Legal Duty to Retreat vs. Moral Duty to Retreat

[Wildalaska]

To quote Dark Helmet, "evil will always win, because good is dumb."

Who is Dark helmet?

WildhuhAlaska ™

[Brian Pfleuger]

Are there others in danger? Does the BG have a weapon? What kind of weapon? What kind of crime, if any, is being committed? There are too many variables to honestly answer the question.

The OP eliminated those variables. Take a minute in your mind to create the scenario envisioned by the OP.

1) The BG either doesn't have a weapon or doesn't have a distance weapon. This is implied by the "retreat with safety" caveat.

2)No one else in in danger. This is plainly stated. Retreat with complete safety to you and others.

3)The type of crime is not relevant, except that it is obviously not a personal injury crime because that would exclude being able to retreat with safety to self AND others.

There are no variables that are unaccounted for. You are in a situation wherein you have the option to either:

1)Shoot someone who has presented you with a situation wherein it is LEGAL to shoot them.

2)Retreat safely.

Pick one. Shoot or leave. It's really is a Yes/No, A/B type question.

if I'm home, under Florida law, he's a home invader,

Looks to me like he's not a "home invader" until he ACTUALLY robs you:

"when the offender enters a dwelling with the intent to commit a robbery, and does commit a robbery of the occupants therein."

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by WildAlaska

Who is Dark Helmet?

From the movie "Space Balls", a spoof of Star Wars. He was "Darth Vader, so to speak.

[Wildalaska]

Spaceballs huh....Gee, there is something on par with Also Sprach Zarathustra and the great philosophers of our time

If someone engages in action that puts him or her in the position of primary moral agent or actor, then that person is responsible for what happens.

So you would apply volenti non fit injuria to cancel Thall shalt not kill?

On the other hand does not morality imply the last clear chance?

WildletspassbydarkhelmetifwecanAlaska ™

[OuTcAsT]

does not morality imply the last clear chance?

This is probably the most "to the point" comment on this topic thus far !

Bravo Sir ! You have summed up, in a sentence, what it took me a quarter of a page to write.

With your permission, I would like to add this to my signature line ?


Well Said.

[Playboypenguin]

On the other hand does not morality imply the last clear chance?

Once again...who's version of morality? To pretend that morality is a concrete set of terms is absurd.

[jjyergler]

I'll remember not to post any jokes to lighten things.

As to your points, Alaska:

I'm not advocating killing people for any reason. The OP asks is there a moral duty to retreat. That is a philosophical argument. Most of the people are conflating practical and philosophical. If I am where I'm supposed to be, and I have taken reasonable precautions for my safety, then no, there is no moral duty to retreat. That doesn't mean I won't retreat, I'm just saying that there isn't a moral duty.

I'm not advocating cancelling "thou shalt not kill." Read the above. I'm not ADVOCATING anything. I am answering the OPs question. Is there a moral duty to retreat, since the question as asked is unanswerable, I am positing a particular set of circumstances and using that scenario as a basis to answer the question. If you want to get into a theological debate as to the intent of the word "kill" vs. "murder" in the commandment, PM me. Most scholars I have ever heard interpret the text as saying "thou shalt not murder." In this case, defence is not murder, therefore nothing is cancelled.

Ok, Captain Semantics,

Looks to me like he's not a "home invader" until he ACTUALLY robs you:

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?

Also Peetza, did you like read the OP? None of your points are discussed. There is no mention of weapon, no mention of shooting, and no mention of others. Of course, I don't have the secret decoder ring that you get at 1000 posts, so maybee I'm missing something.

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

1) The BG either doesn't have a weapon or doesn't have a distance weapon. This is implied by the "retreat with safety" caveat.

2)No one else in in danger. This is plainly stated. Retreat with complete safety to you and others.

3)The type of crime is not relevant, except that it is obviously not a personal injury crime because that would exclude being able to retreat with safety to self AND others.

Pick one. Shoot or leave. It's really is a Yes/No, A/B type question.

No, the question isn't shoot or leave, it's confront or retreat. If you are going to go for a little semantic crack in my argument, don't overlook the gaping chasm in yours.

