Legal duty to retreat vs Moral duty to retreat

[benbernanke]

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. Therefore, 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.

Ben

 

[Certaindeaf]

Well there you go.

 

[writerinmo]

Nope, not one bit. They are protecting the most precious gift given to them, their lives and those of their loved ones. Here we have no legal duty to retreat either, props to Missouri for their Castle Doctrine.

 

[Robert]

Discretion is the better part of valor

Why fight if I don't HAVE to?

 

[mljdeckard]

The idea here is NOT to get to shoot someone. The idea here is to NOT GET SHOT.

SGY laws are a good buffer, but it really doesn't change the fundamental ethic that you only use deadly force if you absolutely have no other option.

 

[oneounceload]

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does.

Why do you postulate that?

 

[Robert]

but it really doesn't change the fundamental ethic that you only use deadly force if you absolutely have no other option.

Exactly.

 

[Loosedhorse]

There are other things to consider in Castle laws (or SYG laws, which--in general--remove the legal "duty to retreat" outside the home).

Morally, we can argue whether we
a) have a duty to "remove" a criminal from society from by stopping him (including by use of lethal force) even when we have the option of escaping (retreating) in complete safety;
b) have a moral obligation to preserve human life even if it costs us dignity; or also costs us property; or also costs us non-crippling injury;
c) have a duty to our families not only to survive an attack, but to do so in a way that will least likely lead to financial ruin or felony conviction.

Tactics, to me, is less confusing: running away in safety is always better. We are supposed to avoid, escape, de-escalate and dis-engage if we can. If we shoot, it means that we failed in all our other efforts to stay out of a lethal situation, and had to rely on our very last line of defense.

Legally, these laws often remove only the burden of proving you had no means of safe escape; the law assumes you had no safe escape. In general, they do not, and are not meant to, permit you to shoot someone because you wanted to, but didn't have to.

 

[sig220mw]

Not all situations are the same. There may be a time when you can't or don't really want to retreat since the problem may just follow you. Some bad guys will see it as their chance to continue their bad behavior and view your retreat as giving up.

What do you mean by progressive states? I ask this because it brings to mind progressives in politics which are one worlders or socialists. I don't believe this is what you mean but would like to know.

 

[allaroundhunter]

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so?

I believe that I have a moral duty to avoid bloodshed if I have other avenues of escape, but I understand that these morals are not held by everyone. Even though I will do everything that I can to avoid pulling the trigger on another human being, I have no personal morals or reservations that will keep me from pulling the trigger if that is my only option. I also will not leave a defenseless person to fend for themselves if I am in a position to aid them.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Let's turn this around. Does a criminal have the authority to FORCE you, through threats or intimidation, to leave some any place where you have a legal right to be?
In other words, should disobeying an illegal order made by a criminal be a crime?

 

[CountryUgly]

If you are attacked excatly how are you supposed to retreat? Seems to me if retreating is an option the situation wasn't life threatening. I've never heard of anyone being attacked or involved in an armed robbery and retreating with positive results. I do however have personal experience with someone close to me trying to retreat during an attempted robbery and then taking a bullet to the chest while going for cover. In hindsight they admitted that fighting back would have been a better option.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Let's turn this around. Does a criminal have the authority to FORCE you, through threats or intimidation, to leave some any place where you have a legal right to be?
In other words, should disobeying an illegal order made by a criminal be a crime?

No, not at all. I think that the OP should be asking if anyone's personal morals differ from this as opposed to trying to impose his feelings on everyone else.

As far as I'm concerned, if one is following the law then they are morally and ethically right (in a SYG situation).

 

[M2 Carbine]

But does he have a moral/ehtical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does.

Absolutely not.

I will not be the aggressor. I will not be out to rob, hurt, or kill someone.

If someone seeks to do me or mine harm I have no moral obligation to try to hurt them as little as possible.
Basically, to hell with them, if they die they die and it won't bother me one bit.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Seems to me if retreating is an option the situation wasn't life threatening.

