But does he have a moral/ethical duty to do so? I postulate that the responsible armed citizen does.
I can't dictate someone else's morals, but ethically I'd say that the citizen has the responsibility to do whatever will bring him or her through an encounter with the greatest chance of survival -- while causing the least damage to his/her own life and family.
That means avoid shooting anyone, ever, at
almost any cost. The only "costs" not worth paying to avoid this are death, grievous injury, and perhaps one or two other very serious felonies.
On this principle are based the laws that govern self-defense in almost all locations -- whether there's a codified "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" in that jurisdiction or not.
SYG/CD only changes how the prosecution of the case goes after the fact. It does NOTHING to alter the use of force in the moment.
...
Let's turn this around. Does a criminal have the authority to FORCE you, through threats or intimidation, to leave some any place where you have a legal right to be?
In other words, should disobeying an illegal order made by a criminal be a crime?
That's not really a legitimate corollary question -- this and "SYG" are not two sides of the same coin, so to speak. The criminal has no authority to force you to do anything -- just as you have no authority to force HIM to do anything. However, lawful self-defense has nothing to do with protecting your right to go somewhere or be somewhere you want to be. Its sole function is in preventing death or grievous injury in the instant.
There are a great many things we may have the
right to do, but which we can surmise will end badly for us and which can reasonably be expected to lead toward a negative end (like bloodshead) rather than away from it. Having the RIGHT to do something is not the same thing as being free from repurcussion/responsibility for the effects and results of your actions and decisions. If you contribute to the escalation of a situation that ends in a death, and you could have done anything to avoid, de-escalate, and escape, you carry some of the fault. This can and does become a factor in self-defense prosecutions.
This is part of what we mean when we say, "
Never go anywhere armed that you wouldn't have gone UNarmed." "SYG" laws are not -- at all -- to protect your right to be somewhere or to allow you to resist being forced to leave a dangerous situation. They merely help to shield you from legal risk if you are forced to injure or kill someone when you had NO CHOICE but to do so. If you have the ability to leave, then the decision to shoot has not been forced upon you, yet.
...
Morally, we can argue whether we
a) have a duty to "remove" a criminal from society from by stopping him (including by use of lethal force) even when we have the option of escaping (retreating) in complete safety;
While I don't agree on a preemptive first strike. I do think its my responsibility to take care of problems when I legally can.
To do less would be dishonorable and only contribute to a on going dangerous situation in my neighborhood.
Let's reiterate one absolutely essential point: You have NO duty or legal authority to use lethal force to "take care of problems" or "remove a criminal." That is NOT your right under self-defense law, including the "SYG/CD" versions. You may ONLY shoot/injure/kill when you have NO OTHER CHOICE and you will DIE, right this moment, if you do not.
