-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Neighborhood Watch
- Thread starter 2a4all
- Start date
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
IOW, it's unprofessional to state or even imply that the law requires me (as a duty) to retreat, because that's not true.
Understand now?
LEO 229 wrote:
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.
Understand now?
YllwFvr
Regular Member
imported post
You guys are ALL looking at this the wrong way.
Its not retreating!
Its Tactical Relocation
You guys are ALL looking at this the wrong way.
Its not retreating!
Its Tactical Relocation
imported post
TexasNative wrote:
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:
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.
TexasNative wrote:
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
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.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I have never heard the word "duty" used with the word "retreat" in the context of self-defensein any other way than to mean it is legally required.
LEO 229 wrote:
TexasNative wrote: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:
Do you see the difference?
- 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
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.
I have never heard the word "duty" used with the word "retreat" in the context of self-defensein any other way than to mean it is legally required.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
I see the difference, I just don't think it's applicable in this circumstance.
According to the OP, two LEOs state that "the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat." If you don't think that's intended to give people the impression that it's the law, then you have a completely different frame of reference from me.
I think most laypersons would believe that a LEO telling them that the Commonwealth holds that they have a duty to do something, they're not talking about charity, or morality, or anything other than the law. If the LEOs don't understand how that statement would be perceived by laypersons, then they shouldn't be making presentations to Neighborhood Watch groups, because they're out of touch with the folks they're serving.
And I say that to you, too, 229. If you believe you can say that as a LEO to an ordinary run-of-the-mill citizen and not leave them with the impression that you're telling them it's the law, then you've lost touch with the reality of us "common folk."
~ Boyd
ETA: IOW, what Citizen said. He's concise and to the point. I'm a lot more long-winded.
I see the difference, I just don't think it's applicable in this circumstance.
According to the OP, two LEOs state that "the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat." If you don't think that's intended to give people the impression that it's the law, then you have a completely different frame of reference from me.
I think most laypersons would believe that a LEO telling them that the Commonwealth holds that they have a duty to do something, they're not talking about charity, or morality, or anything other than the law. If the LEOs don't understand how that statement would be perceived by laypersons, then they shouldn't be making presentations to Neighborhood Watch groups, because they're out of touch with the folks they're serving.
And I say that to you, too, 229. If you believe you can say that as a LEO to an ordinary run-of-the-mill citizen and not leave them with the impression that you're telling them it's the law, then you've lost touch with the reality of us "common folk."
~ Boyd
ETA: IOW, what Citizen said. He's concise and to the point. I'm a lot more long-winded.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
If this is the first time it's being used in that way, then they're picking the wrong words to communicate with their intended audience.
imported post
TexasNative wrote:
"They said that the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat, even if someone is trying to break into your home, you should leave via another exit! "
I see the use of the word "should" and that negates the assumption that this is some legal requirement.
They are only encouraging you to get away. Nothing implied that it was a legal requirement.
What I get from it is this....
The Commonwealth's attorney is not going to look too favorably if you blast someone with your shotgun for just being in your home. If you could escape and you killed him... it is not going to look good for you.
TexasNative wrote:
Let's look at the entire string of text..
"They said that the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat, even if someone is trying to break into your home, you should leave via another exit! "
I see the use of the word "should" and that negates the assumption that this is some legal requirement.
They are only encouraging you to get away. Nothing implied that it was a legal requirement.
What I get from it is this....
The Commonwealth's attorney is not going to look too favorably if you blast someone with your shotgun for just being in your home. If you could escape and you killed him... it is not going to look good for you.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
There's some imprecision in the OP's original post. That notwithstanding, he said "duty to retreat," which is separate from "should leave the house" (which, quite honestly, is some of the most boneheaded advice I've ever heard someone give for responding to a home invasion). Duty means it's a requirement, so if he said "should" after that, he couldn't have been referring to the duty.
