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

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C.R.Sam:
" 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.
[/quote]

C.R.Sam, do you have any idea of how long I waited for someone to post on this? I thought it was crystal clear.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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"....
[/quote]

I hope that was meant in a way different from the way it came out in print. From here, it reads as if you are telling me that you think I condone racism and genocide as well as the abuse and murder of women. I don't take this sort of thing lightly.

As for your girlfriend, if she honestly feels safer that way, more power to her. I wouldn't choose to be in her shoes, but it's her life. But to say that carrying a gun and training to defend herself, or even using bodyguards, makes her "no better than" the militiamen you hate so much makes no sense. The reason the militiamen are so bad are their actions, not the tools they use to carry them out. As long as we're talking about your girlfriend using her weapon in a defensive manner and militiamen using theirs to hurt innocents and kill their political opposition, it is not possible to equate the two without being absurd.
 
Simple answer. Shoot to stop the threat. I am trained to shoot center-mass. I can think of a few vital structures there: heart, lungs, trachea, thoracic spinal cord, thoracic aorta, etc. Probably as a consequence of me stopping the threat, he'll die. But I didn't shoot to kill. I shot to stop him from harming myself and my daughter. We were both in immediate threat of serious bodily injury and/or death. The perp had the intent, proximity, and ability to gravely harm us. When he did not stop his threatening behavior after falling down and did not heed our commands to stop, he was shot again, to stop the threat. End of story.

[This message has been edited by Westtexas (edited July 25, 2000).]
 
Well, I think we know where we stand...none of us are 100% on the final outcome but it seems we are all 100% in agreement that a certain 3rd party just doesn't get it. Like talking to a wall. In that case I vote this topic comes to an end. Moderators? Locks please?

------------------
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
 
No offence intended with the "genocide, racism" stuff. But, you have to admit, that there is a critical fault in your argument. If YOU take the right to judge what is "morally justified" and act on the basis of that (taking a human life on the basis of that) then so will others. And some others, not necessarily you, might judge it morally justified to kill somebody if that person is say a Hindu. That is EXACTLY the same as if you go out, see somebody comitting a crime, disable the person and then kill him because "it is morally justified to kill him". And it is no good.

Sprig: No, you are not all idiots. I wouldn't be able to evaluate the situation either, NOBODY would. Why do you think that it takes a whole group of skilled lawyers, judges, etc several month (or even years) to evaluate a crime like this and condem somebody to death? I am very very sure, that I, personally, would not be capable of doing the same amount of work, the work of dozens of people over a period of months, in the five seconds between disabling the person and then executing the person. And I don't think that you are capable of it either, sorry.

You don't seem to get the point here. The rape prevention is NOT questioned here AT ALL. You go in, you see the rape, you act. That is, you shoot, once, twice, however many times needed to neutralize the offender (if the offender dies from the first bullet, well, that's bad luck). NOBODY here argues against THAT part. So please, stop writing stuff like "let the rape happen" or "I see the rape, so there is a crime". That is not the point here AT ALL.
The critical issue is what you do AFTER the offender is neutralized (that is, if he is still alive). And that issue has two kinds of alternatives:

a) you stop firing, watch the person, disarm the person if that's possible without endangering yourself too much, you call 911.

b) you kill him

I am a firm believer of a), many other people here believe in a), the US society believes in a), you and some others don't. And that is to me a very good reason to deny you any form of firearms. Why? Because your attitude will inevitable result in two alternatives:

a) nothing bad happens in your life. So you don't need a gun anyways

b) something bad happens in your life. Since you have your "shoot to kill" attitude you will prevent the crime and instead comitt a crime yourself - murdering the offender. Now, since murder is by far the most serious crime out there, this means that whatever crime could happen to you is exchanged for murder. In the "best" case, we just exchange a murder for a murder, no gain.

And don't tell me that one murder is "morally" justified and the other isn't. The result is the same (a dead human being), the punishment is the same, the act itself is the same (yes, the offender broke the law, but so do you the very moment you pull the trigger AFTER the offender has been neutralized). There are 2 people coming to the rape, the first one shoot and neutralizes the offender, then he attempts to shoot the offender again to kill him. In that split second the roles change. In that second the rapist becomes the victim and the shooter becomes the offender. And to protect the victim the 3 guy is entitled to shoot the 2nd guy in an act of self defence.

cheers

Helge
 
HelgeS---I've tried to avoid jumping into your barbecue, but I'm going to do it (and at the expense of you not enjoying my post).

Here it goes:

I'm dropping the raped-daughter scenario.

Apparently you have a girlfriend; at least, that's what I'm gathering thus far. Suppose you encounter her being raped?

You're the person who has the opportunity and ability to respond at that moment to a threatening situation being imminently and clearly pressed upon a third party who happens to mean much to you.

You're there.

Your girlfriend is there being raped right in front of your eyes by a man who obviously doesn't care about her feminine sanctity.

You have a gun in your hands. What are you going to do?

Please, without pussyfooting around, spell out what you would do.


Cheers,

Johnny Got His Gun.1
 
Sprig, you still don't get it. If I stop the BG by shooting him and save my daughter, I am perfectly capable of looking her in the eye.

I don't have to kill him if there was no need.

As I said before and you now agree, the issue of the subject's past was a red herring.

