Do you support having a legal duty to retreat? [W:79]

[joko104]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Yes. Exactly.

What is the Asimov quote? "Violence is the last refuge of incompetents" - with the implication that competent people never need to use it.

So what you are saying is that Jews that died in the Holocaust were competent or incompetent? What about the people on that died in that mass-shooting theater? Is Asimov claiming they were competent or incompetent people?

 

[SMTA]

Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Yes, VERY observant of you.

SYG laws came about as increasingly the zippy pinheads started asserting - and some even codifying - the duty to run away/retreat. Prior to this, it was clear no person had to flee. However, by then proactively establishing SYG laws it becomes a matter of splitting hairs the other way.

Nope.

An intelligent, informed, and free society needs fewer laws, not more.

Bad current laws should be eliminated, not be the cause of even more laws.

 

[Thrilla]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Yes. Exactly.

What is the Asimov quote? "Violence is the last refuge of incompetents" - with the implication that competent people never need to use it.

a very ironic "quote".. particularly because the person who said it (Salvor Hardin.. Asimovs character in Foundation) had no trouble using violence to subjugate neighboring kingdoms and forcing them to adhere to his religion ( scientism)

it's a bull**** maxim that sounds good....in a vacuum... or in a fiction novel

a competent will employ, or decline to employ, violence depending on circumstances...incompetents will stick to naive maxims no matter the circumstances.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Where it gets complicated is in response to highly aggressive, but not overtly giving notice of imminent assault, do you have to let the other take a free-shot at you first before you can defend - meaning it likely you no longer can? The rule of "the best defense is a good offense" applies to nearly any potential assault situation.

When I was a cop in the service our standing order on use of force was that the use of deadly force was only allowed in response to deadly force. That was the generally accepted "law" and we generally went into every scenario with that mindset including clearing buildings with known bad guys. It was EXCELLENT training because it taught restraint, cover, fields of fire, situational awareness and response to action. I have no doubt that there was at least one young Airman who can thank his lucky stars that I had that training too.

There was, however, also the understanding that "response to deadly force" also included when it was readily obvious that deadly force would imminently be used against someone else and although it was rarely brought up directly there was always an understanding that if we took someone out because they were in the process of harming or trying to harm someone else we'd be in the clear....probably.

 

[SMTA]

Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

a very ironic "quote".. particularly because the person who said it (Salvor Hardin.. Asimovs character in Foundation) had no trouble using violence to subjugate neighboring kingdoms and forcing them to adhere to his religion ( scientism)

it's a bull**** maxim that sounds good....in a vacuum... or in a fiction novel

a competent will employ, or decline to employ, violence depending on circumstances...incompetents will stick to naive maxims no matter the circumstances.

Well done!

 

[SMTA]

Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

So what you are saying is that Jews that died in the Holocaust were competent or incompetent? What about the people on that died in that mass-shooting theater? Is Asimov claiming they were competent or incompetent people?

Godwin's law already!

 

[joko104]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

When I was a cop in the service our standing order on use of force was that the use of deadly force was only allowed in response to deadly force. That was the generally accepted "law" and we generally went into every scenario with that mindset including clearing buildings with known bad guys. It was EXCELLENT training because it taught restraint, cover, fields of fire, situational awareness and response to action. I have no doubt that there was at least one young Airman who can thank his lucky stars that I had that training too.

There was, however, also the understanding that "response to deadly force" also included when it was readily obvious that deadly force would imminently be used against someone else and although it was rarely brought up directly there was always an understanding that if we took someone out because they were in the process of harming or trying to harm someone else we'd be in the clear....probably.

That's a clear distinction, isn't it? For example, if GZ had 3 guys with him and all four of them had 9mms drawn, probably TM would still be alive today. On the other hand, if TM had others with him all holding 9mms, he also would still be alive.

 

[Thrilla]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Nope.

An intelligent, informed, and free society needs fewer laws, not more.

Bad current laws should be eliminated, not be the cause of even more laws.

