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 28, 2009, 07:07 PM   #726
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
If you've never heard a gun called a "tool of last resort" you must not be very well educated on the subject matter.
No doubt you are very "educated" on the subject matter....
but an education is much like a computer....GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Quote:
Yes, I've heard the term "the great equalizer". The difference between you and me is that I have used a gun in self defense, or in the performance of legal duties, and have read and heard both terms.
We sure didn't call our rifles "tools of last resort" during the Gulf War.
Maybe it's a "peace" officer term?

Last edited by easyG; June 28, 2009 at 07:34 PM.
easyG is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 08:05 PM   #727
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
We sure didn't call our rifles "tools of last resort" during the Gulf War.
Of course not. Army soldiers, Marines, and SOCOM forces have a duty to find, engage, and destroy or capture enemies in combat.

Quote:
Maybe it's a "peace" officer term?
I don't know, maybe.

But for a civilian, it says it all. The civilian can only use a deadly weapon when no other solution will suffice (when it is necessary). "Tool of last resort" would seem the perfect description.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 08:14 PM   #728
mikejonestkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 2,761
Agreed oldmarksman!!!

The use of a firearm against another person is an act of last resort; used only when you have made a significant effort to avoid having to use it.

Self defense is self preservation, and retreating is not only an option but a great option. Standing your ground might be legal but I doubt that it is the wisest choice.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
mikejonestkd is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 08:24 PM   #729
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
But for a civilian, it says it all. The civilian can only use a deadly weapon when no other solution will suffice (when it is necessary). "Tool of last resort" would seem the perfect description.
I think that you're, perhaps unknowingly, projecting your opinion on the use of firearms regardless of the legal facts.

In cases where deadly force is a legal option, the civilian is not necessarily obligated to try other alternative "tools", nor must he exhaust all over possible solutions before using a firearm.

In more simple words...
When someone is kicking down your front door, the gun is most likely NOT going to be your "tool of last resort".
It will most likely be the tool of first resort.
easyG is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 08:45 PM   #730
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
In cases where deadly force is a legal option, the civilian is not necessarily obligated to try other alternative "tools", nor must he exhaust all over possible solutions before using a firearm.
He may not use deadly force unless he believes it necessary (using North Carolina rules here fore purposes of discussion). How can it be necessary if there are other alternatives?

Now, if you are opining that he need not try a crossbow before using a gun, I agree.

Quote:
When someone is kicking down your front door, the gun is most likely NOT going to be your "tool of last resort".
I'm afraid I have difficulty coming up with anything likely to prove effective that might be reasonably tried before using deadly force under that circumstance.

But if there is something you can think of that would suffice, that would mean that you do not believe that the use of deadly force was at that time necessary, wouldn't it?

And if a person did not actually believe deadly force to be necessary, what makes you think that is would be lawful?

Yes, I think that is someone is kicking down my front door and that if he should beginning to get inside, my gun would be my tool of last resort, but I know of no other to try first.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 09:16 PM   #731
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
Quote:
I'm afraid I have difficulty coming up with anything likely to prove effective that might be reasonably tried before using deadly force under that circumstance.
No, we're not talking about "deadly force" as a "tool of last resort", we're talking about "the gun" as the "tool of last resort".

Someone's kicking in your front door (and you don't even know if they are armed or not)....

You have a shotgun in one corner and a baseball bat in the other corner.
Both are quite capable of delivering "deadly force", and both are quite capable of stopping an aggressive human.

But which one would you grab first?

If you would grab the shotgun first, then you simply cannot make the argument that "the gun" is your "tool of last resort".
easyG is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 11:23 PM   #732
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,630
easyG it looks like you're trying to build a scenario that supports your argument.

If someone bashes in the front door and I grab the shotgun instead of the baseball bat, I still have the option of knocking the intruder in the head with the barrel.
If I instead grab the bat and the intruder is a threat that can't be handled by a big stick, I have failed at my primary duty of keeping myself and my family safe.

Remember the law takes into consideration my motives and my emotional state. The vast majority of potential jurors will understand why I grabbed the gun instead of the bat, even if they would have chosen the bat.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 11:58 PM   #733
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,951
At 30 pages, this thread has been a marvel of civility and intelligent discussion. Thanks, all!

Closing it now, as it's been going in circles for awhile now, and it appears that some tempers are getting a wee bit frayed.

Thanks for the good discussion, everyone.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax 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 07:04 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 0.13789 seconds with 8 queries