We are going around in circles as many said and wandering all over the place.

Shoot him to stop.
If he is still moving, stop him.
The past of the subject is irrelevant.
Having to face your daughter is a rather silly issue and you reply on an emotional level.

Assume we drop the need to shoot the guy again when he keeps moving. He is still alive but righteously screwed.

Which is worse - the guy rapes your daughter and you stop him. He goes to jail.

Or

The guy rapes your daughter. You stop him.
You then kill him. Forensics determines that your final shots were when he was down and helpless. The shots when you were standing severed his spinal cord at a level that precluded movement. Your daughter will be pressured to lie for her father and testify at your trial, compounding her stress. I assume you know nothing about stress responses.

You have no idea about the responses, you, she or the legal authorities will have if you kill someone if you didn't have.

Getting boring and you just want to justify killing the guy when you don't have to.

I'll check in on the 4th iteration of this to see if there's anything new.
 
Johny,

I have written this 5 times already. But lets make it VERY simple:

Rape is a crime

Stopping the rapist is self defence

I would do that, whether it is my lady (not girlfriend), daughter (have none yet) or i don't know who. There is NOT question about this part. (i remember writting the same words just a few minutes ago...).

Then STOP. THAT is the point. The threat is neutralized. Some people want to keep firing, I consider that murder (and so does the US legal system).

Get it? Do you want me to write it in another language? I can't make it any simpler in english, sorry. Or maybe... yes, here is the preschool version:

Rape+Shot to Neutralize+Dial 911=GOOD
Rape+Shot to Neutralize+Shot to Kill=BAD

If you still don't get it... well... I am sorry for you.

cheers

Helge - who is rather mystified by the lack of comprehension around here...
 
I appreciate the clarification. Sorry if you wrote it five times already. Perhaps that was four times too many, and I guess I contributed to further tail-chasing, so to speak.

My understanding of English, by the way, is exceptionally high, given it's my native tongue.

I would also like to thank you for a post that was much easier to follow and much shorter than some of your previous ones. Your expressive facility greatly aided my comprehension and cleared some of my heretofore muddled perceptions of your position.

Toodles,

Johnny Got His Gun.1


P.S. It's late (or early, depending on your perspective). Sometimes it is harder for me to get someone's point in the wee hours.
 
"3) The comment to the officer that arrives, "he moved"."

He made an arressive, threating move! If you tell someone "Dont move" under those circumstances and they start to reach for something... That is a threat!

------------------
-AoW[t]-Dead [Black Ops]
 
Hey all.. my turn!

By way of disclamer, on the strict ethics of it, I guess I'd have to side with the "shoot to stop" folks. Besides the morality of it, besides really not wanting to have a death on my conscience -- I really don't want to have to explain that last shot to a jury, and these days I probably would.

However, I did have to jump in on this "it takes months or years for lawyers, judges, etc to reach the decision to.."

Bullsh*t.

The primary purpose of the courts and those months and months of trialwork is to establish guilt or innocence. If the guy is caught IN THE ACT, as he was in this example -- 90%+ of the trial is already done. Everyone involved already KNOWS he's guilty.

"Tough love" game? Fine, that's what verbal warnings are for. If the girl says "Daddy, don't!" -- back off. But in this case the intruder is attacking. Seems like a plea of "Guilty" to me.

That's NOT AT ALL the same as shooting someone on the street of a different faith because "God told me to."

Do I advocate vigilante justice? Not at all. Rounding up suspects and getting them into the judicial system is a job for police, presuming they're available.

But... if an extra round happens to find its way into a punk trying to rape Sprig's daughter IN HIS OWN HOUSE, well.. let's just say I won't be spilling too many tears.

Do I think it's perfectly ethical? No.
Is it still a tragedy to end a life? Yes.

But would I vote to convict the father that killed his daughter's rapist, on the scene?

Not a chance.
 
Everyone agrees that the first shot at a rapist caught in the act is morally, ethically and legally justified. Many feel follow up shots must have futher justification i.e. suspect makes any/threatning move or refuses to obey command.

What about situation where your own emotional state affects your actions? For example, in haze of rage/terror, you fire until slide locks back (this happens even to highly trained experienced police and soldiers), autopsy shows that first round severed spinal cord and neutralized threat.

What now?

------------------
If they come for my guns and I stand up and fight...What about my kids???

if I don't fight...What about my kids???
 
another thing to consider-you shoot to 'neutralize' the goblin...sever his spine or cripple him....LAWSUIT time! From Goblin and Goblins 'god-fearing, "our-son-would-NEVER-do-that!" family.

Tried by 12/carried by 6 or sued by 1.

------------------
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
 
Sprig, I went back and re-read your original scenario and then the follow-up at the beginning of this thread. It completely changed my thinking about this scene, and has
left me with questions (thanks a lot).
It would seem that the bedsheet part of the equation becomes a question of tactics rather than morals or ethics. Should the father keep his gun on the rapist, finger on trigger and ready to shoot again? It would seem so, at least in hindsight. Does the rapist's move necessitate another shot, given the command to not move? Again, in hindsight, yes. Without such hindsight, though, I'm not sure I could make that decision.

Glenn may find all of this boring, but he's used to lofty arguments. For me, you've created a gunowners Rubics cube ;) .

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top