Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Duty to retreat...why?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by bennadatto, Mar 17, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bennadatto

    bennadatto Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    This is a piggy back from another thread going. Mods, I debated putting this in legal or general. Please move if you see fit.

    What would be a logical reason that someone would be in favor of duty to retreat legislation? What I am talking about is...if someone breaks in your house, you are legally compelled to flee your residence, or at least hole up in a room to hopefully wait out the break in. What would be the logic in that?

    The only thing I can think of is that the State is attempting to keep you safe by having you avoid a potential confrontation with a bad guy.

    Can anyone else think of any other logical reasons to support this idea?

    PS: Please provide serious answers only.
     
  2. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    So you don't kill the BG and thereby give the gov't more reason for higher taxes to arrest, try and incarcerate him? (HEAVY sarcasm)

    There are no logical reasons that I can see, only emotional/feel-good ones pushed by folks who think the criminals have more rights than you do to your stuff, and the gov't exists to take care of you
     
  3. Silent Rifleman

    Silent Rifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    FL
    I think the majority of it is based on the Brady bunch's misinformation.

    They honestly think that Castle doctrine means you can shoot someone in the face for looking at you the wrong way.
     
  4. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,524
    First of all to understand the context of your question it is important to understand what government is:

    Government is a monopoly on the use of force.

    Authority tends to see any individual’s use of force, even in self-defense as a threat to that monopoly and possession of weapons as a symbol of defiance.

    This collectivist mindset is much more prevalent in some places than others. For example, there is no duty to retreat in my rural Southern state as we have a castle doctrine and local law enforcement generally believe in the right of people to keep (but not bear) arms. But this attitude changes dramatically in the larger cities of the North East.
     
  5. budiceman

    budiceman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    SE Minnesota
    To make a thief's job safer!
     
  6. rattletrap1970

    rattletrap1970 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    Torrington, CT. USA
    I would move out of a state that had a duty to retreat law, just out of principal.
     
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,665
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    Understand that in states with Castle Doctrine, duty to retreat does not apply in your home, only outside your home.

    Also understand that regardless of the law, we should all do everything we can to avoid using deadly force. If I can retreat instead of fire, I will do so, regardless of what the law says I MIGHT be able to get away with.
     
  8. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,524
    Ever seen the video of police doing door-to-door gun confiscations in New Orleans?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

    There were some law enforcement volunteers from my part of the South who went down there to help. Some of them actually refused to participate in unconstitutional searches and were sent home by the federal authorities. The feds simply got another group of cops from up North to do the job. Therefore, I stand by my earlier generalization that:

    Authority tends to see your gun as a threat to their monopoly on the use of force and a symbol of defiance.

    Certainly not all patrolmen share this attitude; especially those from the rural South and Western states, but a large percentage of police do, especially those higher up on the chain of command. When you look at the upper echelons of law enforcement, police chiefs, state and federal authorities, the FBI etc. this attitude is almost universal.
     
  9. The Bushmaster

    The Bushmaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,838
    Location:
    Ava, Missouri
    I wouldn't have the slightest idea. We don't have to "retreat" in Missouri...
     
  10. supernac

    supernac Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    springfield, mo
    We did before the castle doctrine was put in place. Even then, I don’t think it was ever enforced.
     
  11. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    722
    Location:
    HERE
    What's the percentage? If we're going to invent assumptions then at least humor us with a made up statistic to go along with it so I have something to read while waiting for the dryer to finish up with the towels.
     
  12. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,012
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    The argument I heard in VA was that possessions were not worth the life of either the homeowner or the attacker. The argument was suspect as the person would not allow rebuttal under 'authority' ergo making it a logical fallacy.
     
  13. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    16,311
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Reviewing case law regarding justifiable homicide, reveals phases like.

    "having met the duty to make peace and/or retreat"

    I dont know your state and would advise talking to the county prosecutor for specific cites and cases. small investment of time for correct info.

    Remember every bullet has a lawyer or 2 attached to it.
     
  14. jimmyraythomason

    jimmyraythomason Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    7,384
    Location:
    Alabama
    true that.
     
  15. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,524
    Kind of makes you wonder why we even bother to have law enforcement and a military. If property is never worth a human life, why not just let thieves and foreign invaders take what they want so long as they don't kill anybody?
     
  16. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,012
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    That is one of the most frightening statements I've ever heard.
     
  17. NMGonzo

    NMGonzo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,691
    Location:
    Albuquerque & Santa Fe
    Sir, I applaud you.
     