[jjyergler]

To pretend that morality is a concrete set of terms is absurd

Slavery, genocide, theft, rape, etc. Morality can only be a concrete set of terms. If it isn't, it is meaningless. Morality is a standard by which society and individuals are judged.

As to whose morality, America has already answered that question. Jehova, the Judeo-Christian God is our standard. This is implicit in our founding documents. If you don't like that, too bad. I didn't decide, Madison, Washington, Jefferson, and the boys did. Our Constitution is a document that explicitly recognizes the natural law of the created world, given by the Creator.

Most of our problems as a nation stem from how we have distanced ourselves from the founding principles of this nation. In fact, I think I've read about the fall of a nation after they distanced themselves from and ignored their Creator. It was some big, old book, not sure where.

[Wildalaska]

Once again...who's version of morality? To pretend that morality is a concrete set of terms is absurd.

Well PP, since we live here, I reckon we are stuck with Western Morality...thou shall not commit homicide?

If you want to get into a theological debate as to the intent of the word "kill" vs. "murder" in the commandment, PM me. Most scholars I have ever heard interpret the text as saying "thou shalt not murder." In this case, defence is not murder, therefore nothing is cancelled.

Ethically, would it not be murder to not take advantage of the last clear chance? isnt it a question of ethical necessity?

WildwhatagreatdebateAlaska TM

[Playboypenguin]

Slavery, genocide, theft, rape, etc. Morality can only be a concrete set of terms. If it isn't, it is meaningless. Morality is a standard by which society and individuals are judged.

Abortion, premarital sex, interracial marriage, gay marriage, divorce...

All of these things are described as immoral by certain groups also.

Morals are not concrete. They are based on your own personal opinions, culture, religion, mindset, demeanor, etc.

Many people would consider killing someone, even if they were holding knife to you young childs throat "immoral." Does that make it so? Or are there varying degrees in every circumstance...which by definition would make morality fluid.

[Playboypenguin]

Well PP, since we live here, I reckon we are stuck with Western Morality...thou shall not commit homicide?

There is no concrete set of western morality. Western morality is a very convenient thing that is often twisted and perverted. Some consider any type of killing immoral. Others have no problems with the death penalty. Some consider divorce or premarital sex immoral...others do not.

[Wildalaska]

Abortion, premarital sex, interracial marriage, gay marriage, divorce...

Sorry PP, the moral issues about where one puts ones unmentionables in and with who under what legal circumstances and the consequences thereof are not quite the same as the moral values involved in pumping some lead into a walking human being...

JC moral codes that would look askance at you and I getting married (if you were cuter) have naught to do with the basic fact of life...are we not men? Not to chase other men, that is the law......(I love HG Wells)

WildandiamtryingtoavoidtheethicalquandryposedbytheunmentionableissuewhichiamwellawareofAlaska TM

Wow...I just thought of the ethics of cannibalism.....naw.......

[Playboypenguin]

Sorry PP, the moral issues about where one puts ones unmentionables in and with who under what legal circumstances and the consequences thereof are not quite the same as the moral values involved in pumping some lead into a walking human bein

Not to you...but to others the story might be different. The very posts in this thread are evidence of that fact. I am sure many of the people that have taken a position different than your own see themselves as just as moral as you see yourself.

I know exactly how I feel about this topic but I have made it very clear that I can see the other side of the aisle's point also...and a lot of places in between. For either view point to try and pretend they somehow have the moral certainty is a bit presumptuous IMHO.

[stargazer65]

Although I believe that there is a concrete moral standard in all things, it's absurd to imagine that everyone will believe or accept those standards. That's just my belief system, I believe it's right(or else why would I believe it) but others believe it's wrong. I can imagine that every possible thing that most people would accept as being immoral(yes, even the basic things) has been accepted practice somewhere sometime.

Even the people that I associate with, who share my beliefs don't come to the same conclusions. And my concrete standards, which I still believe exist, I don't always know the right way to apply them so my conclusions change. So even a person like me who believes in concrete moral standards can't always have moral certainty. I do believe there is liberty of conscience (in many things, not all) whereby a person makes a misjudgment (that they believe is right) and they are blameless.

