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 18, 2009, 02:13 PM   #276
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
If I came home and discovered a thief inside, and they had no weapon visible, my first impulse would not be "Shoot to kill! They deserves it! They are trying to steal My Precious!"
But if you came home and discovered someone in your home, how exactly would you determine if he was just there to steal, or if he had other plans?

Do you think that a killer is going to tell you that he was planning to kill you and your family, all while you are questioning him at gunpoint?

Do you think that a rapist is going to tell you that he was planning on raping your wife or daughter, while you are pointing a gun at him?


If I come home and an intruder has broken in, I'm not going have a conversation with the guy.
I'm not going to ask him why he broke in to my home.
I'm not going to ask him if he as gun in his pocket.
I'm not going to ask him if he has killed or raped others in the past.

I'm going to do what the law allows me to do in regards to using deadly force.
Nothing more and nothing less.

Last edited by easyG; June 18, 2009 at 02:43 PM.
easyG is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 02:20 PM   #277
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Not running or not standing still equals possibly doing us in. that equals one would be wise to stop the threat.
Quote:
By what means are you assuming he is going to do you in?
There is a bit of a difference between assuming and action by another and considering the risk of that action. It seems to me legitimate to worry about the next actions of a burglar who, upon being surprised in his illegal action, stands his ground. This is a thread in the "Tactics" section, after all.
TailGator is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 03:05 PM   #278
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Owning a gun doesn't mean much if you live in a nation where you are afraid to speak your mind openly....even if your views might be unpopular.
I have the right to wear my Kleagle badge at the gun show, is that a good image for gun owners....?

WildbutwhateverthreaddriftAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 03:15 PM   #279
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
I have the right to wear my Kleagle badge at the gun show, is that a good image for gun owners....?
Who is going to believe you are a kleagle? You just don't have the kind of positive people skills needed for that job.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 03:37 PM   #280
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
I have the right to wear my Kleagle badge at the gun show, is that a good image for gun owners....?
I don't know.

What's a kleagle badge?
easyG is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 03:56 PM   #281
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,028
A kleagle is a recruiting officer for the KKK, according to online sources.

And yes, a kleagle has a right to wear his badge, and the rest of us have the right to speak against him, ostracize him, ignore him.
TailGator is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 04:04 PM   #282
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
And yes, a kleagle has a right to wear his badge, and the rest of us have the right to speak against him, ostracize him, ignore him.
What was Capt Charlies sig again?

WildifeelanotherthreadcomingonAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 04:24 PM   #283
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,198
easyG, I am trying to understand how you came to this mindset. Granted, your state has different laws than mine, obviously, thats why your opinion is such a good basis for debate.

May I ask how old you are? Have you lived in NC your whole life?
If you moved to a place that had different laws, would it be difficult to change your mindset?

Was it you or someone else in this thread that asked why some are trying to treat criminals like they should be protected? In any case, what reason would you say that a person like myself has for not believing that everyone committing a felony should be killed?

Maybe then we can both understand each other better.
__________________
"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
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 04:28 PM   #284
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
For starting this thread I think that Wildaalaska and Spiff should have to tag-team-jello wrestle Michael Moore and Al Gore in Central park on live TV while weaing speedos.

This is worse than the .40 vs. the world and Glock vs. the world threads.
PT111 is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 04:56 PM   #285
Donn_N
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
Quote:
There is a bit of a difference between assuming and action by another and considering the risk of that action. It seems to me legitimate to worry about the next actions of a burglar who, upon being surprised in his illegal action, stands his ground. This is a thread in the "Tactics" section, after all.
Actually, I'd be less worried about the next action of a burglar than some other criminals. Burglars are rarely violent and more rarely armed (armed burglary is generally a greater offense). That's why they are burglars and not home invaders. There is also a difference between standing one's ground and not fleeing when you have a gun pointed at you.

My point was that in the given scenario, there doesn't appear to be any weapon present other than the gun being held on the BG. Thus, I was questioning how he was anticipating the unarmed bad guy was going to do him in. I assume he has enough sense to keep the BG at a distance with one or more pieces of furniture between them.
Donn_N is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 05:05 PM   #286
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Question for WildAlaska

a few posts back, was it a poster of Michael Moore in a thong, or were you going to wear a thong while holding the poster of Michael Moore?

The answer might impact the percentage of answers with regard to the shooting scenario....
MLeake is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 05:09 PM   #287
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Mleake, I think he made it deliberately ambiguous so that we would spend more time dwelling on it and trying to picture it.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 05:13 PM   #288
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
That was my guess, as well. Does this imply premeditation on the part of WA?
MLeake is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 05:23 PM   #289
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,035
Quote:
If you're uncomfortable adopting these roles if need be, then perhaps you really don't need a firearm?
Are you suggesting that the ONLY use for firearms is self defense? Maybe YOU really don't need a firearm if their only purpose to you is killing folks.

