Shoot to Kill ... Conclusion ... or part III???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sprig

Moderator
Hello TFL members! Something has come over me the last week and I have turned into a rapid fire TFL posting machine.
Due to pushing the issue, and getting the other thread gutted, I decided it was time to finish what I started.

I had this in mind from the very begining. This is not something recently crafted to change anyones opinion of me. Sometimes what one thinks is not as reality is. Everything I said and I asked I did so truthfully.

Lets begin to finish this:

-----
You hear struggling in your daughters room. You grab a handgun and go investigate. There is a man on top of your daughter in her bed raping her.

The rapist notices you, and leaves your daughters bed to rush an attack at you.

You fire and he falls.

The suspect isn't dead yet. You recognize that the rapist lying on the floor in her room that you just shot. You had seen his picture on the 11'oclock news last night for the rape and viscious murders of 7 other young women.

You say, "Don't friggen move *******" .

The rapist makes a motion towards the bedsheet as if to stuff in his wound to stop his bleeding from the gunshot.

You, feeling it would it be morally wrong to do justice to this person and shoot again, ease off the trigger finger on your weapon.

The rapist clutches the sheet to his lowerchest and grunts in pain.

You look to the right to evaluate the condition of your daughter; you saw in your peripheral vision her moving and begining to stand up.

Four loud sharp thunderclaps ring your ears, you can't feel your legs and you start to slump, two burning sensations, one in your stomach and one in your chest, begin to overcome you as you fall.

The rapist had recovered his .38revolver from where it had gotten caught and fallen under the strewn bedsheet. As it was covered, you did not see it. He fired 4 shots through the bloodstained sheet. Two shots missed, the other two didn't. The one that entered your gut smashed into your spine and broke it, crippling you, bringing you to the floor. The other one passed through your heart, begining the ending your life.

Even though fallen, you can see your daughter. Two rose colored spots appear on the chest of your daughter as faint and muffled thunderclaps again call into your ear. Your daughter falls as you fade out of conciousness.

The rapist/murder grabs your firearm and flees the scene.

Your firearm is later used in 4 more rape/murder events before the bad is finally caught to serve a life sentence that may be reduced to 20years.
-----

Now how do those of highest moral standard and the duty only to stop feel as they lay in their grave?

I know the first thing people are going to say is that its fiction. However, while perhaps fiction, there is a lot of truth to the individual parts.

Sometimes what we think isn't really the reality. A person down and able to move is NOT by default no longer a threat. A dead person, IS by default, no longer a threat.

Sprig
 
Sneaky, dude. However as I said in my posts on the other thread, Not gonna happen in MY world. Dead guys don't shoot back.

------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
 
Yawn:

'Now how do those of highest moral standard and the duty only to stop feel as they lay in their grave?'

Pseudo-argument. How do I feel? I feel that I'm better trained than the guy in this scenario.

You have also changed the scenario from shooting someone for moral reasons of killing a supposedly known rapist to tactical one of a threat not responding to a command not to move.

So you have not posed a moral challenge or weakend the position in the slightest.

Is the issue the movement or the guy's history?

Ever do any FOF, by the way?
 
Glen, You have also changed the scenario from shooting someone for moral reasons of killing a supposedly known rapist to tactical one of a threat not responding to a command not to move. "

I disagree...my own perspective is that he turned the page so we could read the rest of the story. :)

However, Like I said and Texvet said-the rest of the story aint gonna happen in my house. Certainly the guy might turn with the gun in hand or surprise me/you whoever. But in the case of the original story-guy gets off of my kid and turns towards me. I'm extinguishing his fire.

I guess in this case we have to agree to disagree. Your life/My life kind-of-thing. :)

As far as the other scenario with someone driving too fast and coming at you with a car. It doesn't hold water in the case of 'shoot or not shoot'. A pedestrian may not even be seen walking on the road-that's a given and that's why you watch for cars. ;) Walk out on the highway with your eyes closed and someone is going to run you down.

------------------
Satanta, the Whitebear
Sat's Realm: <A HREF="http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My" TARGET=_blank>http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My</A> Disability petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/DisbHelp/petition.html
 
" The rapist makes a motion towards the bedsheet as if to stuff in his wound to stop his bleeding from the gunshot. "

The downed person makes a motion.......the rest is speculation.

Shoot to stop, the downed person makes a motion....he has yet to be stopped. Works for all versions of this scenario. If an armed person can move and is within range, they are still a threat and you have not finished stopping that threat.



