Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No - you have no moral duty to confront unless you posit a law enforcement role for the civilian. Does the civilian have the duty to prevent future crime by apprehending the criminal?

Not many doctrines state that is a moral duty. Confront is different in my mind from the moral debate about preventing direct and immediate harm to others when one can get away safely.

Confront here would mean stopping a property crime. Did Joe Horn have a moral duty to go outside and confront the burglars when he could have stayed safe?

If they are stealing your VCR, your Mounds Bar or your Mona Lisa?

[Wildalaska]

Willing to, if it becomes necessary, but not eager to kill.

Based on posts on this Board, that can be a very thin line among some gun owners, ne'st ce pas?

Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives. Oscar W

WildimsowildeAlaska ™

[Brian Pfleuger]

Does an armed homeowner have a moral/ethical obligation to confront?

What could possibly be the moral justification for being OBLIGATED to confront an intruder?

[jjyergler]

The ONLY answer is because you believe it to be morally justifiable to kill someone over property

Yes, your answer is ridiculous, you are the arbiter of truth, anyone who disagrees is lying or stupid. That's what you are saying. You pull one sentence from a detailed, logical, coherent idea and think that is some kind of answer. You may be right, I may be crazy, but point out the flaw in my thinking. I know you aren't a small-minded yahoo, but that's the kind of response you gave.

For example, the example I give is specific. Someone who has broken into my home at 3am (the scenario I gave) isn't just "uninvited." That is a false comparison. The person is already guilty of multiple felonies. The whole point of the CASTLE doctrine is the assumption of danger. In today's world, where kids beat each other to get on youtube and people are killed over shoes and cheer teams, if you don't assume a felon in your home at 3am is a danger, I'd say you are as naive as President Obama's advisors about North Korea.

Willing to, if it becomes necessary, but not eager to kill. There is a great big division between the two... I would kill them if they became an immediate threat to my physical well being as a result of their trespass.

Penguin I agree almost completely, our difference of opinion is simple. I believe any felon in my home who has forcibly entered is an inherent danger to my physical well being. He is the one who has entered my home illegally. I won't really know if he is willing to kill me until he actually does. If I was eager to kill in this situation, I'd leave my doors unlocked when I'm at home. The fact that I've taken steps to keep "uninvited" felons out is the dividing line between willing and eager. I'm eager to kill deer. I go to their home and do my best to put myself in a position to ambush them. When I stay home, lock my doors, and pull the shades at night, I'm obviously not eager to kill.

[#18indycolts]

that can be a very thin line among some gun owners,

yeah but one has to think how many of those people would do it differently if they were truly in that situation, its so easy to armchair it from the keyboard.

[KingEdward]

could failure to confront lead to intruder sensing free reign
and raping/killing family?

just as plausible as someone telling me choosing to not retreat is
immoral.

I knew someone would say, what in the world would cause you to
think you can confront an intruder morally?

her name is Liz and she's nine years old and sleeps within about
35 feet of one entrance and about 60 from the other.

[jjyergler]

Depends on the situation. I have no wife, no kids, so no, I don't have any reason to leave my bedroom. I am not arguing that morally someone has to confront, I probably wouldn't. I'll leave the door closed, grab my pistol, and call the cops.

All I'm saying is that there isn't a moral duty to retreat while in your own home. For someone with kids, I think there is a moral duty to confront to protect them.

[KingEdward]

+1 JJ

[Brian Pfleuger]

(the scenario I gave)

That's part of the problem. If you want to discuss "(the scenario I gave)" then start your own thread. We are discussing the scenario in the OP, wherein the "legal" person can reasonably retreat with complete safety. Changing the question, oddly enough, changes the answer.

You may be right, I may be crazy, but point out the flaw in my thinking.

OK:

Someone in my home illegally, in contravention of law, is INHERENTLY A DANGER TO MY PERSONAL SAFETY!

No, they are not. That is not logical. Not all burglars are dangerous. Most in fact would rather run than fight and history has shown that they will if given the chance.

Since I don't have ESP, I can only assume that the previous escallating criminal actions (tresspassing, breaking and entering, home invasion) lead me to believe that battery or murder are reasonable next steps.