And there you have captured the core reasoning behind the duty to retreat requirement. However, having to prove you actually had no retreat can put you in legal jeopardy even though you did everything "right." It is that possible injustice (that was famously played out in MA) which defines the need for Castle laws.

someone close to me trying to retreat during an attempted robbery and then taking a bullet to the chest

The duty to retreat, where it applies, only requires you to retreat rather than use lethal force if you can do so in complete safety. Unfortunately, as already said, it may also require you to prove that you had no safe escape.

 

[Owen Sparks]

As far as I'm concerned, if one is following the law then they are morally and ethically right.

That was the defence the Nazis gave at the Nuremberg trials.

 

[CountryUgly]

And there you have captured the core reasoning behind the duty to retreat requirement. However, having to prove you actually had no retreat can put you in legal jeopardy even though you did everything "right." It is that possible injustice (that was famously played out in MA) which defines the need for Castle laws.The duty to retreat, where it applies, only requires you to retreat rather than use lethal force if you can do so in complete safety. Unfortunately, as already said, it may also require you to prove that you had no safe escape.

I guess a bullet lodged in your chest would qualify as proof?

 

[allaroundhunter]

That was the defence the Nazis gave at the Nuremberg trials

I am trying to defend the law that you are in favor of. But sorry for the lack of specificity, I fixed it.

 

[lindy]

There are Four Types of Homicide:

Felonious,
Accidental,
Justifiable,
and
Praiseworthy.

-Ambrose Bierce-

Good Shooting

Lindy

 

[Loosedhorse]

I guess a bullet lodged in your chest would qualify as proof?

That would seem to legally justify a lethal force response. Of course, we'd still have the practical considerations of whether the person shot can manage that, and if he believes that attempting to shoot will lead to something better than simply being shot several more times. I take it your acquaintance did not fight back after being shot, and that one of the two practical reasons above (or both) was the cause.

It would not serve as proof that, as your acquaintance supposes, fighting back would have gone any better.

 

[RBid]

My view:

1) if i have the means to safely remove myself and those I care for from harm's way, that is my first choice. Avoiding legal ramifications is a good choice. More importantly, the only way to avoid dangerous developments is to be away from it all.

2) if escape is not free & clear, meaning that it may be dangerous to try to get out, then I will do what is necessary. Once somebody threatens my loved ones or me, they have demonstrated to me that they are not deserving of any concern or consideration for their well being. Remorse would not be forthcoming.

 

[abq87120]

I have not experienced an SD or even a near SD situation. However, if I encounter one, I plan to retreat if possible for all the wrong reasons. Some bad guy's life is not worth the legal hassles I will endure if I pop him. But if I cannot retreat, then that's a whole new ball game. If it's him or me, I can only hope that I have spent more time in USPSA and IDPA events that he has.

 

[Rail Driver]

I don't believe that there is a moral or ethical duty to retreat - That's a denial of one's right to self defense. I believe that it's just the opposite - one has a moral and ethical duty to defend oneself and family. The law doesn't change the fact that my life and the lives of my family are my most precious possessions and there's no law invented by man that holds enough weight to prevent me from defending those lives to the best of my ability. If I can do so by retreating, I will - if I cannot, you can bet I'll fight with everything in my power to defend those lives.

 

[Certaindeaf]

. If it's him or me, I can only hope that I have spent more time in USPSA and IDPA events that he has.

I wouldn't get too cocky. Many a fellow has fallen by simple bad luck.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Morally obliged to retreat? Well then by continuation you would have a moral duty to not physically defend your self in a fist fight, a moral precedent to not withhold valuables in a mugging and on and on and at some point you would even be morally obligated to unlock a car or front door based upon a scenario initiated by a social miscreant?

What a bunch of utopian bile! Sure, then the potential follow on violence is the responsibility and social burden of the individual who chooses to not allow something to be taken from him, be it property, life or liberty by another individual with no more claim to same than a willingness to attempt a grab and the confidence that he can get away with it due to force, imposed fear or the understanding that society obliges the victim to back down.