't respect you.

Sorry, I'm taken, after SWMBO comes Hogdogs

WildwiththishugethreadnowismychancetoshoutthefollowingwithgleeAlaska™

NEWS FLASH: US BEATS SPAIN IN CONFED CUP TO GO TO FINAL...MIGHTY SPAIN WITH DAVID VILLA, FERANANDO TORRES AND XABI ALONSO HELD SCORELESS!!!!!! EAT IT YOU EURO SNOBS, FOOTBALL IN THE US HAS ARRIVED!!!!! WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO

[Playboypenguin]

Sorry, I'm taken, after SWMBO comes Hogdogs

What??? You mean I do not even make the list? I have nice legs, I am not too bad to look at, and I own my own business (a bar no less...so free booze). I am a catch!

[jjyergler]

maybee I read the OP, then read your later question?

Here is the OP:

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.

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

Please note: The poll question is: Retreat with COMPLETE SAFETY

Here is your later question:

How far will you go to avoid killing in a situation where the law allows you to kill? Are you going to pull that trigger as a last resort? The last, final and ultimate resort? You have absolutely and positively no other choice?

There is a qualatative difference as well as quantatative difference between the two.
The qualatative difference is in the fact that you are much more emphatic in the second instance.
The quantatative difference is evident in that there is always another choice. A Bhuddist or Quaker will say that ultimately there is a choice to resist or not resist. If faced with a murderer intent on killing him, a Seventh Day Adventist will say that even in that event, there is a choice not to resist, so your second question presents a false choice.

As Captain Kirk said: "I don't believe in the no-win situation."

[jjyergler]

Just know that I'll never be your speedo-wearing, lard-wrestling partner.

PBP, don't forget you have a great firearms collection as well...You certainly offer a good time. But, I still say, your legs, while nice, are just a bit too hairy for my taste.

[Brian Pfleuger]

So, to seal my victory in this particular hair-splitting contest, find me a definition of complete safety that says what you say it means.

NY State Penal Code 35.15:

35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably
believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from
what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful
physical force by such other person, unless:

Para 2, Subpar A:
A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:



It is spelled out specifically in this particular law. It is also universally understood in American law (with no exception that I have seen or heard) to include any and all innocent persons whom the person has cause, or chooses, to protect.

BTW, Peetza and Alaska, I love you guys, don't take this as some sort of attack or think I don't respect you.

It's all good. You were starting to worry me a little though. .



(You guys are just getting weird now.)

[Playboypenguin]

How far will you go to avoid killing in a situation where the law allows you to kill?

I have no problem fleeing from any public place where I feel endangered. That is if I am not leaving others to face an immediate risk of death that I might have been able to prevent.

I have crossed the street to avoid shady looking people. I have left public places where I thought things might get out of hand. I have even fled to a safe distance and then called the police on a guy wielding a machette. I have no problem turning tail and beating feet.

However, I will not flee my home because someone has illegally entered it.

[jjyergler]

That's not what I asked, I said a definition of complete safety. You found a law referring to complete safety for the individual and others. Your point is valid, though. My point is that Alaska is so willing to be contrairian and jump on others for flaws in thinking, which isn't a bad thing, that he must be very careful about how he words questions.

I understood what he was asking, that's why I was arguing the moral point. But, considering how he desires others to be accurate, he should have worded the question more completely, that's all. If that's what he meant, he needs to put it in words.


PBP, We are in agreement. Absolutely, positively, that's exactly what I mean.

After like 500 posts, I'm not surprised things have gotten weird.

[Brian Pfleuger]

However, I will not flee my home because someone has illegally entered it.

Will you flee WITHIN your home? That's the sticking point, I think. My point, and I think WA's as well, is that we should flee until we can reasonably and safely flee no farther.

I also would not flee FROM my home. I don't believe that I can be expected to do so safely. I can not control that outside environment, I do not know what awaits and I could be fleeing FROM danger TO danger.

So, within my home I will flee, but only until I reach the designated safe area. Anyone attempting to breech that area with be warned verbally, as much as there is time, and then met with all the force I can muster.


Agreed?

[Playboypenguin]

Will you flee WITHIN your home?

No, probably not. I will not come out guns blazing or shoot anyone unless it is absolutely necessary, but I will not flee my home.

So, within my home I will flee, but only until I reach the designated safe area.