Since you don't have ESP there is no safe assumption. Assumption = Guess. Most burglars are not dangerous. The overwhelming majority of burglars who are caught in the act run away at the first chance. Your assumption that they will do otherwise is not consistent with historical patterns. Such incidents go one of two ways:

1) The BG is after stuff. He goes in gets stuff and leaves. If he's found out he runs.

2) The BG is after hurting people. He goes in attacks/kills/restrains people and then leaves and possibly burns the house.

A BG with the second intention will make it pretty clear, pretty quick that he is after YOU and the retreat option will evaporate. Which, once again, puts us outside the scenario in the OP.

The person is already guilty of multiple felonies

First off:

No he's not. He might be guilty of ONE felony. In some places he's guilty of nothing more than a misdemeanor. Should a misdemeanor be a capital offense?

Second:

That is, once again, your own personal scenario. Decidedly NOT the scenario in the OP.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I knew someone would say, what in the world would cause you to
think you can confront an intruder morally?

her name is Liz and she's nine years old and sleeps within about
35 feet of one entrance and about 60 from the other.

You asking about two completely different scenarios. Nobody.... NOBODY has suggested that you must or should hide in a closet while a BG has his way with your 9 year old daughter. The OP explicitly stated that retreat was possible with complete safety for EVERYONE.


Your question does not ASSUME that anyone else is in danger. You said "Does an armed homeowner have a moral/ethical obligation to confront?" There is no assumption in that question that anyone is in danger. You have a preconceived notion of what the scenario includes and have neglected to fill in the rest of us. Try asking this:

"If your 9 year old daughter is between you and a BG, do you have a moral obligation to protect her?"

THEN you'd get answers you like.

[Donn_N]

No, they are not. That is not logical. Not all burglars are dangerous. Most in fact would rather run than fight and history has shown that they will if given the chance.

This is true. Also true is that it is rare for burglars to be armed because if they are caught with the weapon it is an additional charge.

[KingEdward]

I have not stated that I would shoot a burglar in the house with property
under their arm.

I may or may not confront. If I choose to confront, I do not believe there to be a moral duty to retreat. Not in a home.

Statistics or not, statements like burlgars are not violent or are just after "stuff" does little to comfort.

taking the car gps device at 2 am is one thing. Crow-barring the door at 2am

and gaining entry to the house is another.

[pax]

Changing the question, oddly enough, changes the answer.

Indeed it does.

Here is the OP's question:

Does an Armed Citizen have a Moral/Ethical Duty to Retreat? (complete safety)

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

If you want to discuss some other question, please use some other thread to do it. The question here is, If the homeowner can retreat in COMPLETE SAFETY, is he morally obligated to do so? "Complete safety," of course, means that the homeowner is not the only thing standing between his loved ones and certain death. He can retreat in safety; but is he morally obligated to do so even if the laws allow otherwise?

Some folks apparently cannot seem to stay with the original topic, and that's a shame. The moral/ethical question at play here is an important one, and refusing to work with the original question really muddies the waters.

pax

[Wildalaska]

Brief Digression:

Most modern Burglary statutes basically define burglary as an entry into a building with intent to commit a crime therein. The entry itself does not constitute the crime:

Two part test:
Entry
Commit crime therein (some statutes provide that the crime must be a felony, theft or assault)

So, not all entries into your castle at night are even burglaries to begin with...

Now add your non compliant fella sitting on your capet at 3am drinking his beer and saying "fyou *add slur here*, I aint leaving"

WildaddthattoyourmixAlaska ™

[KingEdward]

the fine line here is some assume this scenario....


BG breaches back door. Takes purse or keys and 13 in tv from kitchen

exits.

Does an armed homeowner confront? probably not time to. over and done.


others assume BG is in living room loading up the bags with homeowner's china cabinet / electronics. Takes a while. Noise is made. 911 is called.
BG may be there 10 or 15 min. Does the homeowner confront? or stay in Bedroom?

I assume neither. If alarm siren (set on instant late at night) goes and dog is howling (beagle), the first two things I would do is

1) step across hall (about 6 feet) see if daughter is sleeping or stirring.

2) have 911 called by spouse


#3 is where all the maybes enter in....

maybe I sense that there is time to get daughter to Master BR and hold up there.

maybe with her sleeping and door secured I draw an armed line in the hallway and remain in defensive position.

maybe I step into the dining area of the living room and investigate what is going on.

