|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
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 |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 25, 2009, 03:37 PM | #576 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
June 25, 2009, 03:41 PM | #577 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member Last edited by Microgunner; June 25, 2009 at 03:47 PM. |
|
June 25, 2009, 03:41 PM | #578 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2009
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 174
|
You don't want no trouble, don't start no trouble...
That's one of my favorite East Texas sayings.
Without regards to morality or ethics, if the laws of the Grand and Glorious Republic (okay, State) of Texas say I can shoot the idiot who is trying to attack and or burglarize and or rob me, he is one shot sucka. In fact, long ago, been there and done that. Two guys tried to rob me while I was out in the woods taking nature photos. I shot them both COM with a .45 and ran like a scalded dog. When I came back with a shotgun they were gone. I went to town and told the sheriff and he said if they survived and reported it, he would call me to get my address so he could send me a medal. He actually said that. I never heard anything more, by the way. God Bless Texas. Do I feel bad about it? Yes. I'm a tad disappointed they - and the two other guys who were with them - weren't still there when I got back with the shotgun. Other than that, I refer you to the title of this post. |
June 25, 2009, 03:47 PM | #579 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I take issue with "moral duty"
Frankly, my preference has always been conflict avoidance, followed where necessary by judicious application of minimum force required. In real world application, that's how things have worked out, thankfully with no weapons involved to this point.
However, if somebody poses the kind of threat (apparent intent and capability) that justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense, while I would PREFER to be able to avoid inflicting harm, I don't feel any moral duty to protect the antagonist from the direct results of his own actions. So if you phrase your question as a matter of duty and responsibility, then no I don't think there is or should be; the law should favor the intended victim to the maximum extent possible (Oklahoma pharmacist does NOT fall into this category). I think every state should have Castle Doctrine laws, if not Stand Ground laws a la Florida. OTOH, if you phrase your question: "would you shoot if you didn't think you needed to, but legally could?" Then I would say, No. However, this variation of the question also implies a heightened level of situational awareness that may not be available to a victim of an assault, break-in, or what have you. One would have to be aware enough to decide there were safe avenues of retreat, or that the threat wasn't necessarily as bad as it seemed at first notice. |
June 25, 2009, 03:49 PM | #580 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 19, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 161
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 25, 2009, 03:55 PM | #581 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
That's not why Joe Horn shot the thieves. It is why he confronted them, though. He went outside to confront the thieves who were stealing his neighbor's property. However, he shot because the thieves turned and advanced on him, posing a threat to his life. If his story of self-defense (in broad daylight, not after dark) had not been corroborated by the plainclothes cop who saw it happen, he might have had a more difficult time of it. Even in Texas. pax |
|
June 25, 2009, 04:11 PM | #582 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2009
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 174
|
I stand corrected... but then again, maybe not
In the 90s, I was sports editor of the Marshall News Messenger.
I also wrote a weekly column on guns - not camping or fishing or hunting - just guns. In one of those columns, I addressed the issue we discuss here. Partly to see what I could stir up, I stated the opinion that shooting someone taking stuff from your house would NOT be justified. The local DA wrote a lengthy letter to the editor challenging me and stated in the letter that he would never prosecute someone under those circumstances. I think that mind set is prevalent over much of the state - with the exception, of course, of Austin - our version of San Francisco. Can I say it again? God Bless Texas. |
June 25, 2009, 04:16 PM | #583 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
June 25, 2009, 04:16 PM | #584 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 19, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 161
|
Quote:
Trust me, Austin is infinitely better than SF!!! Being a transplant from the People's Republic of Santa Monica, I can tell you that Austin is still right of center! |
|
June 25, 2009, 04:19 PM | #585 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2009
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 174
|
Right of center...
Compared to the REST of Texas?
|
June 25, 2009, 04:20 PM | #586 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 19, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 161
|
No, compared to the rest of the country! As the most liberal city in Texas, it is still right of center compaared to the national average, imho.
|
June 25, 2009, 04:23 PM | #587 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 25, 2009
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 174
|
True, but...
Take a poll in Silsbee or Kountze and see what they say.