  18. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,012
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    I won't go into the whole conversation, the person making the statement was an aide to a democrat representative from the state of Mass. so both his intelligence and sanity must be questioned.
     
  19. jfh

    jfh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Maple Plain, MN
    Well, there is at least one reason I can think of for a legislator promoting this kind of law. There is an underlying belief in the US that killing someone--justifiable or otherwise--is not a good thing for a society / country to promote. Consequently, legislation such as this reinforces that notion. I'm not sure that belief is such a bad idea. The alternative, perhaps, is what we have seen in certain African nations recently, with their runs on genocide.

    Whether or not our society's need for that belief rises to the level of being part of the law is another question.

    Jim H.
     
  20. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    "Duty to retreat" is based on the flawed premise that you do not have a basic human right to self defense. Therefore the state will allow you to practice the privilege of self defense ONLY after you've jumped through their hoops (I'm surprised there isn't some sort of paperwork requirement in "Duty to Retreat" states).

    This is an extension of the flawed idea that all rights and privileges are granted by and descend from the state.


    Now the excuse given is that if you have a "duty to retreat" than you reduce the effectiveness of people using claims of self defense when they commit pre-meditated murder. No, I'm not sure how that works (seems to me if you're going to lie about being threatened you'll just also lie about your attempt to retreat).
     
  21. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,524
    There are basically two views of government. One is of government as an omnipotent master over the individual and the ultimate owner of all property. The other is that government is a servant that derives its power from the people.

    Under the second view, the individual is sovereign and has a natural right to his life, liberty and property. This includes the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect these natural rights. The state is simply seen as an employee hired to protect those rights and has no more power than that granted it by the individual.
     
  22. USAFRetired

    USAFRetired Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    SW Idaho
    This whole concept goes to the heart of the "personal liberty" / "Don't Tread On Me" resurgence we are seeing.

    It should be MY decision to stand and fight or get the wife & kids & myself out the back window.

    Personally, I REFUSE to be a victim. If I go down fighting, then the BG(s) is/are going to have to get through a locked door and some 00 buckshot to get to the wife & kids.

    But that's just me.
     
  23. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Well said Owen.
     
  24. Manco

    Manco Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    I think this is simply the result of favoring a "pacifist" mindset to the point where fighting for any reason is considered repugnant as well as detrimental to everybody involved. In principle, some dream of a society where the vast majority of people are unwilling or unable to fight anymore, and the few who still do will either be criminals or enforcers, with emphasis on "the few." There are those who even abhor violence against criminals no matter how evil their acts or intended acts, which is definitely an extreme case of fearing and therefore hating violence in the most general sense and as a life philosophy. Note that some elected officials who support such laws exempt themselves from them--they'll gladly take our guns and stuff their own holsters. I guess that makes them enforcers, and they can be very practical when it comes to defending themselves, unlike all of us peons who are compelled by law to be helpless.

    That's what I think is going on in some people's heads, and there are definitely many things wrong with such a mindset, in my opinion--just as wrong as those who would attempt to use violence to solve every problem. I doubt that I need to go into great detail on this forum about what's wrong with anti-violence (and anti-gun) philosophies and "duty to retreat" laws, but generally the latter places too much of a legal burden as well as danger on the victims of human predators. The bottom line is that people should have the right to decide whether it is better for them to flee or fight from the outset, as attempting to flee can be unnecessarily dangerous for those who can fight, and those who choose to fight should not face unnecessary legal consequences for harming an assailant, as if they owed them something.

    Some politicians who put such a legal burden on victims or potential victims of violent crimes may mean well for society as a whole, but are totally wrongheaded in focusing on avoiding violence itself--even against criminals--rather than understanding the real problems and solutions. The same sort of strange abstract thinking is what makes them consider firearms themselves a problem--they think they can reduce gun violence by taking away guns from anybody they can and making violence illegal (or less legal, anyway) for self-defense. In short, they're nuts because in reality there is good violence and bad violence, as well as good uses for guns and bad uses for guns. They don't look at individual people as being responsible for their own actions, and instead blame inanimate things.

    Then of course there's the issue of power. Obviously the more helpless and dependent a government's subjects are, in general, the more power a government will have over them.
     
  25. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Sullivan County PA
    "Duty to Retreat"? an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Also redundant - I would think that using force as a last resort or final option covers it anyway.

    Why would they come up with this gem? Failure to understand what is involved, being misinformed (deliberately or otherwise), or just trying to piecemeal away gun rights.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page