And you're saying the CA will not look favorably on me shooting someone who broke into my house when I could have walked out the back door or something equivalent? That's news to me. I've heard of numerous times when that exact situation has occurred, and the resident was never charged. Hell, I recall an incident last year, down in Richmond if I remember correctly, where the victim chased a robber out the door of their business and shot the robber in the back while he was fleeing, and the shooter wasn't charged.
So if you're saying that the CA isn't going to look favorably on me blasting a home invader with my shotgun, I say, "BS," "It doesn't happen that way," "My legal counsel advises me differently," and lastly, "If my life is threatened in my home, I'll shoot to stop the threat."
There's some imprecision in the OP's original post. That notwithstanding, he said "duty to retreat," which is separate from "should leave the house" (which, quite honestly, is some of the most boneheaded advice I've ever heard someone give for responding to a home invasion). Duty means it's a requirement, so if he said "should" after that, he couldn't have been referring to the duty.
And you're saying the CA will not look favorably on me shooting someone who broke into my house when I could have walked out the back door or something equivalent? That's news to me. I've heard of numerous times when that exact situation has occurred, and the resident was never charged. Hell, I recall an incident last year, down in Richmond if I remember correctly, where the victim chased a robber out the door of their business and shot the robber in the back while he was fleeing, and the shooter wasn't charged.
So if you're saying that the CA isn't going to look favorably on me blasting a home invader with my shotgun, I say, "BS," "It doesn't happen that way," "My legal counsel advises me differently," and lastly, "If my life is threatened in my home, I'll shoot to stop the threat."
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
nova wrote:
nova wrote:
To assume otherwise could be fatal, which is why common law acknowledges your right to defend yourself in your home.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
TexasNative, NoVa,
Just take a step back and look at what LEO229 is doing. Step back from thinking about his points and how to respond to them. Look at his recent posts from an uninvolved overview to see what he is doing.
It is classic LEO229 when he is causing trouble (as opposed to when he isn't). He makes acertain type of comment. As soon as someone responds, he heads off on a tangent.
TexasNative, NoVa,
Just take a step back and look at what LEO229 is doing. Step back from thinking about his points and how to respond to them. Look at his recent posts from an uninvolved overview to see what he is doing.
It is classic LEO229 when he is causing trouble (as opposed to when he isn't). He makes acertain type of comment. As soon as someone responds, he heads off on a tangent.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
Responding to 229 as though he's evil or a troublemaker is what you do, Citizen. I prefer to stick to the subject at hand instead of trying to demonize him.
Responding to 229 as though he's evil or a troublemaker is what you do, Citizen. I prefer to stick to the subject at hand instead of trying to demonize him.
imported post
TexasNative wrote:
Well, I posted EXACTLY what the OP said....
"They said that the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat, even if someone is trying to break into your home, you should leave via another exit! "
I am interpreting what I am being given by the OP. Break down the line and see. Notice the comma after retreat. This is not a new sentence. It is a continuation and the comma is being used in place of "and".
I can even rework it to read the same and to have the same meaning.
Even if someone is trying to break into your home, the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat [and] you should leave via another exit, they said.
What is being said is simply... Escape if you can! And there is a reason for this you will see at the end.
Now, when I refer to the CA it is because that is who speaks for the Commonwealth in court. Since there is no law that requires you to retreat it must be the a person the police are referring to.
Please take note to what I said in my other post. You must have been tired when you replied. :lol:
I advised my opinion by saying "What I get from it is this...." It is only my understanding and NOT THE WAY IT IS.
I am not saying the CA for that location or any other location is going to do anything specific. I am only interpreting what is being said. Maybe the CA for that specific location does not go easy on such cases. I have no idea.
Remember, I am not speaking on behalf of every CA on every possible situation where deadly force was used. I only gave my opinion on what was written.
Obviously, there are gray areas and each situation will be different. Many cases are too close to call and they do not charge the person.
"If my life is threatened in my home, I'll shoot to stop the threat."