I agree with you but, unfortunately, our legislative system requires a new law to rescind or ,reverse the effects of, an old law.

in addition, political legacies are built by writing and passing legislation, not by erasing old laws.

pretty silly , if ya ask me

 

[Goshin]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

No.

A legal onus to retreat is likely to force the defender to either perform a tactically suicidal maneuver to comply, or else make an otherwise honest person into a felon because retreat wasn't a feasible option.


No.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

That's a clear distinction, isn't it? For example, if GZ had 3 guys with him and all four of them had 9mms drawn, probably TM would still be alive today. On the other hand, if TM had others with him all holding 9mms, he also would still be alive.

Maybe. When you add a group dynamic you're adding exponentially more complexity to the equation.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Maybe. When you add a group dynamic you're adding exponentially more complexity to the equation.

And exponentially more opportunity for someone to screw up by the numbers and turn it into a general bloodbath.

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

And exponentially more opportunity for someone to screw up by the numbers and turn it into a general bloodbath.

Yep. That's why teams train and train a lot. You can take a bunch of the best individually trained guys out there, put them together and it's like kindergarten all over (although they do tend to learn faster!).

 

[lizzie]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Yes. Exactly.

What is the Asimov quote? "Violence is the last refuge of incompetents" - with the implication that competent people never need to use it.

If you think it is wise to sit by passively, as someone commits violence against you, then I would say that Asimov's view is the one based on incompetence.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Yep. That's why teams train and train a lot. You can take a bunch of the best individually trained guys out there, put them together and it's like kindergarten all over (although they do tend to learn faster!).

Absolutely right. A trainer I hold in high respect says to never try to do tac ops, like houseclearing, with someone you haven't trained with, that it is safer to do it alone that with an 'unknown factor' at your back. In most scenarios I tend to agree with him.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Yes. Exactly.

What is the Asimov quote? "Violence is the last refuge of incompetents" - with the implication that competent people never need to use it.

Like many "sayings", it contains a nugget of wisdom but shouldn't be taken TOO literally. Granted, 90% of the time violence can be avoided through various means that are most readily available to the well-prepared and quick-thinking mind... but not always.

There are times when the only options are violence, or passive acceptance of your fate. I have never found the latter appealing.... especially given that I've cleaned up after the horrors some scumbags leave when they get a chance to do their worst on some poor citizen who wasn't prepared to defend their self.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

His answer was correct. It depends on the scenario placed in front of you at the given moment. You're seeking something akin to a checklist, which is impractical.

Hesitate in a life and death situation, and it wont matter what the scenario is. You are dead.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Yes. Exactly.

What is the Asimov quote? "Violence is the last refuge of incompetents" - with the implication that competent people never need to use it.

So when someone is holding a knife to your wifes throat or beating you to a pulp, you are going to start quoting asimov to them.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

I suppose that from a purely philosophical way of thinking it's nice to get rid of all the "what if's" but they are real and they play out in every interaction we have with each other. The "what if's" count and they count in a big way.

Fine, what if you're in a situation that looks dangerous to you but isn't because you have a cowboy fantasy and you murder an innocent person? Why should your propensity for violence be the standard for determining whether or not it's alright to kill? All of those "what ifs" that people like to toss out involve fantastical scenarios with clearly marked bad guys who have broken into your house and apparently want to murder your children for fun, unlike how real burglars act. Every such scenario requires a judgment call, but we emphasize and exalt the wrong judgment. If you can avoid violence, you should. Instead of embracing a responsible approach to violence, gun supporters espouse a macho attitude with an itchy trigger finger. That is the wrong attitude. Always. Period. Civilized people do not act that way.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Fine, what if you're in a situation that looks dangerous to you but isn't because you have a cowboy fantasy and you murder an innocent person? Why should your propensity for violence be the standard for determining whether or not it's alright to kill? All of those "what ifs" that people like to toss out involve fantastical scenarios with clearly marked bad guys who have broken into your house and apparently want to murder your children for fun, unlike how real burglars act. Every such scenario requires a judgment call, but we emphasize and exalt the wrong judgment. If you can avoid violence, you should. Instead of embracing a responsible approach to violence, gun supporters espouse a macho attitude with an itchy trigger finger. That is the wrong attitude. Always. Period. Civilized people do not act that way.