One thing about Austin for sure, the place has some great scenery. |
June 25, 2009, 04:48 PM | #588 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Quote:
And in fact I think it's reasonable to assume that someone who is 50 feet away and in the process of grabbing your stuff isn't an immediate threat. In the scenario as given, how likely is it that someone who has announced his intention of robbing you, and is focussed on picking up your belongings, will be so enraged that you're daring to retreat from him that he'll drop everything and come after you? Sure it's possible -- but likely? I don't think so. And even if he does, in the situation as given, you've time to stop retreating and shoot, so why not attempt the tactical retreat? And yes, he could in theory pull a gun and start shooting from 50 feet away, but in the situation peetzakiller posed, his hands are full of stuff... If you believe that shooting someone should be an absolute last resort, then morally it's a bad shoot, no matter the legality of it.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|||
June 25, 2009, 05:18 PM | #589 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
And if you are in a jurisdiction in which an attempt to retreat (if possible) is necessary to justify deadly force, scratching and biting just might provide evidence that might persuade others that a defendant had never considered retreat. I'll limit my less-than-lethal tactics to the use of firm language and an effective harsh irritant dispenser, and I'll keep my body away from an assailants feet, knees, and fists, my extremities, head, neck, and torso away from his knife, and my gun away from his hands. I'll avoid any action that might provide evidence of what might appear to constitute either aggression on my part or consent to mutual combat, either of which would greatly weaken my defense. And if the assailant has "A, O. and J" and I have no reasonable means of preclusion, I will use deadly force, with great regret but with no moral or ethical reservations at all. I hope that the evidence, in including any eye witness testimony, is sufficiently persuasive to others after the fact. Last edited by OldMarksman; June 25, 2009 at 05:26 PM. Reason: sp |
|
June 25, 2009, 05:41 PM | #590 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
And two pages later, nobody has looked at my cats Too much focus I think on the vagaries of what would justify the retreat in a tactical sense whilst ignoring the basic issue of retreat qua retreat WildohnohavewelostmichaeljacksonAlaska â„¢ |
|
June 25, 2009, 05:48 PM | #591 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
|
|
June 25, 2009, 05:48 PM | #592 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
I dunno Al, thats fairly close to Mosaic law regarding self defense.
It would be interesting if there was documentation that states are basing their Castle Doctrines on something written thousands of years ago. spacemani'llbelieveMJacksonisdeadwhenDNAconfirmsitishim;ihaveasneakingsuspicionitsallahoaxtocoincidewithanewcdreleasefromthepervertasasortof'resurrection'spiff
__________________
"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 |
June 25, 2009, 05:54 PM | #593 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Thoughts on Standing Your Ground vs. Retreating
As stated in the OP, many states have castle laws that eliminate any duty to retreat from or within the home or some other places, and others have laws that extend the obviation of any requirement to retreat to any place in which someone has the legal right to be.
At least two other states in the Pacific Northwest have had state supreme court rulings affirming the right to use deadly force without having to attempt retreat. Some other states still do (quite unreasonably to say the least, in my view) require retreat from or within the home, and still others require retreat in other places, if, of course, it is possible to do so with complete safety. In most, there's no explicit statutory wording to that effect, it's just the way it is. According to my readings, the original intent of the duty to retreat, as set forth in the common law, was to provide a means to distinguish between legitimate self-defense and either unjustifiable murder or the result of mutual combat. This was when men carried swords and daggers. That might have been excellent reasoning at that time, but it preceded the adoption of portable firearms for self protection. You could run "to the wall" from a man with a sword or dagger, but you cannot outrun a bullet. This raises a number of questions. One may have been answered. If you are set upon by a gunman (unknown a the time the concept came about), is retreat even a reasonable part of the equation? Another is whether, if one is forced to use deadly force to protect himself in a "stand your ground" jurisdiction and has lawfully elected to not attempt retreat at all, might he be forced to be somewhat more reliant on other evidence to support a defense of justifiability than if he had chosen otherwise. I don't think this will affect me--we still have to retreat if we can where I live, and my wife cannot move very fast anyway. But I thought the question to be worth pondering. |
June 25, 2009, 06:04 PM | #594 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
|
|
June 25, 2009, 06:06 PM | #595 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
The doctrine existed in the English Common Law that dates back eight or nine centuries. Yes, a link between Mosaic law and the Common Law would be interesting. Any legal scholars care to comment? But the link between the Common Law and the state laws is not at all in question. All but one of our states originally based their laws on the Common Law as it existed at the time of their admission to the Union. (Hint: they have parishes rather than counties). Yes, it's even true where they say "aloha." My question is, when did the states start eliminating the castle doctrine from their statutory and case law, and how and why? |
|
June 25, 2009, 06:11 PM | #596 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Question is, is that widely accepted, as I would hope? |
|
June 25, 2009, 06:14 PM | #597 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
|
|
June 25, 2009, 06:43 PM | #598 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,324
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud NRA Benefactor Member |
|
June 25, 2009, 07:08 PM | #599 | |
Junior member
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
|
Quote:
|
|
June 25, 2009, 07:42 PM | #600 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Over the history of western society, this "invention" of not killing for property is a relatively recent and brief belief. With the codification of so many Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws, that ethical and/or moral belief system, is swinging back towards what has always been the case (at least for American society). How far it swings, remains to be seen. |
|||
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
|
|