I doubt I'll be assuming that burglars do no harm or that this is just
a property crime in progress.

That doesn't mean that I'll tap the intruder on the
shoulder and then put 4 into his head.

It just means I may not retreat back past a certain point.

[Brian Pfleuger]

KingEdward, that is an answer with which I can find no disagreement.

[KingEdward]

it's the "maybes" that can keep an armed person up at night.

hopefully alarm signs/system and decals, a good hound dog (soon to be two),

good lights and fencing and all the sticky bushes under the windows etc

and situational awareness help limit the maybes from ever being

real.

I greatly appreciate the OP and the poster and it is always a good thing
to think about why or why not and would I be doing the right thing
morally / ethically / legally.

I have learned a great deal on this one.

[Wildalaska]

It just means I may not retreat back past a certain point.

Retreat is a tactic by the way. Capt. William Fetterman found that out the hard way, as did many of the Pals Battalions on the Somme.

WildisitasoundtacticisforadiffernethreadAlaska ™

[Playboypenguin]

I believe any felon in my home who has forcibly entered is an inherent danger to my physical well being.

I can see where you would feel that way...and if you shot an intruder for that reason I would not be screaming for your head. Now if you shot and intruder then finished him off after he was down that would be different.

I am just someone that needs a little more assurance that I am making the right decision in using potentially deadly force. Just them being there is not enough. I am willing to accept a greater level of risk to myself to make sure I had just cause to use said deadly force. I just have to know that I did not turn a situation that could have been resolved with a "Get the heck out of here!" or even a kick in the tush with a gun.

I am very willing to defend my home with a physical response. After that it is up to the bad guy as to whether he wants to compound his crime by moving from invader to attacker.

[5whiskey]

Moral duty to confront? I have a saying, many have probably heard it. I try to live by this saying, and chances are that one day I may very well die by this saying. Anyway, it goes like this... "All it takes for evil to succeed in this world, is for good men to stand idly by and do nothing.". To make it brief, I do think there are many situations in which there is indeed a moral duty to confront. Take this example. Local punk arses singled one guy out that rubbed them the wrong way to constantly harass. If you see them drawing circles in his yard, are you going to cower in your house and pretend you never saw anything. What if you couldn't identify them, so calling the police would be useless unless you ran over to get a good description. What if this happened more than once... I could understand not running out to confront the first or second time, but what if this has been happening for several months now? I understand that's a whole lot of "what if's?", but I've been in that situation. Take that same gang of idiots who drive down to draw circles in the yard. As they drive back out, there are 4 or 5 different neighbors standing next to the road holding a shotgun staring them down. There comes a point when you can't let bad guys get away with threats and intimidation, but that by no means allows us to run out and use deadly force to exert our will. In which situation do you think punks will continue intimidation and bully tactics? Confronting goes against my preference to stay out of all trouble all together, but a man can only take so much.<rant over>

After reading through all 17 pages of replies, are we satisfied that the responsible gun owners outnumber the blood-thirsty "judge, jury, and executioner" types by a wide margin? Many of us may disagree on whether to stand your ground or not, but most people have given reasoned and responsible answers... IMHO anyway.

Personally I think this is A LOT of bandwidth for one thread, but that's just me

[Brian Pfleuger]

Personally I think this is A LOT of bandwidth for one thread, but that's just me

I say three cheers for a thread that has gone 400+ posts with only a smattering of idiotic personal attacks. That in itself is worth the "bandwidth". It's a good question with some well thought out, educational answers. It's been a good while since a thread of this potentially explosive nature has died a natural death.

[Re4mer]

I really think that the morality of any situation it dependent on the circumstances of each individual case. The morality may also be interpreted differently due to the fact that we all have different standards that we employ for determining such things. In truth I think that the vast majority of times if you are confronted by a violent attacker or armed robber especially in your home or place of work you should not have to retreat if you do not want to. Most likely retreating will not solve the problem if the person is determined and could also put you at a tactical disadvantage. In reality the person who is confronting you has already put their own life on the line in an effort to rob or kill you and if you choose to defend yourself from that and not simply become a victim then the judiciary (legal) and society as a whole (moral) should be ok with it.

