Legal duty to retreat vs Moral duty to retreat

[pockets]

A warning. Guy comes toward you (suppose you've been told by your doctor that a blow to your head will be fatal for some reason--why you're not going around in a football helmet, I'm not sure, but anyway) and says, "I'm gonna sock you right in the mouth." Pull your gun and say, "Then I'm gonna shoot you." Or say nothing: the drawn gun is a warning in itself.

Wow...something I can relate to! THIS is exactly why I got a CHL in the first place.
There is no schoolyard fist fighting (never really understood that game either) for me, a good head hit and it's brain hemorrhage time with no stopping.
I will always try to exit a confrontation. Drawing a weapon is my absolute last resort, only after all other options have failed or it is apparent that they will fail.
Don't care what folks think of me. Unless I have no recourse but to use my gun for me or mine's protection, I subscribe to King Arthur's advice in The Holy Grail, "Run away!!!!". Over my 6 decades, I've only drawn a gun once (a knife twice).

I'm also under no obligation to clean up Dodge City for anyone else.

.

 

[chhodge69]

SYG does nothing to change how one should handle a deadly force encounter. It only affects what happens after. When a violent criminal threatens to do harm the armed citizen's moral obligation is to self and family, not to the criminal.

 

[Skribs]

I personally believe that if someone is commiting a violent or coercive crime, they are suspending their right to safety until such time as the crime is stopped. Be it a home invasion, mugging, armed robbery, or anything else along those lines. I'm not saying we should shoot them all, but until such time as the crime is ceased, I do not feel a moral obligation towards the criminal's safety.

If I am in a public place, there is no legal or moral reason for me to obey an order by a criminal. I believe the quote goes something like "the only thing necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing." I'm not suggesting vigilantiism or that you should immediately draw and fire on anyone who has broken a law, but I see absolutely no moral duty to retreat. If you stand your ground and no lethal force is required (as happens with most self defense gun use) then you didn't cause bloodshed and you didn't retreat.

With that said, I don't believe you have a moral obligation to stand your ground, either. I think if everyone was armed and did stand their ground, a lot less people would be trying these types of crime, but at the same time there is a lot more to it than simply standing your ground.

 

[303tom]

In my home I will not retreat, no moral to it..................

 

[sig220mw]

So we don't need honorable intentions or behavior? This is one of the things wrong with our society today. That is what bad guys are. People with dishonorable intentions. It IS the honorable thing to do to stop an obvious criminal from being able to succeed in crime.

 

[SabbathWolf]

Kansas says I can blast you.
If you have the low morals to attack me or mine in my own home...then I'm not too concerned about being "moral" toward you after that point.


Body:

21-5223. Same; defense of dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.

(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.

(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.

History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 22; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 8; July 1.

 

[Sam1911]

So we don't need honorable intentions or behavior? This is one of the things wrong with our society today. That is what bad guys are. People with dishonorable intentions. It IS the honorable thing to do to stop an obvious criminal from being able to succeed in crime.

But you as the armed citizen are not empowered to use lethal force to "stop crime." That's vigilanteism. We have a justice system with law enforcement officers, courts, prisons, and a system of laws, trials, sentencing and so forth that is constructed for the purpose of dealing with folks who break laws.

If you assault or kill someone, the only manner in which your guilt for that homicide may be set aside is if you can show that you had no choice but to act as you did. You had a reasonable belief that this person would kill you or seriously hurt you, right that second, if you did not fire your weapon.

Even in cases of self-defense, you are NOT being empowered to administer justice to keep a criminal from succeeding in his crime. You are not assaulting or killing him because he's bad, or he's broken the law. ONLY because you reasonably believed that you had no choice but to shoot or die. (Or prevent a very short list of other serious felonies like assault or rape.)

There's a habitual tendency among "gun guys" to look at lethal force encounters with a broad wink and a gruff statement to the effect that, "Some folks just need killin'!" In other words, justice was served -- it was a GOOD shoot -- that's one less bad guy in the world, and so on. The problem is, there is no element of the actual law that considers things that way. You either can prove that your situation met the standards for lawful use of deadly force, or you can not. If not, you're now a criminal and are going to jail. Doesn't matter if the guy you shot was a 3-strikes felon or a minister.