Come on TN, now you are jumping to your life being threatened. This is far different than someone breaking in and never approaching the occupants. No immediate threat to you. :?
Obviously... if you are being threatened or attacked in your own home most people would probably agree that shooting the intruder may be necessary.
But there are others that believe shooting someone simply for being in your home is unnecessary. If you and your family can get out safely to create distance from the intruder it is better than taking a life.
There are many stories out there of people being shot by overzealous gun owners.
Drunk at wrong house
http://vodpod.com/watch/1318690-mistaken-intruder-gets-shot-by-homeowner-while-girlfriend-is-on-phone-with-911
Women mistaken for intruder in her own home
http://arklatexhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=47491
5 year old intruder
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x755777
And I can tell you that police get many calls each month on drunks at the wrong house. Some make entry and go to sleep on a bed inside. They mean no harm to anyone. It is fortunate that the home owners do not react and just shoot them. The leave, call the police, and the guy is arrested. No loss of life that night.
This is why I maintain the position I do for people to escape if they can. IMO.... unless you see a weapon or know they mean to cause you harm... shooting them is not necessary if they are just inside.
TexasNative wrote:
Those that read this should not view this as an attack on TN. We know each other and are having an open discussion on the topic minus the usual name calling and personal attacks.
Well, I posted EXACTLY what the OP said....
"They said that the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat, even if someone is trying to break into your home, you should leave via another exit! "
I am interpreting what I am being given by the OP. Break down the line and see. Notice the comma after retreat. This is not a new sentence. It is a continuation and the comma is being used in place of "and".
I can even rework it to read the same and to have the same meaning.
Even if someone is trying to break into your home, the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat [and] you should leave via another exit, they said.
What is being said is simply... Escape if you can! And there is a reason for this you will see at the end.
Now, when I refer to the CA it is because that is who speaks for the Commonwealth in court. Since there is no law that requires you to retreat it must be the a person the police are referring to.
Please take note to what I said in my other post. You must have been tired when you replied. :lol:
I advised my opinion by saying "What I get from it is this...." It is only my understanding and NOT THE WAY IT IS.
I am not saying the CA for that location or any other location is going to do anything specific. I am only interpreting what is being said. Maybe the CA for that specific location does not go easy on such cases. I have no idea.
Remember, I am not speaking on behalf of every CA on every possible situation where deadly force was used. I only gave my opinion on what was written.
Obviously, there are gray areas and each situation will be different. Many cases are too close to call and they do not charge the person.
"If my life is threatened in my home, I'll shoot to stop the threat."
Come on TN, now you are jumping to your life being threatened. This is far different than someone breaking in and never approaching the occupants. No immediate threat to you. :?
Obviously... if you are being threatened or attacked in your own home most people would probably agree that shooting the intruder may be necessary.
But there are others that believe shooting someone simply for being in your home is unnecessary. If you and your family can get out safely to create distance from the intruder it is better than taking a life.
There are many stories out there of people being shot by overzealous gun owners.
Drunk at wrong house
http://vodpod.com/watch/1318690-mistaken-intruder-gets-shot-by-homeowner-while-girlfriend-is-on-phone-with-911
Women mistaken for intruder in her own home
http://arklatexhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=47491
5 year old intruder
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x755777
And I can tell you that police get many calls each month on drunks at the wrong house. Some make entry and go to sleep on a bed inside. They mean no harm to anyone. It is fortunate that the home owners do not react and just shoot them. The leave, call the police, and the guy is arrested. No loss of life that night.
This is why I maintain the position I do for people to escape if they can. IMO.... unless you see a weapon or know they mean to cause you harm... shooting them is not necessary if they are just inside.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
We're starting to digress from the main point of discussion: that it was "unprofessional" for the LEOs to state that "the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat."
Regardless of further discussion about what else you should do in a home invasion, such as trying to escape, the original point leaves the layman with the impression that the law of the Commonwealth requires you to retreat from a home invader. That's not true, hence the characterization of the statement as "unprofessional."