And if you must twist it that way then yes, you are appointing yourself to those roles. I'm not uncomfortable with being charged with the task of defending my home and I am absolutely ready and willing to do so if need be. What I would NOT be comfortable with is taking a life I morally should not have. I simply consider it to be what it is, self defense. To be clear this is the way I see it:

If someone has forced their way into my home the only way I am not going to fire is if I can easily see with 100% certainty an opportunity to spare their life without risking mine or my family's lives. That means that in all but a handful of scenarios (if he has his back turned and keeps it turned, if he has his hands full of TV, if he already has his hands up when he comes into view etc.) the intruder is getting shot.

Edit: If you believe that it would be perfectly fine to shoot Joe Thug with his back turned, hands full of your TV, or with his hands already up, that's your decision, I pray you never have to live with it. My only intent in my role of defender of my home is preserving mine and my family's lives, not carrying out my version of justice or trying to make the world a better place.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Last edited by Tucker 1371; June 18, 2009 at 05:33 PM.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 06:25 PM   #290
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,198
EasyG
Tell me, does NC have a high amount of police shootings of suspects? I would think that the standard that law enforcement are held to in regards to the use of deadly force would be a good outline for everyone else to start with.

Note, I said 'outline', realizing there are inherent differences in how a civilian would be expected to respond.
__________________
"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
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 06:27 PM   #291
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,035
Quote:
I would think that the standard that law enforcement are held to in regards to the use of deadly force would be a good outline for everyone else to start with.

Note, I said 'outline', realizing there are inherent differences in how a civilian would be expected to respond.
+1
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 06:30 PM   #292
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,023
Quote:
In NC you can use deadly force to prevent someone from breaking in to your home if you believe that they are doing so with the intent to commit a felony....even if that felony is merely burglary or armed robbery.
But the phrase was "just to steal." Stealing is defined as theft or larceny, and it is something else entirely from burglary or armed robbery, either of which, unlike "just" stealing, poses a very serious threat to safety of the occupants of a home.

The distinction is very important under the law, both as it pertains to the justification of the use of deadly force and as it will affect the passing of sentence on the intruder by a judge in a court of law.

The difference has been pointed out more than once in this thread.

Quote:
I could be wrong, but I believe some states still allow horse thieves to be put to death.
And if you can put a man to death for stealing a horse, I don't see why you wouldn't put a man to death for stealing goods from another man's home.
Yes, you are most assuredly wrong.

By the way, the justification for executing horse thieves in some territories was that taking the horse from a man in the wilderness was tantamount to murder. That time passed long ago.

Quote:
After all, how do you determine if they are a deadly threat or not?
YOU BECOME THE JUDGE.

How do you determine if you need to use deadly force?
YOU ARE THE JURY.
Well, no, not at all. Not by a long shot. You have not been sworn to enforce the law or empowered to administer it. You cannot decide guilt and you cannot pass sentence.

Should you use deadly force, you will have to present evidence justifying the otherwise unlawful act, and should the case go to trial court, a jury will decide, based on the evidence you provide, whether your beliefs at the time of the act were reasonable based on the law and based on what you knew at the time, whether you in fact believed them, and whether they justify the use of deadly force.

Should they decide otherwise, you will then be a convicted felon.

Inside the home, and given the fact of a forcible entry, your burden would be a lot easier than it would otherwise be.

Quote:
If I come home and an intruder has broken in, I'm not going have...
This might be good time to point out to you that if you "come home and...," the castle law likely does not apply, where you live or anywhere else. You have to be occupying the home.

Heres the wording for NC:

Quote:
A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry ...
It's virtually the same wherever I've looked.

Not too long ago, a law abiding homeowner returned to his home in Washington State (where the castle doctine is not codified explicitly, but is esatablished by judicial precedent) to find an intruder in the house on the couch. He killed the man and has been charged with murder.

That doesn't mean that he did not have the right to defend himself, but the charging authority deemed that he did not shoot for that purpose, and the fact is, the castle doctrine did not apply.

Maybe he has been exonerated, maybe not, but either way he has not been happy, one can reasonably guarantee.

Might I suggest that you inquire about some training in your area.
OldMarksman is online now  
Old June 18, 2009, 06:36 PM   #293
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
This might be good time to point out to you that if you "come home and...," the castle law likely does not apply, where you live or anywhere else. You have to be occupying the home.
Got some case law to that effect?

WildinterestingissueAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 07:57 PM   #294
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
easyG, I am trying to understand how you came to this mindset. Granted, your state has different laws than mine, obviously, thats why your opinion is such a good basis for debate.

May I ask how old you are?
42

Quote:
Have you lived in NC your whole life?
No.

Quote:
If you moved to a place that had different laws, would it be difficult to change your mindset?
No.

