Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jjyergler
There is no mention of weapon, no mention of shooting, and no mention of others.
|
The common sense definition, not to mention the legal one, of "complete safety" includes self and others.
"Complete safety" sort of, a little bit, implies that the BG can not hurt you. Can not hurt you implies no weapons, or at least no weapons that can reach you while you retreat.
We must apply a little common sense to the scenario. If we do not then the question is meaningless.
OP: "Would you retreat if you could do so safely?"
Response: "Well, not if the guy has a gun."
Everyone else: "The OP said safely."
Response: "Well, what if he has a rocket launcher?"
Everyone else "Well now, that wouldn't be safe would it."
Response: "Well, what if my daughters near him."
Everyone else "Well, that wouldn't be a safe retreat then would it. The OP said "safely"."
Response: "Well, I didn't see any mention of him not being armed or having my daughter near him."
A little ridiculous don't you think? Complete safety means COMPLETE SAFETY. Anyone involved in SD discussion or legal matters knows that complete safety ALWAYS includes all innocent people and implies that the BG does not have the means to cause damage to the innocents during said retreat.
Now, can you just answer the question? Is there or is there not a moral duty to retreat when possible? It is a YES/NO question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TailGator
...are you saying that it is a proper interpretation of the law that if someone crowbars my door and sits down to watch TV, he/she/it has not committed a crime?
|
No, he's saying that it's not "burglary". It may be breaking and entering, criminal mischief, trespassing, destruction of property or some other such thing but it's not "burglary" unless you "burgle" something.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jjyergler
You are right, the guy who shoots you isn't a murderer until you die. I guess the interpretation of "robs" is the issue. Are you being robbed upon the initiation of the crime or only the consummation. I'll call Bill Clinton, he is the only person that could split that hair. The cat is both in and out of the box, right?
|
There's this little thing called "the law". The law most certainly does get hung up on semantics or "interpretation". Why else would they actually include the clause "and actually does commit robbery" if the simple act of entering makes them a robber? Obviously the clause is included because entering is not robbery and it is not home invasion unless a robbery is committed.