[5whiskey]

I say three cheers for a thread that has gone 400+ posts with only a smattering of idiotic personal attacks. That in itself is worth the "bandwidth". It's a good question with some well thought out, educational answers. It's been a good while since a thread of this potentially explosive nature has died a natural death.

You know what. You are correct sir. I will leave my original post so people will see it and understand what I said, but you are correct. Bravo to the members of TFL for being mature and responsible.

[jjyergler]

First, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong,

No he's not. He might be guilty of ONE felony.

I was thinking that the BG has done this before, but, my bad.

Second, don't take this as a personal attack, but you are too smart to be committing so many logical errors.

Here you go:

Error #1 then start your own thread. We are discussing the scenario in the OP

The OP doesn't give a "scenario." He is asking a broad, open-ended question looking for a debate and distillation. His "scenario" is unanswerable. Are there others in danger? Does the BG have a weapon? What kind of weapon? What kind of crime, if any, is being committed? There are too many variables to honestly answer the question.

Error #2 Not all burglars are dangerous

No, most burglars aren't dangerous. Someone breaking into my home isn't a burglar, if I'm home, under Florida law, he's a home invader, and that's a felony. The burglary and home invasion statutes overlap, but home invasion is definitively an upgrade.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 812 THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES
812.135 Home-invasion robbery.--

(1) "Home-invasion robbery" means any robbery that occurs when the offender enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a robbery, and does commit a robbery of the occupants therein.

Error #3 Since you don't have ESP there is no safe assumption. Assumption = Guess

You are assuming that the BG is a burglar. He might be a Meth head thinking I'm the dealer that just cut his supply. He might be a Satan worshiper who wants my heart for an evil ceremony. He might be there to rape me or my dogs. The point is, you accuse me of assuming, but make your own assumption. I have evidence on my side. He could break in for the several hours I'm at work. By breaking in while I'm home, it is perfectly logical for me to "assume" that he intends to do harm.

Error #4 Should a misdemeanor be a capital offense

That's a straw man argument. No, it shouldn't, nor should home invasion. I'm not an executioner, I'm not the state, only the state can make things offences. I'm not determining what constitutes an offence. I'm simply sleeping in my bed, or watching tv, minding my own business, and if needed, protecting myself.

I'm not advocating killing people for any reason. The OP asks is there a moral duty to retreat. That is a philosophical argument. Most of the people are conflating practical and philosophical. If I am where I'm supposed to be, and I have taken reasonable precautions for my safety, then no, there is no moral duty to retreat. That doesn't mean I won't retreat, I'm just saying that there isn't a moral duty.

If someone engages in action that puts him or her in the position of primary moral agent or actor, then that person is responsible for what happens.

The morality comes into play depending upon who precipitates the action. If someone breaks into my house, it isn't my responsibility to spend time determining their intent. By his ACTION, he has placed himself in a position of danger. If I am required to determine his intent, I am in danger if his intent is to harm me. No moral code I can think of would require ME to endanger MY SAFETY because of his ACTION.

You are asking the equivilent of me determining if the guy driving in my lane is drunk or not. I don't know if he is going to swerve back into his lane or not. If I he hits me, well, at least I'm not morally responsible. I don't care why he's in my lane. Similarly, I don't care why an "uninvited" BG is in my home; I must assume the worst, at least in today's world. To do otherwise, while it may be honorable, is stupid.

To quote Dark Helmet, "evil will always win, because good is dumb."

[jjyergler]

You know what. You are correct sir. I will leave my original post so people will see it and understand what I said, but you are correct. Bravo to the members of TFL for being mature and responsible.

Yeah, I've seen some nincompoops here, but I don't think they stay on too long. I think they go to skinhead forums when they can't incite things.

PBP, I completely agree. I'm not even saying I'd shoot someone for "just being there." I'm just arguing the point that if I'm where I'm supposed to be, there is no MORAL duty for me to retreat. Finally, the laws of the state of Florida have caught up to morality, kind of like slavery, it took a while for law to catch up to morality. I don't know what I'd do either. Hopefully, I'll never know.

The two times I have had to confront people, it was quickly apparent that no crime was taking place.