Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[A_McDougal]

ust as a technical point - modern human factors research as demonstrated that a person facing front can turn and take rounds in the back during the time that you took to shoot. It has been a factor in expert testimony in police shootings. Dr. Lewinski at Force Science has studied this intensive as has Mas.

So blanket pronouncements that rounds in the back send you to jail, need to be qualified.

That argument might work if you are a cop. Normal citizens have a much higher burden of proof.

[MLeake]

... the prosecutor has the burden of proof, for conviction.

Defendant has a burden of proof in establishing an affirmative defense, I suppose, but ultimately it's up to the prosecutor to prove wrongdoing.

[csmsss]

That argument might work if you are a cop. Normal citizens have a much higher burden of proof.

I'd say it's exactly the opposite. LEO's typically are held to a much more stringent standard than other citizens.

[Aqeous]

Mentally ill with a gun in his hand, is just another imminent threat. It makes no difference.


Perhaps we should go over what exactly "morally" justifies lethal force.


Be it a man, woman, teenager or the violently mentally ill, a imminent threat to life, limb and family is still an imminent threat. If you are ready and willing to stand up and protect both yourself and your loved ones, how does one justify the negotiation of which version of "imminent threat" warrants yourself/their defense?


Say (just for a hypothetical worst case scenario) an armed man breaks down my door in the middle of the night. Lets say I am forced to shoot him and he dies. Later I found out he was a man who had a long term history of mental illness, a large family, kids, a few dogs, a baby on the way and was on the verge of kicking his drug habit. Maybe he even won the lottery the day before and was about to get married.

... all that matters is that he was where my family dwells armed and dangerous, and it was well within reason that he aimed to do us all harm. There is your moral justification.



I also don't see how the above is debatable unless you believe that you yourself should never take a life under any circumstances. In which, if you did, I would respect that belief . . . though I myself do not agree with it. The bad guys don't share your respect for life, and if the rest of the world thought that way we would all be speaking German.


In the the end my justification is this:

If someone or something enters the place where both I and my family feel safe, with the intent on doing either them or myself harm (or appearing ready and willing too within reason) I am morally justified in repelling them by any means necessary. After the fact, I sleep well at night knowing I succeed in defending what is sacred, and that one less maniac with a gun exists in this world.



P.S.

If I were to break into someones house . . . the very first thing i'd think to myself is "I'm gonna get shot" I'd prefer it if far more bad guys thought the way I did.

[Microgunner]

if a person I thought to be mentally ill, but not malignant (IE not really in touch with reality, as opposed to a Ted Bundy type sociopath), I would hope to be able to avoid a shooting;

Where are you folks going to find all this time needed for these detailed analyzes when a split second could make the difference between life and death for you and your's. They're in your home, you do not hunt them but they show themselves to you anyway, you fire instantly, without any delay. You win, hopefully. If you win we all win. Hooray!

[MLeake]

If you read my two posts on that, I make the same point; odds are that time and scenario will not allow that judgement to be made.

If you're going to quote me, it's ok to edit for brevity, but don't just cut and change my point. Thanks.

[Microgunner]

If you read my two posts on that, I make the same point; odds are that time and scenario will not allow that judgement to be made.

If you're going to quote me, it's ok to edit for brevity, but don't just cut and change my point. Thanks.

My point is that the decision to shoot needs to be made now, long before the conflict. A menu of options will be onerous in the face of this absolute situation. Once you've personally decided how you WILL react if the time comes it's like relief from the inner conflict. Either you're willing to kill to survive or you're not. Middle grounds are pure academics.

[MLeake]

that I indicated in my posts that there is the theory of the mentally ill person's ability to choose, and then there is the practical reality of compressed time and a potential serious threat. I specifically stated that time was not likely to be available to make such a determination.

By selectively quoting only part of what I wrote, out of context, you effectively changed my meaning. That would violate journalistic ethics. While this is an informal forum, you still shouldn't do that.