------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
I think the scenario did change as the initial story had you considering whether it was moral to shoot someone who you knew had a past (or you though had a past)when he fails to comply. Or was it just shoot him anyway, if he is just breathing and bleeding and you knew he had a bad history?

If the issue is that he is still not complying in a lethal force situation, how is the past history relevant?

The whole issue is the relevance of the past history to your tactical actions.

It is not. If you didn't hear the TV show then you wouldn't shoot him when he did comply?

I have no problem with you continuing to shoot until he stops moving, very very still.
 
I'm willing to shoot until the threat is neutralized. I would not have bothered to get a CCW if this weren't the case. An individual still making conscious moves and ignoring my challenges is a threat even if he's on his back.

The news story about the BG would not influence my decision to fire again. If he was stopped, I'd do my best to secure the area (without playing in body fluids), and get 911 contacted ASAP.

IMO, killing in defense of self or others is not the same as appointing yourself judge, jury, and executioner.
 
Helges, your position is becoming much clearer. No offense, but I think it reflects assumptions that cannot be justified with reason. Let's look at what you wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
In my example the guy on the street perceives the driver as committing a crime. He observes him driving too fast, towards him. It takes not much to interpret that as a "lethal attack" (driving too fast is a crime, driving somebody over is a lethal attack).
It is exactly the same scenario as the rape thing in terms of logical conditions. The father enters the room, perceives the rapist as committing a crime. He observes him harming his daughter. It takes not much to interpret that as a "lethal attack" (raping is a crime, turning around and marching towards the father might well be a lethal attack).[/quote]

In other words, you equate the insane perception that everyone who drives faster than you are is deliberately attempting to murder you with the sane perception that the man forcing your daughter to have sex with him is raping her. The father in Sprig's example only perceived that the stranger was raping his daughter; he could have been wrong; thus it was immoral for him ever to have fired at all, was it not? After all, he was not using deadly force to stop a terrible crime, he was only stopping his perception of a rape and you don't trust the average American to percieve correctly when a crime is committed and violence directed against an innocent.

Later you held up your girlfriend as a wonder of morality because she refuses to resist evil or to protect her own life. Now, I will not go so far as to say that I have the right to impose a duty to defend one's own life, but neither can she or you claim some kind of moral high ground because you choose to be too weak and helpless to resist evil.
Even if your girlfriend were morally superior (and at least the rest of her life seems to be a wonder of goodness and love for her fellow man--I say that with no sarcasm) that too would argue that she must defend herself with force if necessary. After all, such a person must be more valuable in every way than the sort of murdering brute who would be lost if she were forced to kill him in self-defense.

I hope your girlfriend wakes up before she finds out how useless and wasteful martyrdom really is in this world. I applaud the good works she does, but that's all the more reason to make sure that she is alive to continue them, not reason to choose some thug's life over her own. But for her sake and yours, I hope it will all work out whether she comes around or not. Certainly it's possible that she can live her whole life without having to face these tough questions, even in Haiti. Not likely, but the best she can hope for if she refuses to use the mind she was born with. Good luck to both of you in your lives, and nothing but frustration and failure in your hopes for gun control. That's the best I can do. Go in peace.
 
Don: Actually, ironically, he goes right to the heart of socialist vs. capitalist, Kantian vs. Randian thought.

Around here we had a learned objectivist and a learned marxist duke it out. It mattered not that which we were originally arguing, ultimately the argument traces down to one fundamental disagreement they had.

Is reality real outside of your perceptions or not?

One might say : So you can walk in front of a bus and pretend that it isn't there, or think to yourself how great the world would be if there was no bus, and survive. Then the marxist gets all defensive and says "but I'll protect myself by telling myself it IS there and I'll be okay".

whatever.

A lot of us deny reality to varying degrees. Sounds like HelgeS' woman in a manner that happens to seem so blatant that it rivals the bus example (although with pretty bad odds rather than certain death) - as a protest against reality.

Fascinating.


Battler.
 
My example:

Well, the father enters the room, he sees a guy raping his daughter. That is a crime. Now, the critical point is: How much of a crime is it? And now there is a very broad spectrum. I know, from an emotional point of view it is a terrible crime, but from a juristic point of view there is a broad band of options:

- it could be a direct charge for rape, straight out
- it could be that the guy is mentally disordered, thus in a juristic sence not liable for his actions
- it could be that he is on drugs or alcohol, thus, only partly liable for his actions
- it could be that the daughter is on drugs or alcohol and has actively motivated the guy to have sex with her, in a way that is beyond the "good" limit (wearing a short skirt is NOT an invitation for sex, but a girl in a bar that flirts with a guy, then kisses him good bye, gives him her address and tells him to come over tonight through the open backdoor... well... that's is a motivation)
- it could be the daughters secret boyfriend who is involved in a "tough love" game

All the above ARE distinct and possible options. The father, in the view seconds of the event, has no way of neutrally and logically evaluating this issue.

