The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 11, 2009, 12:27 PM   #1
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

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

WilditscloudytodayinAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 12:30 PM   #2
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,911
Legal is between you and your state. Moral is between you and your God.
__________________
I'm inclined to think if a man hasn't gotten his point across in 4912 attempts, 4913 probably isn't going to do it.
Sarge is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 12:35 PM   #3
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Moral is between you and your God.
Those that don't believe in god still have morals.

Quote:
But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does.
I think only that person can answer that, also its a borderline rhetorical question.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 12:36 PM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Complete safety is the clincher. I would suggest that it is most often not possible to be certain of complete safety during retreat.

For instance, if I have to run then how do I KNOW that I can outrun the aggressor?

Certain situations wherein I can get behind locked doors quickly might be an example of safe retreat but would be considerably more rare, I would surmise.

If a situation allows for retreat with unquestionable absolute safety then I think it would be morally repugnant to shoot someone. The shoot in that case would be entirely "because I could".


Quote:
Those that don't believe in god still have morals.
True, but such morals can only be based on the law. "Personal morals" are an oxymoron. Charles Manson and Hitler had personal morals.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 12:54 PM   #5
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I'm here to muddy the waters, as usual. You have oversimplified the situation. There are some of us who recognize that humans operate under more than one set of conditions, which sometimes overlap and which sometimes contradict.

You may be under a legal obligation to do or to not do something.
You may also be under a moral obligation to do or not to do something but you should do the right thing regardless of the consequences, if possible, which sometimes must be determined instantly.
And you may be honor bound to do something or not to do something, irregardless of the consequences.
And for all I know, you may be weighed down with even more obligations, written or unwritten. And I suppose a thinking and rational person could rationalize any response to any situation.

But only correctly responding to your legal obligations will keep you out of jail, assuming the facts are known by the right parties. And furthermore, police departments sometimes employ special squads or departments to enforce morals. So watch it!
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 12:59 PM   #6
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,561
Morals are subjective and vary from person to person. That's why this poll, to get a general feeling of the "average" moral.

Duty to retreat outside of your property at all times unless you are protecting the lives of others. I believe in castle doctrine. I would do everything I could to convince assailant to leave without resorting to deadly force. My version of a home invasion would include me holing up in the bedroom, firing warning shots in the deck before perp ever reached the bedroom, and yelling commands to leave. That's as safe for both parties as I know how to make it. If perp continues on to bedroom after all that, then he's probably after me personally and not any "stuff". If that's the case, I would rather make my stand in my house, with my tactics, my rules, and my hardware, on my turf.
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:01 PM   #7
Kyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
if as what you say it is complete safety meaning no other threat to me or anyone I am with for the rest of the night/day/until cops come/help comes, then yes, I would retreat.
Problem is, you can't guarantee nothin of the sort. How would I the person even know that if I retreat it is safe. Because its a public place he won't do anything? I won't take that bet.
But again to answer your very simplified question, yea I would rather get to safety instead of shooting someone. I don't really believe its possible though, especially if you already feel the need to reach for your weapon.
Kyo is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:03 PM   #8
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Morals are subjective and vary from person to person.
If morals are subjective then there are NO morals. The Holocaust was both right and wrong, the shooting at the museum yesterday was both right and wrong. Rape, murder, racism.... all would have a time and place and person for which they are morally acceptable.

Subjective morals = anarchy.

For the purposes of the OP, subjective morals make the question meaningless.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:03 PM   #9
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
"Personal morals" are an oxymoron.
I don't understand, when compared to what?

Quote:
Charles Manson and Hitler had personal morals.
That they did, just not good ones (for obvious reasons) unless someone thinks that murder and mass genocide is good.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:08 PM   #10
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
If morals are subjective then there are NO morals.
Don't totally agree with that. Here is one definition I found: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.

Morals are a personal choice and differ from person to person. Some think that vaccinating your kids is morally wrong, others think that NOT vaccinating is morally wrong. Which is why I think that they are subjective.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:14 PM   #11
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,561
Okay, well let's really break it down...

There are Society morals and personal morals.

Society morals are what the law is based off of. IE, murder, infidelity in at fault divorce states, larceny, rape, etc. etc. What those laws amount to are basically society morals.

Personal morals go above and beyond. Most here agree that a justifiable SD shooting is okay. WA is asking "what if you know you could run away". As in guy tries to mug you with a knife while you're still in your car with the window rolled up. It's your "castle". You're not required to drive away and you could probably make the case that the guy came at you with a knife so you shot him. Does that mean you should, or should you simply drive away?
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:19 PM   #12
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
again I just don't think that anyone can answer that question, but I'll try: in some cases he might and in other cases he might not have a moral duty to retreat.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:26 PM   #13
curt.45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Location: Fort Wayne Ind.
Posts: 799
I love to read conflicting opinions.....


it makes my life sooooooooo simple


I'll go vote now.
curt.45 is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:28 PM   #14
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
One thing I have learned in my years is that even a situation were you have the upper hand can go terribly wrong very quickly. In public I would always avoid an issue if I was armed. Especially one where I might be fored to use my gun.