I cannot honestly say that there is any place in my home that would be considered a safe area. There is nowhere in my home that someone intent on harming me could not breach or fire a shot through a door or wall without me even knowing I was about to be shot at.

[OldMarksman]

My point, and I think WA's as well, is that we should flee until we can reasonably and safely flee no farther.

I also would not flee FROM my home. I don't believe that I can be expected to do so safely. I can not control that outside environment, I do not know what awaits and I could be fleeing FROM danger TO danger.

So, within my home I will flee, but only until I reach the designated safe area. Anyone attempting to breech that area with be warned verbally, as much as there is time, and then met with all the force I can muster.

The term in the literature seems to be "retreat", but the meaning is clear and I concur wholeheartedly, with one clarification: I will retreat within the home if and only if we can do so safely.

To those who might argue that the verbal warning would "give away my position": I do not intend to ambush anyone, and a shout through a door will not give anyone an advantage.

[Wildalaska]

There is a qualatative difference as well as quantatative difference between the two.

Nope. Both say the same thing, I sayest so

The qualatative difference is in the fact that you are much more emphatic in the second instance.

Still says the same thing, just worded differently.

What??? You mean I do not even make the list? I have nice legs, I am not too bad to look at, and I own my own business (a bar no less...so free booze). I am a catch!

Hogdogs can cook...besides you were up here and never even took a side trip to see me...if Mark sanford can go to Argentina, you could have schnibbled up to see me...humpf *insert nose in air smiley*

However, I will not flee my home because someone has illegally entered it.

Why? Really, the castle concept that important? If the choice is between the death of another person and totally safe flight, why would anyone choose to kill....

WildiinterruptmyusualsigtoscreechthatwhichfollowsAlaska TM

NEWS FLASH: US BEATS SPAIN IN CONFED CUP TO GO TO FINAL...MIGHTY SPAIN WITH DAVID VILLA, FERANANDO TORRES AND XABI ALONSO HELD SCORELESS!!!!!! EAT IT YOU EURO SNOBS, FOOTBALL IN THE US HAS ARRIVED!!!!! YOUR SPORT IS NOW OURS!!!!!!!!!

[easyG]

Its basic simple philosophical questions that some folks like Pax and Outcast and the Pizzamurderer and others have recognized, viz:

How far will you go to avoid killing in a situation where the law allows you to kill? Are you going to pull that trigger as a last resort? The last, final and ultimate resort? You have absolutely and positively no other choice?

Now you can argue all day over scenarios, morals, ethics and the like, but the bottom line is....will you kill someone when you are the one with the last clear chance of avoiding it?

As I have said before, in my opinion, when one chooses to break in to another man's home he has also chosen to throw away his life.

And I have no moral or ethical reservations that would prevent me from shooting such an intruder in my home.

It's not like we're talking about taking an innocent life.
The criminal chose to throw away his innocence when he decided to invade another man's home.

Capital punishment is legal...how many of you WANT to pull the switch? How many of you WOULD pull the switch?

I have no burning desire to become an official executioner of the state, but I certainly would have no moral or ethical problems "pulling the switch" on a person given the death sentence.

[Shawn Thompson]

Donn N

My apologies for creating confusion with the statement that inspired you to reply with "Huh?" Sometimes my thoughts get a little choppy when I get going. I will try to explain it a little better in the context of the post in which it was originally written.

Here's an example: A VCA "approaches" his selected target with a 3' steel pipe (club with nails, Poulan chainsaw, or whatever creatively violent kitchen utensil you would like to invision) and threatens to spill his brains on the pavement. The defendant then draws his pistol, but does not fire immediately. For the sake of the topic of the discussion at hand let's say he's looking for other options or another way out. Maybe his head is swimming with the "I can't belive this is happening to me" emotions, followed by the "I don't really want to shoot this guy " thoughts. What ever the case - he's dithering. Seeing this, the attacker draws his own pistol and shoots him dead. After all, that's what dithering does...it gets you dead.

Now, can the attacker claim self defense? - " I was only trying to scare him into giving me his wallet. I wasn't really going to hurt anybody. I was only making an honest attempt to feed my 19 kids on the street. Then that fool had to go and pull a gun on me, so I had to defend myself" - I don't think so. He forfeited his ability to do so the instant he made the attack while presenting the threat of eminent danger.