That the law requrires you to retreat was certainly the impression I got from the OP's OP about "duty," and I doubt there were many, if any, laymen who read that post and got a different impression from that statement. So I maintain that the LEOs are either out of touch with how their statements affect the people they're supposed to "protect and serve," or they're deliberately trying to mislead laymen on how they should react by giving them the mistaken impression about what the law requires.
Either way, I consider that to be unprofessional.
~ Boyd
We're starting to digress from the main point of discussion: that it was "unprofessional" for the LEOs to state that "the Commonwealth holds that you have a duty to retreat."
Regardless of further discussion about what else you should do in a home invasion, such as trying to escape, the original point leaves the layman with the impression that the law of the Commonwealth requires you to retreat from a home invader. That's not true, hence the characterization of the statement as "unprofessional."
That the law requrires you to retreat was certainly the impression I got from the OP's OP about "duty," and I doubt there were many, if any, laymen who read that post and got a different impression from that statement. So I maintain that the LEOs are either out of touch with how their statements affect the people they're supposed to "protect and serve," or they're deliberately trying to mislead laymen on how they should react by giving them the mistaken impression about what the law requires.
Either way, I consider that to be unprofessional.
~ Boyd
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
1. Burglary is a property crime. Most burglars avoid people.
2. Home invasion is a crime against persons, or usually develops into one. If you break into somebody's home when you KNOW people are there, or you stick around after you find out people are there, you're usually open to other "possibilities" than mere theft. Ask the doctor in Connecticut who had his family raped and slaughtered. LEO229 would have had him run out the back door (or jump out of a window) and leave his family.
3. LEO229 would have us trust in the good sense, and better nature of someone KNOWINGLY and unlawfully in our homes against our will. And if you can't trust in home invaders, whom CAN you trust in?
4. If you have such a drinking problem that you force you way into other people's homes, get help... or possibly get shot. Your alcoholism isn't my concern. My personal safety is. Years ago, a drunken Scot scaled a Houston homeowner's high back fence and tried to kick in his back door. The homeowner told him he had a gun and would shoot if he made it through the door. He partially kicked the door in and was shot dead. Don't want to get shot? Don't kick in people's doors. It puts them in reasonable fear of imminent threat to life and limb.
5. I've only ever visited Virginia, never lived there. In Ohio, even on the street, you have a LEGAL duty to retreat, ONLY if you can do so "in perfect safety". I've go NO duty to retreat in my own home and don't ever plan to, certainly unless my "visitors" have a Lahti anti-tank rifle or some other form of overwhelming firepower.
6. "The Commonwealth holds that you have a duty..." means ONLY one thing. Claims to the contrary are at BEST sophistry, at worst dishonest attempts to deceive and mislead. LEO229's "argument" reminds me of a conversation I once had with Ft. Knox MPI after my supply sergeant's estranged (and deranged) husband started making threatening phonecalls to her in my supply room. He plainly stated that he intended to "get her". The MPI said to me, "But what does that really mean? Maybe he meant he'd get her an icecream cone." It's one thing for police to try that BS in order to avoid doing their jobs. It's quite another for them to use it to try to get you to endanger yourself in your own home. It is however par for the course when LEO229 justifies police incompetence or misbehavior.
1. Burglary is a property crime. Most burglars avoid people.
2. Home invasion is a crime against persons, or usually develops into one. If you break into somebody's home when you KNOW people are there, or you stick around after you find out people are there, you're usually open to other "possibilities" than mere theft. Ask the doctor in Connecticut who had his family raped and slaughtered. LEO229 would have had him run out the back door (or jump out of a window) and leave his family.
3. LEO229 would have us trust in the good sense, and better nature of someone KNOWINGLY and unlawfully in our homes against our will. And if you can't trust in home invaders, whom CAN you trust in?
