Guy acting drunk in the yard: scenario and poll

[Edward429451]

So now it's all the way to attack the moral turpitudes of a man who says he wont back down on his land...I think they used to call that American spirit and people used to respect it.

Now he's a bad guy because he said he wont back down. This countrys time is passed. I miss the good old days.

 

[Therealkoop]

Theres defending your home and family from harm.

And then theres shooting drunk tresspassers.

Surprisingly, they are different.

 

[animal]

To me, the concept of a duty to retreat and a duty to stand your ground are both kinda alien.

Retreat and standing ground are simply tactics which may be employed correctly or incorrectly. A free man must have a right to property, in my view … which would negate any duty to retreat from property he rightfully owned or was rightfully using.
Being free would also negate a duty to stand your ground, because it would bind the man to the property and make him no longer free. Basically, you have a Right to give.


I would say that there is a right to stand your ground as an extension of the right to property just as there is a right to keep arms as an extension of a right to protect yourself .. (bearing arms corresponds to use of property.) … and all stem from a right to self-determination.
I would further say that there is a right to advance within the framework of not violating the unalienable rights of others (aka pursuit of happiness)

 

[Edward429451]

Sure is. One minute he's mumbling stumbling up the street and now ya'll got him in the driveway beating on the guys car and telling him to go in his house and call the police LOL!! That's funny.

So what's the underlying message that the community is saying here? That I should run away from drunken, criminal type behavior? That I should condition myself to always call the authorities on my fellow Americans? That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it? Let's teach the criminals that we will run and speed dialing that cellphone to the heroic po po so they can have thier way if they're fast enough?

Har de har har.

 

[spacemanspiff]

That I should run away from drunken, criminal type behavior? That I should condition myself to always call the authorities on my fellow Americans? That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it? Let's teach the criminals that we will run and speed dialing that cellphone to the heroic po po so they can have thier way if they're fast enough?

Property can be replaced.

 

[csmsss]

As I understand the original scenario, it's not clear what the actual intent of the trespasser might be. It's also unclear whether he is rational, intoxicated, mentally unstable, and/or intent on doing harm? In that situation, the appropriate response is to put as much distance (and physical cover) between yourself and the other person as possible, and letting the police deal with him or her. You haven't been able to identify an actual threat, only the possibility of one, and that ain't enough to use deadly force, or to brandish any sort of weapon. If the person is actually psychotic, "standing your ground" is actually more likely to unnecessarily drivee the situation to a potentially violent conclusion - and to what end?

 

[Magnum-PI]

I agree with you on your feelings. I want to stand my ground guarding my house and do so aggressively. However, how I feel and what I have to do to limit my risk and liability are two different things.

We are just suggesting ways on how you can limit your risk and liability. Its up to you on how to take these suggestions because we wont be the ultimate judge of the situation.

 

[Therealkoop]

The point is that theres a time and place when deadly force is needed, and everything is circumstantial. So-

Are you protecting your home and family, or are you shooting a drunk tresspasser/vandal?

 

[rtpzwms]

That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it?

First moral expectation is what you perceive. But in many states you do not have the legal right to defend property with lethal force. Your best option is to retreat and call. I would just ask what do you own that is of the same value as a human life? In the original post this is just a person walking down the street. He's not described as a BG just a guy. Observe, photograph, and stay safe if the police come and look like they need assistance than help them, but go out unarmed. To all you know they (the police) may roll up and know this guy. He may be off is medication and I'm not talking about self medication. The police may want you to know this guy in case it happens again. You (or most of us) don't have the resources or the training that they have. Don't aggravate the situation defuse it by leaving.

Also remember that you might have to protect and defend your family it would be much easier to do this from within the home. Also if he comes in your home and you are backed into a room well away from the point of entry your legal defense would be much easier.

 

[Evan Thomas]

So now it's all the way to attack the moral turpitudes of a man who says he wont back down on his land...I think they used to call that American spirit and people used to respect it.

Now he's a bad guy because he said he wont back down. This countrys time is passed. I miss the good old days.

No one has said that he's a bad guy. Several people have pointed out that in general, it is in one's own best interest to avoid... retreat from... de-escalate... threatening situations. The corollary of this is that a blanket insistence on "standing one's ground," no matter what, is likely to lead to confrontations that could have been avoided. And as OldMarksman has pointed out in some detail, the financial and legal consequences of any confrontation, even one in which one is eventually exonerated, can be devastating.

A belief in the supremacy of one's own rights over the needs of other people (and one's responsibilities to them) is an essentially narcissistic viewpoint; insisting on those "rights" even when doing so is likely to have negative consequences for oneself is self-destructive, and implies a level of narcissism that's, well, pathological.

Thinking that it's cowardly to back down from a confrontation ("tuck tail and run" were the words used); having a huge emotional investment in "standing one's ground;" defending one's "turf" against all comers even when that means resorting to violence -- these sound more like the attitudes of adolescent gang members than those of responsible adults.

So what's the underlying message that the community is saying here? That I should run away from drunken, criminal type behavior? That I should condition myself to always call the authorities on my fellow Americans? That I have the moral expectation thrust on me to give my property and not defend it?

The message is merely that you should do what's in your own best interest, which is to avoid unnecessary confrontations: that putting yourself in a situation in which you might have to use deadly force just... isn't... smart. The price you're likely to pay, in any rational accounting, is too high.

(And, Edward429451, you might want to look up "moral turpitude." It doesn't mean what you think it does.)

 

[5.56RifleGuy]

I feel like I pay enough in taxes so that the police can handle the annoying drunks so I don't have too. If he is on your property or being a nuisance, ask him to leave, if he doesn’t, call the police. The police will come by, pick him up, and you can go back to doing whatever it was you were before hand.

If it was something pressing I had to deal with, I would, but why bother putting yourself in that situation if it is really not necessary?

 

[animal]

Vanya,
Combat narcissism borne of selfishness … with selfishness ? Trade "narcissism of belief" into "narcissism of practice"? OR…. My beliefs are more valuable vs. my self-interests are more valuable ?
Your characterization of his model explodes and yours implodes, … unless some arbitrary system of relativism is imposed (exterior law imposed?)… then either can work …but both render morality as dependent on law for operation, imo

How about believing in the supremacy of rights over needs … regardless if they are "of self" or "of other" ?
More correctly than "supremacy", would be that the exercise of rights is the way to fulfill needs…

 

[JohnKSa]

This forum is called Tactics and Training. Discussions should be centered on what methods/tactics should be used to achieve legal and desirable ends and what training should be used to insure that the methods/tactics are implemented properly when the time comes.

Legality is an important part of any discussions here as TFL is focused on responsible firearms ownership.

But when the discussion turns to morality and philosophy we've wandered too far afield.