Editing for brevity is ok, so long as you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting.

Respectfully,

M

[Wildalaska]

.. is irrelevant to the necessity they create.

How so?

No, they haven't chosen, but in a practical sense it doesn't really matter. Their actions still force the same results as if they had consciously chosen.

Thats a good point...but then leads to the next one...

I would feel worse about pulling the trigger, if it came to that, but still might be forced to do so.

Forced to do so...by what?

WilddoyouseewhereiamleadingyoutoAlaska ™......

[guntotin_fool]

Wild. That a diversionary question. Their mental illness only applies to their culpability not mine. If they act as a threat they will be treated as one. If they stood in the doorway calling for Momma and display no aggresive behavior no one is suggesting they get shot. Same as little kid looking for home.

Trying to create non answerable what if's brings nothing to the table.

Fact is. There have been very very few cases nationally where a lawabiding home owner has been charge for acting in self defence. When it does happen it is usually because other factors point to something other than a good faith act of self defence.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Fact is. There have been very very few cases nationally where a lawabiding home owner has been charge for acting in self defence. When it does happen it is usually because other factors point to something other than a good faith act of self defence.

The question is:

Does "not being charged" = "moral"?

[Microgunner]

Editing for brevity is ok, so long as you do not change the intent of the person you are quoting.

I agree. I did use a partial quote out of context as a convenient platform. I apologize.

[Wildalaska]

If they stood in the doorway calling for Momma and display no aggresive behavior no one is suggesting they get shot.

really?...want to read the thread again? Bet ya a ham sandwich there are folks here who advocate unlawful entry=boom....not including the folks who after soul searching have concluded no duty to retreat

Blackstone you know

WildyouseewhereitallleadsAlaska ™

[Microgunner]

Bet ya a ham sandwich there are folks here who advocate unlawful entry=boom

You can't see it but my hand is raised right now.

[Brian Pfleuger]

My point is that the decision to shoot needs to be made now, long before the conflict. A menu of options will be onerous in the face of this absolute situation.

The decision that you will shoot if you have to needs to be made now, as does the decision that you will NOT shoot if you don't need to. You absolutely must be capable and willing to make those split second decisions. Any given situation, regardless of how it started, can turn to murder in a split second. (Just ask the OK pharmacist).

The attitude of "Anybody that (fill in the blank) is going to get shot." is a very good way to find yourself in prison.

[DougO83]

Your dancing. I'll answer your question when you answer mine, yours is easy.

1. A person who commits a crime for which their victim would be justified in the use of lethal force against them has chosen DEATH.

2. How about the mentally ill who do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that is was wrong. Has that person CHOSEN death

My dancing? That doesn't even make sense, but ok.

This is a baiting question that I would not be shocked to see come out of the mouths of the bradytards. Why? It's very simple. Ok, say I agree with #1. Say that I then apply #1 to #2--regardless of mental condition, I would shoot if it was legal. Take that to court and it will end up getting spun to how all gun owners gun down the mentally challenged.

Again, I would need a defintion of 'mentally ill' to provide an accurate answer. It covers such a broad range of people, from those who are intent on doing physical harm to others (serial killers) to those who have severe, limiting disabilities. It is no different than asking "would you shoot (insert random demographic here)?"

I would say "no," initially , that the mentally challenged don't choose death in this situation.

[Microgunner]

The decision that you will shoot if you have to needs to be made now

If "they've" invaded my occupied home I "have to". The primary reason is I lost my mind reading capabilities at about aged 6.

[Wildalaska]

This is a baiting question that I would not be shocked to see come out of the mouths of the bradytards.

So we should reject intellectual honesty simply because it may lead to a conclusion deisred by political adversaries?

Again, I would need a defintion of 'mentally ill' to provide an accurate answer

I gave you one:

"do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that it was wrong."