4. If you have such a drinking problem that you force you way into other people's homes, get help... or possibly get shot. Your alcoholism isn't my concern. My personal safety is. Years ago, a drunken Scot scaled a Houston homeowner's high back fence and tried to kick in his back door. The homeowner told him he had a gun and would shoot if he made it through the door. He partially kicked the door in and was shot dead. Don't want to get shot? Don't kick in people's doors. It puts them in reasonable fear of imminent threat to life and limb.
5. I've only ever visited Virginia, never lived there. In Ohio, even on the street, you have a LEGAL duty to retreat, ONLY if you can do so "in perfect safety". I've go NO duty to retreat in my own home and don't ever plan to, certainly unless my "visitors" have a Lahti anti-tank rifle or some other form of overwhelming firepower.
6. "The Commonwealth holds that you have a duty..." means ONLY one thing. Claims to the contrary are at BEST sophistry, at worst dishonest attempts to deceive and mislead. LEO229's "argument" reminds me of a conversation I once had with Ft. Knox MPI after my supply sergeant's estranged (and deranged) husband started making threatening phonecalls to her in my supply room. He plainly stated that he intended to "get her". The MPI said to me, "But what does that really mean? Maybe he meant he'd get her an icecream cone." It's one thing for police to try that BS in order to avoid doing their jobs. It's quite another for them to use it to try to get you to endanger yourself in your own home. It is however par for the course when LEO229 justifies police incompetence or misbehavior.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Amusing since you nit picked and derailed the thread about signage being posted.
Everyone here understands what a "duty" to retreat is, it is something that is required by law.
LEO 229 wrote:
Amusing since you nit picked and derailed the thread about signage being posted.
Everyone here understands what a "duty" to retreat is, it is something that is required by law.
alnitak
Regular Member
imported post
I am not an expert, but it seems that leaving the home is tactically wrong:
1) You are leaving a defensible position. Chances are you are holed up in the bedroom or hallway with only one means of entry that you are protecting. Why leave a defensible position and open youself up to attack from multiple directions?
2) Your are leaving a known situation for an unknown one with no intel. What if the BG has friends waiting outside? What if you exit the home only to come face-to-face with an armed BG, who happens to be sitting in ambush or a defensible position?
3) Keeping all yor "forces" together makes sense. Why risk getting separated from your family -- probably unarmed people (children) you need to protect? Have you and your family practiced exit techniques (more likely only gather and defend)? Can you cover them at all times? Are your physical abilities relatively equal so you can move together as a unit?
There may be more considerations, but these seem sufficient for me to stay put and defend.
I am not an expert, but it seems that leaving the home is tactically wrong:
1) You are leaving a defensible position. Chances are you are holed up in the bedroom or hallway with only one means of entry that you are protecting. Why leave a defensible position and open youself up to attack from multiple directions?
2) Your are leaving a known situation for an unknown one with no intel. What if the BG has friends waiting outside? What if you exit the home only to come face-to-face with an armed BG, who happens to be sitting in ambush or a defensible position?
3) Keeping all yor "forces" together makes sense. Why risk getting separated from your family -- probably unarmed people (children) you need to protect? Have you and your family practiced exit techniques (more likely only gather and defend)? Can you cover them at all times? Are your physical abilities relatively equal so you can move together as a unit?
There may be more considerations, but these seem sufficient for me to stay put and defend.
imported post
Deanimator wrote:
There are different levels for different intent for burglaries
A home invasion is far different than a simple burglary. This is where the occupants are sought out, tied up, and robbed.
I am not telling you to trust anything. Only suggesting you think about the links I posted and understand what can happen.
That is what I have been doing here for years. I am thinking outside the box and giving you something to consider. So many on here would simply agree... "ya, we all concur that anyone in my home should be shot."
In your own words you boast that someone being drunk and lost in your home is not "your problem". that is sad that you would kill and blow it off as his problem, not mine.
