|
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 11, 2009, 12:27 PM | #1 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
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 ™ |
June 11, 2009, 12:30 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,457
|
Legal is between you and your state. Moral is between you and your God.
__________________
People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice. |
June 11, 2009, 12:35 PM | #3 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 11, 2009, 12:36 PM | #4 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
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:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 11, 2009, 12:54 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
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. |
June 11, 2009, 12:59 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
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. |
June 11, 2009, 01:01 PM | #7 |
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. |
June 11, 2009, 01:03 PM | #8 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Subjective morals = anarchy. For the purposes of the OP, subjective morals make the question meaningless.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 11, 2009, 01:03 PM | #9 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 11, 2009, 01:08 PM | #10 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
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. |
|
June 11, 2009, 01:14 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
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? |
June 11, 2009, 01:19 PM | #12 |
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.
|
June 11, 2009, 01:26 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Location: Fort Wayne Ind.
Posts: 866
|
I love to read conflicting opinions.....
it makes my life sooooooooo simple I'll go vote now. |
June 11, 2009, 01:28 PM | #14 |
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. |
June 11, 2009, 01:33 PM | #15 |
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.
|
June 11, 2009, 01:34 PM | #16 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 11, 2009, 01:36 PM | #17 |
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. _____________________________________________ |
June 11, 2009, 01:40 PM | #18 |
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? |
June 11, 2009, 01:47 PM | #19 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
|
|
June 11, 2009, 01:49 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
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.
|
June 11, 2009, 01:53 PM | #21 |
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 |
June 11, 2009, 01:55 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
stargazer, I would take issue with your premise that the beginning and end of morality is found in the ten commandments.
|
June 11, 2009, 01:59 PM | #23 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
June 11, 2009, 02:03 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 11, 2009, 02:07 PM | #25 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
|
|