Commissioner Brumford: Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to introduce a most special American. Tonight, he is being honoured for his 1000th drug-dealer killed.
Lt. Frank Drebin: Thank you. But, in all honesty, the last three I backed over with my car. Luckily, they turned out to be drug-dealers.

 

[Rail Driver]

But you as the armed citizen are not empowered to use lethal force to "stop crime." That's vigilanteism. We have a justice system with law enforcement officers, courts, prisons, and a system of laws, trials, sentencing and so forth that is constructed for the purpose of dealing with folks who break laws.

If you assault or kill someone, the only manner in which your guilt for that homicide may be set aside is if you can show that you had no choice but to act as you did. You had a reasonable belief that this person would kill you or seriously hurt you, right that second, if you did not fire your weapon.

Even in cases of self-defense, you are NOT being empowered to administer justice to keep a criminal from succeeding in his crime. You are not assaulting or killing him because he's bad, or he's broken the law. ONLY because you reasonably believed that you had no choice but to shoot or die. (Or prevent a very short list of other serious felonies like assault or rape.)

I don't know about your jurisdiction, Sam, but in mine the law states otherwise. It's not the "administration of justice" though some see it that way - it's defending good people from bad people plain and simple:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

... (snipped for brevity - full statute linked at the bottom)

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

"Forcible Felony" as used in the previously cited statute is defined here:

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.08.html

 

[mdauben]

Some bad guy's life is not worth the legal hassles I will endure if I pop him.

This. I am less concerned with the life or death of a criminal who has chosen to threaten me than I am with avoiding the legal and emotional aftermath of even the most legally and morally justified "shoot". CD and SYG means you probably won't be convicted of murder, it does not guarantee that you won't be cuffed, arrested, your gun(s) confiscated or other disagreeable results before "they" finally decide you are innocent.

I don't know about your jurisdiction, Sam, but in mine the law states otherwise:

One thing Sam does not seem to specifically mention, is that deadly force is not only generally permissable to defend yourself from death of grave bodily injury, but also to defend other innocents.

"Forcible Felony" as used in the previously cited statute is defined here:

Note that most of the examples of "Forcible Felony" are by definition forms of grave bodily injury (i.e. sexual assault, battery) or so frequently involve death or grave bodily injury (i.e. carjacking) as to fall under Sam's definition of justification of use of deadly force.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by sig220mw: So we don't need honorable intentions or behavior?

Of course we do.

It IS the honorable thing to do to stop an obvious criminal from being able to succeed in crime.

When one does so lawfully, yes.

But while deadly force may be justified or excused in cases in which the actor had reason to believe that such force had been immediately necessary for self preservation (or in some jurisdictions, for stopping certain serious felonies), doing "the honorable thing", defending one's honor, or displaying valor do not justify the use of force.

 

[GEM]

For the scholars here -

The discussion might be well informed by reading about Kohlberg's theory of moral development - the idea that morality is following the law is examined.

Also, Killing in Self-Defense (expensive legal text) by Fiona Leverick - covers most of the issues here.

To cut to the chase - life is more important than property. The only justification for killing is to save your own life (or that of others) as the attack devalues the worth of the life of the attacker. If one can safely avoid taking a life, then the value of the attacker's life trumps even a legal opportunity to kill the attacker. Grievous bodily harm counts as it is a predictor of propable death.

Rape is a special case - one might argue that it doesn't take a life but:

1. The victim cannot know if he or she will be killed.
2. The act of rape so diminshes the value of the victims' life that the value of attacker's life sinks below that of the victim and lethal force is justified.

Thus retreat if it can be done safely is preferrable to killing, even if legally justified. That's what Leverick concludes. Interesting read but dense.

 

[Sam1911]

Rail Driver -- I did mention that there were a few instances where you could be found justified if you used lethal force to prevent a specific set of very serious felonies.

Should have been more clear about that, but that's less universal and a whole lot murkier ground.

(Kind of like that whole "Shooting thieves in TX after dark" issue! )

Also, you'll note that many of those listed in FL's statute involve serious risk of injury or death to others anyway.