Guess where I got that from

WildwanttotryagainAlaska ™

[OldMarksman]

The attitude of "Anybody that (fill in the blank) is going to get shot." is a very good way to find yourself in prison.

Yes indeed! And those permanent, discoverable posts expressing that sentiment will help get someone there.

[DougO83]

WildwanttotryagainAlaska ™

I answered...you wanna tray again?

[csmsss]

Blackstone also wrote in his commentaries: "The king," he wrote, "is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness."

Blackstone's commentaries are not binding upon us nor our judiciary, nor are they immune from criticism - whether they speak to statutory or common law. They are merely guides and roadmaps, if you will.

[MLeake]

WA,

Some examples (specific to inside my house):

1) Refusal by a person who seems to comprehend his actions to leave my premises - I may back to a point of cover/concealment tactically, but I don't believe in "retreat" within my home as a moral necessity, period. This doesn't mean I'll automatically shoot, but it does mean I'll challenge from a position of strength. (If at all possible, the lady will have called 911 while backing to a position of safety with her preferred handgun; NOBODY is getting past me to where she will be without being given cause to regret it.) If a person who otherwise appears coherent insists on closing with a homeowner who has told him to depart, that suggests that he thinks I am not a threat, which tells me that he is.

2) If the person seems obviously out of touch with reality, I'll try to maintain distance, but again nobody gets near the lady of the house, so I will only back up so far. If no weapons are apparent, and if the person isn't ridiculously large, then non-lethal options may be pursued once I've reached my limit. I'm on the large side, wrestled for a few years and have studied aikido for a dozen years or so. I have pretty decent odds of taking down the average person without having to inflict a lot of damage.

However, I've had friends get shot by people they had not thought dangerous - if the person acts like he has a weapon and intends to use it, I won't wait to see what is drawn from concealment, so hopefully there won't be any suspicious motions. The suggestion of a weapon draw will immediately escalate my response, sane or not.

3) If the person immediately gets violent, I'm not playing. If an unarmed attack, good odds I'll just take them down. However, if armed or of such a size and demeanor that I'm not positive I can handle them via non-lethal means, they get shot until hostile action ceases.

4) As previously caveated, short of the person being obviously drunk, or blatantly psychotic or schizoid in demeanor, or just bewildered looking, it's going to be hard under adrenalized, short distance, time critical conditions to decide the person is mentally off.

Non-violent people who don't close distance will be reasonably safe. Non-violent people who do close distance will probably be taken down, if they don't seem overwhelming. Violent people will be engaged, sane or not.

[TailGator]

With all due respect for you considerable knowledge of the law, WA, I don't think mental illness, even properly defined, can be assessed in a defensive situation, nor should it be. A fellow who is pointing a gun at me can shoot me just as dead whether he understands the consequences of pulling the trigger or not, and if I want to survive, I have to fire before he does. Determination of legal mental deficiency is a process that occurs to determine his culpability if I don't fire first, and it takes the court systems a long time to determine it, and experts argue about it all the time.

If I or those under my protection are in imminent danger (and that is the only time I can fire) there is neither means nor time nor reason for me to consider the legal mental state of my assailant.

[guntotin_fool]

Wild I am not a medical professional who has the ability to take one look at a person and decide whether or not they are competent to stand trial. I AM however a reasonable enough judge of outward behavior that if ANYONE smashed through my front door while screaming their gonna kill me, that I would take that as a serious enough threat to engage with potentially lethal force.

Regarding "moral". If I am legal and I see fit to shoot, then I will deal with "moral" repercussions.

[rampage841512]

How about the mentally ill who do not understand the nature and consequences of their act or that is was wrong.

Good question. Such a person is too dangerous to be allowed to live in a free society (that is not say they should be euthanized, but rather that they should be confined). Their very condition makes it impossible for them to do so as they cannot exercise any form of control.

Edited at 6:46 for grammar and a clarification on 'allowed to live in a free society.'