Now if someone breaks into my home or business and becomes a threat that is a different matter.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:33 PM   #15
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
I chose "Yep, at all times". But the measure of my retreat can be counted in steps...not in feet or yards.
Creature is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:34 PM   #16
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Morals are a personal choice and differ from person to person.
Nope, BELIEFS vary from person to person.

Even the most sincerely held belief does not become correct because of the sincerity of the believer.

Let's take rape as an example. Rape is either wrong, all the time, or it is not. Johnny Rapist can BELIEVE that it is ok to rape a women but he is WRONG.

Hitler believed that exterminating the Jews was THE moral thing to do. He was wrong, always and forever, past and present.

You and I can believe two different things but we can not both be right. We can both be wrong or one of us can be wrong. We CANNOT both be right on diametrically opposed beliefs.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:36 PM   #17
J.Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2008
Location: Hampton Roads,VA / Wise Co. VA
Posts: 157
I say yes but only on the street. If you are forced to fire on the street at someone who is only threatening you but you had the chance to retreat safely then you are endangering other peoples lives when your life was safe if you had retreated. In the home or business your on your own turf and you know the consequences of action in those places. Especially in the home it is your right to stand your ground and defend what is yours. A antigun prosecutor would have a field day with an uneccesary shoot on a public street.
__________________
I have the worst luck with boating accidents and guns. My guns always seem to be on the boat when it sinks.
_____________________________________________
J.Smith is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:40 PM   #18
A_McDougal
Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2009
Posts: 48
That's a trick question. If you have complete safety, why would you even be thinking about retreating, much less bringing ethics and morals into play? If you aren't being attacked or threatened - that's pretty much my life 24/7. I don't call my daily activities retreating.

Maybe you see some an marked gunman with his armed masked man buddy outside your house with torches, but they are waiting for the end of the football game to start rioting?
A_McDougal is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:47 PM   #19
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Nope, BELIEFS vary from person to person.
Morals are a person's CORE BELIEFS, and yes you're right, they do differ from person to person.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:49 PM   #20
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
This thread is just a strawman. There is no situation whatsoever in which one knows he/she is in complete safety. And I would argue that the moral imperative is NOT to yield to unwarranted, unprovoked aggression (though, of course, practical considerations of safety to onesself and other, innocent others might supersede this). The safety of the aggressor would never enter my thought process.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:53 PM   #21
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
#4 because it's not possible for me to give one answer for every scenario.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards

Last edited by stargazer65; June 11, 2009 at 02:20 PM. Reason: Remove my religious views
stargazer65 is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:55 PM   #22
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
stargazer, I would take issue with your premise that the beginning and end of morality is found in the ten commandments.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 01:59 PM   #23
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Morals are a person's CORE BELIEFS,
We ASSIGN the word morals to our belief system.

TRUE morality is just that, true. Beliefs can be right or wrong or any weird mixture thereof. The accuracy of our beliefs is defined by core, fundamental truth. Truth is what morals are. Without truth, morals have no meaning.

Like I said, Hitler believed what he was doing. Stalin, Mao, Manson, Von Brunn, the guy that killed Dr Tiller and Dr Tiller himself. They ALL believed what they were doing was moral, based on their own beliefs. Each one of them was either right or wrong. Whether I believe it, you believe it, nobody or everybody believes it. They were either right or wrong. They were not, and could not be, BOTH right and wrong.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 02:03 PM   #24
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,734
Folks, we don't do religion here. The underlying bases of moral principles can be viewed from several perspectives. So let's drop this line for the poll.

The question is:

While it is legit to shoot the guy and you would if life was threatened, if you could vamoose and not shoot - would you take that option and does a moral principle of not harming others unnecessarily suggest you do that?

You could argue that the incident gives you free reign to clean the gene pool - as something probably will say. Or who made you judge, jury and hangman if you don't need to be?

So we don't need to know about religion (pro or con) to focus on this issue.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 11, 2009, 02:07 PM   #25
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Truth is what morals are.
then who assigns the truth? who judges when morals are good or bad? Answer those questions without bringing religion or god or jesus into it. There is no proof to a higher power and I don't want to hear that there is. Instead you have to answer that with we're the ones that judge good and bad morals or assigning the truth to them. Us, people, human beings that each have a DIFFERENT way.
#18indycolts is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
moral duty , morality

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16842 seconds with 8 queries