Similarly, the guy standing on the street in my example just observes the fast moving car. Speeding is a crime! Yet, again, there are degrees:

- the driver could be a maniac who is actually trying to kill people by driving them flat
- he could be asleep on the wheel and thereby "accidently" posing a lethal threat to the surrounding
- he could be just driving too fast a little bit, but still completely under control

Again, the guy on the street has no way of evaluating the problem fast enough.

See the point? It is exactly the same scenario. The only difference is that i have projected the SAME "rules" that the "shoot everybody right away" group here puts forth for the rapist issue, onto another crime scenario, in the context of which the rules appear completely ridiculous.

Haiti/My lady:
She is not necessarily "too weak and helpless". In fact, several of her friends carry guns around and got killed for it. It is just that the protection she has is not violence, it is friendship. The villages she went to over the last years know that she works to give their children a small chance in this world. Consequently they do not harm her. And people that REALLY want to harm her, well, having a gun won't help when armed militia with submachine guns comes around the corner. They see a gun on you and shoot right away (just like the "shot to kill" supporter here would... since they PERCEIVE my lady as a "criminal"). If you don't have a gun then they just harrass you, maybe imprison you in some place for a few days until the Canadian or US representatives on Haiti get her out again.

The only way to conduct her work "save" would be by surround herself with her own militia group. And then she would be no better than of the other militia groups.

Trust me, I don't like the thought of her getting harmed. Not one bit. But from her point of view it is better to harm her body then to harm her soul, and worse, harm the cause.

cheers

Helge

PS: I am the founderfather of the so called "Youth Millenium Project". We brought 600 groups of children from over 100 countries together using a translator and communication system. You might have seen a few TV reports about it. At our first conference in Vancouver (we managed to bring one child from each country to Vancouver, free of charge, to represent their country) we made a poll about the fears of these children. And on top of everything else was "Guns, Violence and War". Maybe we should listen more to our future, not our past.
 
Here, HelgeS cannot make the distinction between someone someone who is armed and someone who is armed and a roving thugh.

This gun, this object with inherent evil, taints all those who are near it.

"No better than they are" - No, if she went around hunting people down she would be "no better than they are" (assuming "they" as the groups who do same).


Going back to your "Daughter being raped" scenario - It IS your responsibility to work out if a rape is going on.

That said, "what if he's drugged" or "what if he's nuts" - well, then shucks, since the guy is nuts and not responsible for his actions I guess you should, as a sensitive new age guy, perhaps pass the vaseline. Maybe you could sit and watch for 10 minutes and wait for the cops to arrive - see how sensitive a lover he is and all that. As you also like welfare you should probably assume (or at least not discount the possibility) that he's poor (due to being oppressed by capitalists) - so break out the $20 bills!!

sheesh.

Battler.
 
Battler,

No, not everybody who carries a gun is evil. I didn't mean that she is no better than he other militia groups in the sence that she kills as well. No, she is no better in the sence that she puts her faith into weapon as the only way of living, working, acting, etc. It is THAT mentality that creates a big part of the trouble on Haiti. There are too many people who act solely with guns. Because that's what the current society teaches them. And it is no good.


You might postulate that all forms of rape should be punished by a death sentence. In that case, yes, shoot the guy, since no real trial is required. But then, well, there would certainly also be a sure death sentence for all killings. No more distincting between murderer, manslaughter, shooting for self defence: Straight death sentence for everybody who kills.

You are really twisting the issue here my friend. It is a not a "kill him or support the rape" decision (as you try to describe it). it is a "kill him or neutralize him to stop the threat" decision. Killing him with the INTENTION to kill him is murder, no question. Killing him with the intention to neutralize him is self defence.

cheers

Helge
 
Killing him with the INTENTION to kill him is murder, no question. Killing him with the intention to neutralize him is self defence.

Maybe in your universe, Helge. Not mine.

Killing with intent and no moral or legal justification for doing so is murder. What about soldiers and snipers? They kill the enemy with intent; is that murder?

If I kill someone by putting 7 230gr bullets into him as he's trying to kill CindyH or her kid, then reloading and putting another 6 into him, is that murder? Can you honestly state that killing with intent in the process of defending your loved ones, or yourself, is indeed murder?

If you can, then sir, I don't want to be anywhere near you when TSHTF. If you're not willing to kill to defend your loved ones, well... suffice it to say I'm damned glad you're not a member of my family.
 
