|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
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 17, 2009, 08:21 PM | #226 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 2, 2009
Posts: 111
|
In MD. the excuse has been used that a person "could be invited" into a home and then murdered as a home invader. And with Baltimore City and county holding almost half the votes, only Federal intervention will change it.
|
June 17, 2009, 08:43 PM | #227 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also suggest that the harsh reality of a situation where someone is on a shooting spree in a crowded place, nothing will be clear cut and simple to decide. Your options to retreat will be complicated by other people in the way for instance. Your attempts to ID the shooter and his location will be hampered by panic stricken people in your line of sight. That "clear shot" at 15 feet isn't quite so clear if there are more people beyond the perp at that distance (what if you miss?) or others suddenly standing or running through your line of fire. You needn't wait forever and put yourself at risk to get a "clean shot" -- if it isn't likely, retreat may be the only viable option. You're unlikely in the extreme to get a 99% clean shot. But a 70% clean shot may be the only one you get. Some will argue that if nothing is done or the shot not taken, those same innocents will be dead anyhow in a matter of seconds or minutes. Anyone in that situation has to determine what their own moral philosophy is -- is it better that you do nothing and let the killer slay the innocents rather than potentially have innocent blood on your hands? Or is it better to stop the killing at 9 victims, instead of letting it rise to 10, 15, 30 or more, even if it means one of your shots strikes a potential victim? If we limit ourselves to simple 1:1 situations, I don't know that there is an absolute moral duty to retreat in every circumstance.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|||
June 17, 2009, 09:28 PM | #228 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you really know what you are talking about? No offense intended, but I learned long ago to not rely on a lay person's interpretation of the wording of any statute taken out of context, made without knowledge of case law, and based on dictionary definitions. And I think the state to state variation may be critical here. |
|||
June 17, 2009, 09:52 PM | #229 | |||||||
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is no moral or ethical (and often no legal) obligation for an armed person to use less than lethal force when protecting themselves, others, and sometimes even property from a threat. Quote:
Where is it stated that a person must use deadly force only as a "last resort" when defending oneself from a deadly threat? There's no such law in North Carolina. Quote:
And it is an opinion not shared by everyone (thankfully). Quote:
This is simply not true. If I have a baton and a handgun, and someone attacks me, I am under no legal or moral obligation to first try to subdue the attacker with the baton before resorting to the handgun. This is a notion of your own creation. Quote:
|
|||||||
June 17, 2009, 09:55 PM | #230 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 26, 2000
Location: Hastings, Nebrasksa - the Hear
Posts: 2,209
|
With the Understanding "Laws" Over-ride Morals...
Knowing one can be charged in certain jurisdictions based on the laws passed by pro-criminal legislators, one must follow the laws or stand the consequences; okay, that part notwithstanding:
I submit a citizen in his or her lawful pursuits has no moral or ethical obligation to surrender one's ability to conduct one's lawful pursuits, business, affairs or movement simply because a scoff law decides his unlawful pursuits conflict. I will stipulate one might choose to ethically retreat to avoid serious danger or damage to others, or if faced with an adversary one knows to be mentally or emotionally incompetent. But that's the extreme exception.
__________________
There ain't no free lunch, except Jesus. Archie Check out updated journal at http://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/ |
June 17, 2009, 10:04 PM | #231 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2009
Location: John's Creek, Georgia
Posts: 328
|
Moral Duty to Retreat??
Not in Georgia A Castle Doctine State. You break into my home and I will kill you dead unless I see who you are and recogonise you in a few milliseconds. I will not say anything like STOP Get Away From Here that the neighbors will not likely hear. You are shot dead and I will record my 911 call with all of the information to be played at your unlucky survivors court cases. Time for relaxation time.....
We are not promoting eugenics as reasons to shoot on TFL. GEM Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; June 19, 2009 at 01:05 PM. Reason: See comment in italics |
June 17, 2009, 10:14 PM | #233 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Nowhere in NC law does it dictate that one must do everything possible to avoid using deadly force when defending oneself. The very notion is foolish beyond comprehension. |
|
June 17, 2009, 10:24 PM | #234 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
[QUOTE]Not in Georgia A Castle Doctine State. You break into my home and I will kill you dead unless I see who you are and recogonise you in a few milliseconds. I will not say anything like STOP Get Away From Here that the neighbors will not likely hear. You are shot dead and I will record my 911 call with all of the information to be played at your unlucky survivors court cases. Time for relaxation time.....QUOTE]
One presumes that you would do so if and only if you reasonably believe that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence or you believe that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony. It would prove a little tense to have shot someone otherwise simply because you didn't recognize them, wouldn't it? http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-3-23.html |
June 17, 2009, 10:26 PM | #235 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
I say again: Under the Xbox facts as I gave them, the legal opinion is sound. But the irony was more important and thats the forest you are missing as you gaze at the trees..... [QUOTE]Not in Georgia A Castle Doctine State. You break into my home and I will kill you dead unless I see who you are and recogonise you in a few milliseconds. I will not say anything like STOP Get Away From Here that the neighbors will not likely hear. You are shot dead and I will record my 911 call with all of the information to be played at your unlucky survivors court cases. Time for relaxation time.....QUOTE] Thats the bloodthirsty gun owning spirit I am talking about! Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset! I pray you wont make a mistake....bad for the gene pool. WildforyoursakeAlaska TM Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; June 19, 2009 at 01:07 PM. Reason: Gene pool out. |
||
June 17, 2009, 10:33 PM | #236 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
June 17, 2009, 10:38 PM | #237 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
|
|
June 17, 2009, 10:43 PM | #238 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
|
|
June 17, 2009, 10:44 PM | #239 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
The very notion certainly adds insult to injury. |
|
June 17, 2009, 10:45 PM | #240 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Really? On what basis? |
|
June 17, 2009, 10:51 PM | #241 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Why should a law abiding citizen, exercising his legal right to self defense and defense of his home, need to prove that his actions were "necessary" when the law does not dictate that he need make such an argument? If a person chooses to break in to another's home, then he has, by his very actions, given the homeowner the right to use deadly force. The invader's actions make the argument for the defender. |
|
June 17, 2009, 10:53 PM | #242 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
He's cleaning the gene pool Quote:
WildunlessyouconsiderthetakingofthexboxnottobeafelonyundernclawthereisnofelonyrequirementundernylawAlaska TM |
||
June 17, 2009, 10:56 PM | #243 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Not too difficult to see that as bloodthirsty, IMHO. Hopefully you never get involved in any kind of shooting situation and have your posts used to try to establish a criminal state of mind. |
|
June 17, 2009, 10:57 PM | #244 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
We have lots of rights that many choose not to excersize WilditstheimplementationthatsthequestionAlaska TM |
|
June 17, 2009, 10:58 PM | #245 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
If you think that person is going to commit burglary (a felony) then you are legally allowed to use deadly force to stop that person. The real question is this: Why do some here think that criminals who prey upon the law abiding citizens of this nation should be protected? |
|
June 17, 2009, 11:01 PM | #246 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
It was Steviewonder1 who made that statement. Try again. |
|
June 17, 2009, 11:01 PM | #247 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 17, 2009, 11:03 PM | #248 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Some have even claimed that it's our "obligation" to try and not hurt those that threaten us whenever possible. |
|
June 17, 2009, 11:05 PM | #249 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
June 17, 2009, 11:06 PM | #250 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
It's the "assumption of innocence" that our laws are founded upon that proves you wrong. |
|
Tags |
moral duty , morality |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|