Quote:
Was it you or someone else in this thread that asked why some are trying to treat criminals like they should be protected? In any case, what reason would you say that a person like myself has for not believing that everyone committing a felony should be killed?
Probably for the same reasons that I have....
Human life is precious and I place great value upon it.
And not all crimes should be answered with a slug to the head.

Some folks read something and see what they want to see, or perhaps they just misread the statement altogether.
I never said that anyone committing a felony should be killed.

I said this:
Quote:
I believe that those who invade another's home, even just to steal, deserve to be killed (yes, I said it....killed.)
And this:
Quote:
Society is better off without those who break in the homes of others, and those who steal from others, and those who threaten the lives of others.
And this is really how I feel....
When a person chooses to break in to another man's home, then as far as I'm concerned, he has also chosen to throw his life away.

But no, I don't think that every felon should be killed.
Mail fraud is a felony, but I certainly wouldn't kill someone for mail fraud.

Quote:
EasyG
Tell me, does NC have a high amount of police shootings of suspects?
More than some states, less than others I suppose.

Quote:
I would think that the standard that law enforcement are held to in regards to the use of deadly force would be a good outline for everyone else to start with.
I disagree.
It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Last edited by easyG; June 18, 2009 at 08:06 PM.
easyG is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 08:14 PM   #295
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the ONLY use for firearms is self defense? Maybe YOU really don't need a firearm if their only purpose to you is killing folks.
No, I'm not suggesting that the ONLY use for firearms is self defense.
But this IS a "tactics and training" forum, not a hunting or target shooting forum.
And we are talking about the moral and ethical aspects of shooting another person.

Quote:
Edit: If you believe that it would be perfectly fine to shoot Joe Thug with his back turned, hands full of your TV, or with his hands already up, that's your decision, I pray you never have to live with it.
If he has his hands full carrying the TV, I might not shoot him.
But just because he has his hands up or his back turned, that does not mean the person is not a threat.
His back could be turned to you and he could he holding a gun.
And some folks can draw very quickly from a "hands up" position.
If you want to play around and try to second guess the intentions of someone has has broken in to you home then that's your right.
But I'm not going to give the creep the benefit of the doubt.
I'll do all that I can legally do to stop him for good.
easyG is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 08:23 PM   #296
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
When a person chooses to break in to another man's home, then as far as I'm concerned, he has also chosen to throw his life away.
And back to the drunk going into the wrong house? Shoot first and find out why later?

WildbeconsistentnowokAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 08:25 PM   #297
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
This might be good time to point out to you that if you "come home and...," the castle law likely does not apply, where you live or anywhere else. You have to be occupying the home.

Heres the wording for NC:

Quote:
Quote:
A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry ...
I hope you're not a lawyer.
When I come home, and enter my home, I am then, at that very second that I cross the threshold, the lawful "occupant".

The law as worded certainly does not indicate that one is an occupant only if one is home before the crime starts being committed.
easyG is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 08:29 PM   #298
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
And back to the drunk going into the wrong house? Shoot first and find out why later?
If a drunk person breaks in to another man's home, then yes, that drunk has chosen to place his life in jeopardy.
And folks who are so careless with their lives tend to die violent deaths.
easyG is offline  
Old June 18, 2009, 08:57 PM   #299
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,023
Quote:
When I come home, and enter my home, I am then, at that very second that I cross the threshold, the lawful "occupant".

The law as worded certainly does not indicate that one is an occupant only if one is home before the crime starts being committed.
No. But the case law in a number of states does so indicate.

Nor is it possible for someone going inside to prevent the entry of someone who is already there. And do you know what the words "terminate another's entry" mean? Legally speaking, that is?

In my CCW training, we were told that one had to be in the house or in the car. The Washington State case seems to support that thought.

Not a good idea for the layman to rely on interpretations of dictionary terms without legal training or a knowledge of the case law. Not a good idea at all.

What has been ruled in North Carolina, if anything, I do not know. Want to become the test case?

One more time, you might look into the possibility of some local training.

And you might in the future think first before posting statements that could prove very harmful to you should you become involved in a shooting.
OldMarksman is online now  
Old June 18, 2009, 09:14 PM   #300
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 2,023
Got some case law to ...[the] ... effect [that you have to be occupying the home]?

I referred to the Washington State case, which may or may not not have yet been adjudicated. I was told such in my CCW training. And case law aside, all of the laws I've read refer explicitly to an "occupied" domicile, home, auto, place of business, etc. or some such, or to the "occupant."

Further, since the intent of all of the castle laws and similar laws going back beyond the English Common Law and beyond Codex Hammurabi to the Code of Ur-Nammu is universally described in academic texts as having to do with the right of self defense of the occupants, the idea of extending the law to cover someone not at home would not seem to make much sense at all.
OldMarksman is online now  
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 10:03 PM.


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 0.18447 seconds with 8 queries