LEO 229 wrote:
I am not sure how it makes them more 'professional' to say one thing versus another.
It's more professional to not say you have a duty to retreat, because you have no duty to retreat. Granted, retreat may be the most prudent action depending on the situation, but under no circumstances do I have a duty
to retreat from a home invader.
IOW, it's unprofessional to state or even imply that the law requires
me (as a duty
) to retreat, because that's not true.
I get what you are saying.
So what we are looking at seems to be in the word "Duty"
Duty does not automatically mean "required by law".
While you may conclude it to be a legal obligation... What if the officer tells you that you a have a duty to vote and respect your elders. Does this mean that it is also the law? If so.. he would be telling a lie then too while meaning it is something you should do or are expected to do by society.
The officer did not say "You are legally required to leave your house". This would clearly be a lie. He used a term that encouraged people to leave. Nobody here can state he intended to lie or mislead people. Personally, I would have said it in another way.
How about this example:
- You have a duty to help your neighbor in need
- You are required to help your neighbor in need
- You are legally required to help your neighbor in need
- By law you are required to help your neighbor in need
Do you see the difference?
Saying you have a duty to help someone in need does not mean it is required by law. It means that it is something you are expected to do by society. But because a cop says it... it somehow automatically means required by law?
So, does society expect you to try to escape before taking a life? I know I think that way. The last thing I want to do is have to kill someone. Justified or not... unless there is a threat to me or another I am not going to just blast someone for being in my home.
So is using the word "duty" unprofessional? It is going to be based on how you personally view the word being used.