 

[GEM]

PS to my post above:

The motivation to kill even if not necessary to prevent life loss is probably driven by a revenge motivation.

It is argued by some theorists that this is an evolutionary driven process with several components.

1. Attacking our attacker probably triggers pleasure center circuits designed to reward us for fighting in risky situations.
2. We are driven to maintain our place in dominance hierarchies. Thus if we are attacked we need to demonstrate that we dominate the attacker.
3. That's we also see displaced aggression if we are attacked. We may lose to the attacker but we show others that we are still powerful.

The mass get togethers after some tragedy like VT serve to help share grief but also mark our territory as defended by group force.

Thus wanting to kill an attacker when unnecessary supports our view of our self-image and image in the community based on built in drives.

 

[hso]

duty

No, there's no duty to do so. It is practical to avoid a confrontation if you can simple for your own safety, but telling someone they have a duty to retreat puts them in a dangerous position of putting their attacker's well being above their own. Remember that self defense is defense, defense in the face of an attacker. You should avoid a confrontation and avoid having to defend yourself, but when attacked your only consideration should be defending yourself from your attacker without you or other innocents being harmed.

 

[ball3006]

Memorize the law in YOUR state. Think about how you will react to different situations before you place yourself in harm's way. Stopping and thinking about it in a SD situation will probably get you killed. chris3

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Rail Driver (quoting the Florida back law): "...reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Do you contend that that differs materially from "you reasonably believed that you had no choice but to shoot or die. (Or prevent a very short list of other serious felonies like assault or rape.)"?

BTW, the list varies among jursidictions.

...it's defending good people from bad people plain and simple...

From an imminent threat posed by "bad people". Let's not let anyone think otherwise. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what "bad people" might do later.

 

[Skribs]

GEM, how do you know that mugger is going to let you go after you hand him your wallet and watch?

 

[bikerdoc]

Why are you all feeding a 1 post troll who answered his own question.

 

[Skribs]

Biker, people aren't responding to the OP anymore, but to each other.

 

[Rail Driver]

Do you contend that that differs materially from "you reasonably believed that you had no choice but to shoot or die. (Or prevent a very short list of other serious felonies like assault or rape.)"?

BTW, the list varies among jursidictions.

No, I don't. The qualifier (or prevent ...) appears to have been edited in after I posted my local statute and statement.

From an imminent threat posed by "bad people". Let's not let anyone think otherwise. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what "bad people" might do later.

I didn't intend to imply otherwise - It's to prevent what the "bad people" are in the act of or is imminently pending. What someone may do tomorrow is not relevant nor do I have any way of knowing that - Further, I'll go so far as to state that even a person saying to myself or another "I'm going to get my gun and come back here and shoot you" is also NOT valid grounds to shoot - that same person reaching in his trunk and pulling out a firearm as he is saying those words IS valid grounds to shoot in defense. (in my jurisdiction)

 

[Kleanbore]

^^^^
Probably a good time to move on to something else.

 

[Sam1911]

Why are you all feeding a 1 post troll who answered his own question.

Biker, people aren't responding to the OP anymore, but to each other.

There are some issues that are imperfectly understood by the world at large, and there's far more of the wrong kind of info out there to support such poor understandings.

The OP may never return, but lots of folks will read this now or stumble upon it later and perhaps read something that gives them a critical insight they otherwise would not have had.

A teachable moment, perhaps?

 

[Fred Fuller]

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.

Here we have an interesting juxtaposition of concepts that might or might not actually be relative.

Legal? Many things are or have been legal that might not be considered moral by some people.

Moral? Many things are considered moral by some people which are not legal.

But in life, legality is what has the most visible and tangible consequences, morality being more of a private concept (save in its translation to actions in life).

I am discouraged by the number of people new to the idea of self defense who are 'headhunting,' for lack of a better way to put it. The question is too often phrased by these folks as "When can I shoot him?" or the like.

To paraphrase my sainted mother in law: It isn't enough not to want to shoot someone. You have to want NOT to shoot someone.

That doesn't mean you won't shoot if you are forced to shoot in defense of yourself or your loved ones. What it means is that shooting is a last resort, not an early option.

I quote trainer John Farnam pretty often in this regard:

Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable. -- http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html

Good advice in my experience...