Still keeping in the context of the post where this comment was included, I also mentioned not attempting to defend others without having 110% of the facts concerning the conflict being witnessed. Let's use a couple of scenarios (they seem to be a little more tabgible)

Scenario A
You turn a corner to see three men with knives backing another man against a wall. You draw and fire, hitting two while the third runs away only to be "picked up" by police later.

Was this a good shoot? - In this case yes. The three men with knives were attacking the man you defended with the intentions of doing him harm.

Scenario B
You turn a corner to see three men with knives backing another man against a wall. You draw and fire, hitting two while the third runs away only to be "picked up" by police later.

Was this a good shoot? - In this case no. The man you defended initiated the violent attack which you did not see. By rendering defense on his behalf you essentially inherited his rights. Which he screwed the moment he initiated the attack you didn't see, and you are going to jail.

[PT111]

Bunch of rhetoric being spewed on here with all kinds of scenarios with al lot of bravado and different opinions but a lot of good conversation.

For if I hear a Bump in the night I am going to turn over and go back to sleep. Otherwise I am going to be chasing squirrels and cats all the time. Now if I hear Bump, Bump, Tingle I am going to check that out. First thing I do is get up and probably grab my pants along with my gun. Either my pistol or double barrel according to how I am feeling at the time.
Right or wrong I am going to start turing on lights. I want the BG to know there is someone in the house and I can't see in the dark. When I finally catch up with the BG I will ask if I can help them. If they have a gun pointed at me I will shoot. Otherwise I will just check out what they are doing. There are at least 1,000 different things that could happen and possibilies but if they are unarmed I am not going to shoot just on the idea that they possibly could attack me. If they have a gun in hand (very slim possibility) I will shoot or if they act like they are going for a gun.

As for if they try to run I doubt that I would shoot. If it appears that I need to run then I may retreat. I think the whole question about all of this taking the semantics and arguements out is if there is someone in your house and you have a legal right to shoot them but there is no indication that if you don't shoot it will not be then end of your world do you shoot.

A 21 year old druggie was breaking into houses in our neighborhood a few years ago stealing item to support his habit. He was caught and jailed. He never attacked anyone and never carried any kind of weapon. If I had caught him in my house at night I would have been justified in shooting him legally. Morally I an mot sure. Retreat does not necessarily mean running away and hiding but rather standing your ground and not advanving.

Go ahead and tear it up.

[stargazer65]

I think the whole question about all of this taking the semantics and arguements out is if there is someone in your house and you have a legal right to shoot them but there is no indication that if you don't shoot it will not be then end of your world do you shoot.

I can't follow your train of thought in this sentence PT111, can you rewrite it?

[bababooey32]

Otherwise I will just check out what they are doing. There are at least 1,000 different things that could happen and possibilies but if they are unarmed I am not going to shoot just on the idea that they possibly could attack me. If they have a gun in hand (very slim possibility) I will shoot or if they act like they are going for a gun.

How much time are you anticipating you'll have before one of those 1,000 possibilities turns into an attack? Can you quickly change from empathetic ("Can I help you?") to aggressive quicker then he can draw and fire? Quicker then he can cross those 21 feet with a blade?

If the intruder has already made it as far as he has (inside your home), why do you need to wait for him to do something else before stopping him with all available force? His breaking and entering shows sufficient intent to harm you!

I just don't understand this idea that an invader should be given some benefit of the doubt.

As to OP (and subsequent 20 pages of discussion), I seem to be on the same page as PBP and jjyergler:

Final answer, BG with a weapon, I have no duty to retreat, if I'm where I'm supposed to be and have taken reasonable precautions

[TailGator]

However, I will not flee my home because someone has illegally entered it.

Why? Really, the castle concept that important?

Peetakiller addressed that from a tactical standpoint:

I also would not flee FROM my home. I don't believe that I can be expected to do so safely. I can not control that outside environment, I do not know what awaits and I could be fleeing FROM danger TO danger.

If you leave your home, you are entering territory that you know less well, giving up that tactical advantage, and you are completely discounting the possibility of a home invader having an accomplice. If you are not alone, it would seem to be quite a difficult thing to get yourself and several other people, say, out a window, without being vulnerable for a time either inside our outside. How well is the bedroom door going to hold if there is a really determined fellow beating on it from the other side? So how much time are you going to have to evacuate?

There are an awful lot of variables that are not covered by simple rules of thumb or statements of doctrine.