Soldiers' actions are in the realm of self-defense of the nation (assuming you are the defender) and the immediate action of the target is not relevant as you are acting against all enemy forces contributing to their war effort. So snipers are not problematic. It is like saying that the criminal is attacking with his left hand, so you cannot shoot his right.

I note that snipers sometimes have a hard time shooting individuals who are just
in camp and training has to overcome that.

I think I agree with Coinneach on the rest.
I shoot to stop the evil event, however, I am quite aware that this action can lead to death. If it doesn't, that's OK also.

We have wandered a bit.

Is the question whether you keep shooting past a clear stop?

Maybe we can BS this at the Insights shoot till you drop weekend in TX.
 
Helge, there is no way you can ascertain intent (drunk, on drugs, mentally ill) in Sprig's scenario beyond the obvious intent of the attacker, which is the violent rape of the daughter. It's just as plausible that the rapist's full intention is to kill the daughter. Powers of clairvoyance aside, the father can only react to what he knows is happening in the present, and to react to that reality. Shooting to absolutely stop the rapist is entirely justified, and death is the likely outcome.

As for your wife's situation, going about defenseless is her privelege, and it's yours as well to condone it. Suffice it to say I would not come to the same conclusion that you have.

Without re-reading the prior topics, did Sprig change the scenario slightly?

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
A soldier acts to defend his country. That makes it an act of self-defence. AND, more important, a soldier attacks to NEUTRALIZE the enemy, NOT to kill him. If the intended neutralizing results in a kill, well, that is a possible outcome of a self defence action.
On the other hand, if the target is neutralized by the shot and NOT dead yet, then a soldier is OBLIEGED to recover the neutralized enemy and the army is OBLIEGED to do their very best to save the life of the neutralized enemy. Anybody who has ever done any military service knows that. Violating these this makes you are murderer, it is a war crime.

Similarly, if you shot the rapist with the intention to neutralize him, well, then you act in self defence. If the rapist dies from the neutralizing shot, well, then that's a bad outcome of a self defence action. On the other hand, if you shot and neutralize the victim and THEN kill him, that's murder, a civil crime.

That is what the law of the USA states, that is what the convention of Geneva states. And that is what I believe in too.

If murder would be defined the way you define it then convicting somebody would be VERY hard. What is "morally justified"? Everybody has their own concept of what is moral, ethic, etc. Some people might find it justified to kill because somebody is of another religion, or other gender, or race, etc. To me, all that is murder, to you it seems to be "ok"....

cheers

Helge
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
I think the scenario did change as the initial story had you considering whether it was moral to shoot someone who you knew had a past (or you though had a past)when he fails to comply.
[/quote]

Nice try. The story the NEVER changed. It was read the way the reader wanted to read it. Included, from the very start, were three details needed to acurately pull this off at the end.
1) The fact that part I ended with the guy moving for an object, and a perception, not necessarily accurate, of the guys intentions.
2) The fact that I said there was a legal grey area to which you could shoot the guy. This is the fact the guy was still moving.
3) The comment to the officer that arrives, "he moved".

Any ONE of these THREE should have been enough to notice the guy was a possible threat.

I ended the first part with 3 questions. Two were moral, and one was legal.

It not my fault everyone jumped on the emotional moral bandwagon. Had everyone jumped on the legal badwagon I would have jumped onto the moral bandwagon as my intent was to play a little bit devils advocate to further the discussion.

I find the discussion very interesting and I have learned quite an amount, about myself and some of the others that post on this board. Asking yourself if you could look into the eye of your daughter after she saw that you spared guy who visciously raped her is a powerfull question to ask yourself.

My answer to myself was, "no". This might get me into trouble; I am willing to accept that.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ckurts:
The news story about the BG would not influence my decision to fire again. If he was stopped, I'd do my best to secure the area (without playing in body fluids), and get 911 contacted ASAP. [/quote]

This was included so that hopefully the recognition would push the alert status of your mind up another notch with adrenaline. This isn't just a peeping-tom.

I think any known criminal, committing a criminal act, is extremely dangerous if stil able to move.

Criminals trying to get away perform actions that otherwise normal people don't try.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
The father, in the view seconds of the event, has no way of neutrally and logically evaluating this issue.
[/quote]

According to you we are all idiots and can't tell what is going on from a hole in the ground.

If I see someone raping my daughter, I will know it's someone raping my daughter.

You have ZERO authority to critique what level of perception and logic I have. To do so, as you have, makes the rest of your argument based on that premis invalid.

Sprig
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top