And the MPI was right. "I am going to get her" is not enough. You can take it as a threat but it simply does not fly in court. It is the same as me saying "I got something for ya'!" I could have a bullet, an ass kicking, or the money I owe you. "Get her" could mean something as little as pay her back by closing out our bank account and keep the money.
IMO... So it seems that you are just an unreasonable person.
Deanimator wrote:
I see you do not know much about property crimes.
There are different levels for different intent for burglaries
- Unlawful entry
- Burglary
- Burglary of an occupied dwelling
- Burglary with intent to commit assault
- Home Invasion Robbery (Burglary with intent to commit murder, rape, robbery)
A home invasion is far different than a simple burglary. This is where the occupants are sought out, tied up, and robbed.
I am not telling you to trust anything. Only suggesting you think about the links I posted and understand what can happen.
That is what I have been doing here for years. I am thinking outside the box and giving you something to consider. So many on here would simply agree... "ya, we all concur that anyone in my home should be shot."
In your own words you boast that someone being drunk and lost in your home is not "your problem". that is sad that you would kill and blow it off as his problem, not mine.
And the MPI was right. "I am going to get her" is not enough. You can take it as a threat but it simply does not fly in court. It is the same as me saying "I got something for ya'!" I could have a bullet, an ass kicking, or the money I owe you. "Get her" could mean something as little as pay her back by closing out our bank account and keep the money.
IMO... So it seems that you are just an unreasonable person.
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
hsmith wrote:
Of course those who lie to you about police having a "duty" to protect individuals almost always try to confuse legal duties, contractual employment duties and moral duties.
Legal duties, as we know, are non-optional. Failure to fulfill them is a punishable crime. You have a LEGAL duty not to commit the crime of rape. There's no meaningful way to eschew this duty. You can only violate it with the attendant consequences.
Failure to fulfill a contractual employment duty can entail disciplinary action by your employer, to include termination. Unlike a legal duty, you can always quit and void that duty. If your employer forbids you to carry a firearm on company premises, you can be fired for doing so. If you don't like that, you can quit and find an employer who'll let you carry.
Grownups know that "moral duties" aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on. They're unenforceable and there are no meaningful sanctions for failing to uphold them. But to somebody who thinks that police HAVE to protect you as an individual because it says "To Serve & Protect" on the doors of the police cars, neither facts nor logic are barriers to reaching the desired conclusion.
Clearly the cop in question was deliberately trying to convey the message that the Commonwealth of Virginia imposes a LEGAL duty to retreat from an intruder in your home. Others have demonstrated that this is not correct. Others still have tried to divert attention from the plain meaning of those words to obfuscate an obviously erroneous (and possibly mendacious) reading of Virginia law. There's nothing new in that.
hsmith wrote:
Certainly a LEGAL duty is.
Of course those who lie to you about police having a "duty" to protect individuals almost always try to confuse legal duties, contractual employment duties and moral duties.
Legal duties, as we know, are non-optional. Failure to fulfill them is a punishable crime. You have a LEGAL duty not to commit the crime of rape. There's no meaningful way to eschew this duty. You can only violate it with the attendant consequences.
Failure to fulfill a contractual employment duty can entail disciplinary action by your employer, to include termination. Unlike a legal duty, you can always quit and void that duty. If your employer forbids you to carry a firearm on company premises, you can be fired for doing so. If you don't like that, you can quit and find an employer who'll let you carry.
Grownups know that "moral duties" aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on. They're unenforceable and there are no meaningful sanctions for failing to uphold them. But to somebody who thinks that police HAVE to protect you as an individual because it says "To Serve & Protect" on the doors of the police cars, neither facts nor logic are barriers to reaching the desired conclusion.
Clearly the cop in question was deliberately trying to convey the message that the Commonwealth of Virginia imposes a LEGAL duty to retreat from an intruder in your home. Others have demonstrated that this is not correct. Others still have tried to divert attention from the plain meaning of those words to obfuscate an obviously erroneous (and possibly mendacious) reading of Virginia law. There's nothing new in that.