I know exactly how I feel about this topic but I have made it very clear that I can see the other side of the aisle's point also...and a lot of places in between. For either view point to try and pretend they somehow have the moral certainty is a bit presumptuous IMHO.

So can the original question be answered? Certainly not to everyones satisfaction, it can only be debated. Maybe I can get to that magical place of moral certainty for myself at least, and then I'll sit around wondering: "Maybe I'm wrong?"

Philsophical musing button off...hope I didn't ramble too much.

[jjyergler]

This nation does have an objective moral standard. It is the Christian standard. If you don't accept that, the whole thing goes byebye. You don't have to be a Christian, but citizens of this nation must accept the Christian moral standard. Our rights flow from God, preexisting any government. This is the only nation where that is true. Our rights exist ONLY inasmuch as God exists. Without that differentiation, we are no different than anyone else.

As Madison said, this Constitution is fit only to govern a moral and religious people. It will suit no other. That's a paraphrase, but gets his point across.

Off to work, bye.

[Shawn Thompson]

Just as no man (outside law enforcement) has any duty to defend others from a threat; neither does any man have a duty to retreat from a threat. Each man has his own limit of that to which he will or will not be subjugated. It is simply a matter of honor, and each man must decide for himself that which is honorable.

[OldMarksman]

Just as no man (outside law enforcement) has any duty to defend others from a threat; neither does any man have a duty to retreat from a threat. Each man has his own limit of that to which he will or will not be subjugated. It is simply a matter of honor, and each man must decide for himself that which is honorable.

Of course, in many states, the use of deadly force for self defense is not lawful if safe retreat is possible, except in the home (and sometimes, within an automobile or place of business). It's been that way for centuries, and for good reason.

So, let each man choose whether to retreat, but that does not mean he should use deadly force if retreat is possible.

Murder would not be honorable.

[Sparks2112]

I know exactly how I feel about this topic but I have made it very clear that I can see the other side of the aisle's point also...and a lot of places in between. For either view point to try and pretend they somehow have the moral certainty is a bit presumptuous IMHO.

Very true.

[stargazer65]

Murder would not be honorable.

Although the Huaorani thought it was...

Maybe the OP should specify a specific set of beliefs.

But I suppose that would spoil WildAlaska's fun watching people squirm.

[Shawn Thompson]

Nor did I imply it would be!

But each man must decide for himself what is or is not worth shedding blood over.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Whether morals flow from God or from some cultural and evolutionary interaction isn't really relevant to this thread. Nor is stating that we must accept some religious viewpoint - so let's not drift there.

Let's stay on the OP question.

Moral vs. honorable is another interesting debate. Honor is sometimes a reflexive sense of personal challenge. Retreating is a challenge to one's self image. Is it honorable to be taken prisoner? The Japanese didn't think so.

So honor is not perfectly correlated with moral.

[TailGator]

Brief Digression:

Most modern Burglary statutes basically define burglary as an entry into a building with intent to commit a crime therein. The entry itself does not constitute the crime

Not to get stuck on a digression, WA, but 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? Do they have to actually steal - leave the property with something they don't own - or commit a crime of force against a member of my family before I can object?

You know way more law than me, but somehow I think we are leaving something out here, my friend.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

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.

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.

[stargazer65]

Not to get stuck on a digression, but 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? Do they have to actually steal - leave the property with something they don't own - or commit a crime of force against a member of my family before I can object?

It would be a crime to break and enter and sit down to watch TV. Of course I can't see too many people thinking that it would be moral to blow the TV watching guy away.

[Shawn Thompson]

In our state making illegal entry DOES constitute a crime. And under the states 'make my day law' you are allowed to asume two things: first, they are capable of causing you harm and second, they intend on causing you harm. So it appears that states greatly vary in their approach to allowing someone to defend themselves. Therefore, it would also seem that what is legal vs. what is honorable will also change dramatically based on geographic location. Perhaps it's the burden of the threat of eminant danger that affects one's choice.