I haven't seen Luther advocate anything that justifies these wild charges of "cowboy fantasies" or murdering an innocent.

Details matter. "What if's' matter, because they happen in real life. And all too often, criminals are not simply poor disadvantages persons seeking to balance their economic woes with some of your stuff, but emotionally warped individuals likely to take joy in your suffering... and giving them the benefit of the doubt in a crucial moment could end up in terrible tragedy. It happens far more often than most people know or want to think about.

Clean up a few times after some criminal had a chance to "do his worst" on a citizen who wasn't prepared to defend himself, and you'll understand why some of us say it isn't worth the risk to assume ANY benevolence on the part of a intruding/attacking felon.

 

[SMTA]

Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

That's a clear distinction, isn't it? For example, if GZ had 3 guys with him and all four of them had 9mms drawn, probably TM would still be alive today. On the other hand, if TM had others with him all holding 9mms, he also would still be alive.

Represents wild speculation and has no relevance

 

[SMTA]

Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

I haven't seen Luther advocate anything that justifies these wild charges of "cowboy fantasies" or murdering an innocent.

Details matter. "What if's' matter, because they happen in real life. And all too often, criminals are not simply poor disadvantages persons seeking to balance their economic woes with some of your stuff, but emotionally warped individuals likely to take joy in your suffering... and giving them the benefit of the doubt in a crucial moment could end up in terrible tragedy. It happens far more often than most people know or want to think about.

Clean up a few times after some criminal had a chance to "do his worst" on a citizen who wasn't prepared to defend himself, and you'll understand why some of us say it isn't worth the risk to assume ANY benevolence on the part of a intruding/attacking felon.

Well done and perfectly accurate.

 

[Sig]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

I believe in not killing anyone you dont have to.

So do I, but if you do have to, then you should not be lynched in the press for it, nor prosecuted, nor sued.

 

[joko104]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Fine, what if you're in a situation that looks dangerous to you but isn't because you have a cowboy fantasy and you murder an innocent person? Why should your propensity for violence be the standard for determining whether or not it's alright to kill? All of those "what ifs" that people like to toss out involve fantastical scenarios with clearly marked bad guys who have broken into your house and apparently want to murder your children for fun, unlike how real burglars act. Every such scenario requires a judgment call, but we emphasize and exalt the wrong judgment. If you can avoid violence, you should. Instead of embracing a responsible approach to violence, gun supporters espouse a macho attitude with an itchy trigger finger. That is the wrong attitude. Always. Period. Civilized people do not act that way.

Why do you hate cowboys so much?

 

[joko104]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

Represents wild speculation and has no relevance

Most other people can grasp the distinction between that odds of a would-be assailant attacking armed officers with their weapons drawn and an unarmed lone individual. Anyone but SMTA not understand the difference?

 

[joko104]

Re: Do you support having a legal duty to retreat?

I haven't seen Luther advocate anything that justifies these wild charges of "cowboy fantasies" or murdering an innocent.

Details matter. "What if's' matter, because they happen in real life. And all too often, criminals are not simply poor disadvantages persons seeking to balance their economic woes with some of your stuff, but emotionally warped individuals likely to take joy in your suffering... and giving them the benefit of the doubt in a crucial moment could end up in terrible tragedy. It happens far more often than most people know or want to think about.

Clean up a few times after some criminal had a chance to "do his worst" on a citizen who wasn't prepared to defend himself, and you'll understand why some of us say it isn't worth the risk to assume ANY benevolence on the part of a intruding/attacking felon.

Most people have no clue how many men are amongst us that are purely amoral sadists who seek out pleasure in hunting people to satisfy their desire to cause terror, suffering, torture and death to others. It is something people can't really wrap their heads around and deal with it figuring the odds are likely it will only happen to other people.