[pax]

I just don't understand this idea that an invader should be given some benefit of the doubt.

Here's one reason: Matilda Kaye Crabtree.

No charges were filed in that case, in part because the man who shot her was pretty much legally justified in doing so. He reasonably believed that a forcible entry had been made into his home.

I don't think that helps the poor man sleep any better at night, though.

pax

[OldMarksman]

Now if I hear Bump, Bump, Tingle I am going to check that out. First thing I do is get up and probably grab my pants along with my gun. Either my pistol or double barrel according to how I am feeling at the time.
Right or wrong I am going to start turing on lights. I want the BG to know there is someone in the house and I can't see in the dark. When I finally catch up with the BG I will ask if I can help them. If they have a gun pointed at me I will shoot. Otherwise I will just check out what they are doing. There are at least 1,000 different things that could happen and possibilies but if they are unarmed I am not going to shoot just on the idea that they possibly could attack me. If they have a gun in hand (very slim possibility) I will shoot or if they act like they are going for a gun.

PT, don't take this as a personal assault, but I'm afraid that sounds foolhardy to me.

I haven't yet been able to take the NRA's Personal Protection in the Home course (here's something on it http://www.nrahq.org/education/Train...ning.asp#ppith
) but I intend to. I would be very surprised if one of the basic recommendations is not to get everyone into a safe place, call for help, and stay put. Everything else I've read, heard, or watched on TV says so.

Here's something from someone who has taken several courses:

Posted by Fiddletown:

What I've been taught in the various classes I've taken, and what I teach as an NRA certified instructor, based on the NRA syllabus, is that if you hear a noise --

[1] You investigate as best you can from a place of safety inside the house with your family. You wait and quietly listen. Does the sound repeat? Can you begin to identify it? Can you positively identify it as something innocuous? If the sound is clearly from outside, you may look out nearby windows.

[2] If you can't identify the sound and believe there is a danger, you assure that your family and any known visitors are all together and with you in a place of safety. You arm yourself. You call the police. You maintain telephone contact with the police. And you wait.

[3] You do not go anywhere to investigate, because --
(a) If you go looking, and there is indeed a BG there, you will be at an extreme tactical disadvantage. You can easily be ambushed or flanked. You may also have given a BG access to family members to use as hostages. Or there maybe more than one.
(b) When (whether you called them or they were called by a neighbor who may have also seen or heard something) the police respond, they don't know who you are. You are just someone with a weapon.
And here we have an example of what can happen if you go out to investigate. The BG was outnumbered. The BG brought a knife to a gunfight. The BG was on unfamiliar territory. But the BG also had a significant tactical advantage and won the fight.

Massad Ayoob tells a story about the National Tactical Invitational, an annual competition in which some 130 of the top shooters and firearm trainers participate by invitation only. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the competitor must clear a house against a single "BG." According to Mas, during the first seven of these annual events, not a single competitor "survived" the exercise. The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these competitors were highly skilled, highly trained fighters.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...&postcount=169

I would not place a bet on the assumption that it is "highly unlikely" that an intruder has gun in hand, on the assumption that he is alone, or that the person is not influenced by substances that will make it highly likely that he will act very violently.

As for if they try to run I doubt that I would shoot.

Good call. The castle doctrine provides a presumption that a reasonable basis for belief, etc., existed, but you wouldn't want anyone to rebut that assumption on the basis of forensic or other evidence.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by TailGator

Peetakiller addressed that from a tactical standpoint:

There's another, equally important, reason in my particular case. It is unlikely that I would be ABLE to flee OUT of my home, even if I wanted to do so, especially right now. I am on the second floor so the only way in is really the two doors. One of them is nearly impossible to force open from the outside so the BG would almost certainly be coming in the other door. Problem being that I would likely have to go TOWARD the BG to get to the other door. That would probably not be safe. Second, related, issue being that my kids are only 16 months and 3 years old right now and it would be difficult to arrange a quick exit with them.

So, I choose a safe room... my bedroom. The kids rooms are near, the BG would be reasonably far. Get the kids and the wife in the bedroom, lock the door, put a dresser in front if possible, have the PD on the phone. Anybody who disregards the continuous warnings about pending police presence and the fact that I am armed and will shoot is a danger will have to be dealt with if they try to breech that room.

Such a plan is all that I can morally be expected to do.