What are your opinions on deadly force?
- Thread starter 2rugers
- Start date
- Status
I'm confused by your post.
You (i think) believe in self defense/2nd amendment, or you wouldn't be on this forum...Yet you say that your veiws on deadly force are very liberal.
Does that mean you'd use it freely/ in excess, or does that mean you believe guns should only shoot rubber bullets so its less likely to make someone 'dead' with the force used?
Clarify what you're looking for and I'll be glad to post MHO.
You (i think) believe in self defense/2nd amendment, or you wouldn't be on this forum...Yet you say that your veiws on deadly force are very liberal.
Does that mean you'd use it freely/ in excess, or does that mean you believe guns should only shoot rubber bullets so its less likely to make someone 'dead' with the force used?
Clarify what you're looking for and I'll be glad to post MHO.
What Deadly Force means to me...
That Force that a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm or which could create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.
You deadly force as a Last resort after all other means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
That Force that a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm or which could create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.
You deadly force as a Last resort after all other means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
The Tourist
Moderator
I would use "as little as possible," but not for the reasons you might believe. I'm worried about my possible (or likely arrest), a criminal trial, and certainly a civil trial.
Who in my liberal town of The Peoples' Republik of Madison is going to give credence to a weight-lifting biker with a razor sharp knife?
I've even had to brace my wife for the outcome. I've had a run in with our local paper once before and got my reputation more than sullied. She knows in advance that I will probably be pilloried on a slow news day.
I've also told her that I'll have to 'asssume the position,' be searched and cuffed. It's no big deal for me. Been there, done that. I worry more about her. Other than a singular speeding ticket, she's had no contact with our legal/penal system.
Who in my liberal town of The Peoples' Republik of Madison is going to give credence to a weight-lifting biker with a razor sharp knife?
I've even had to brace my wife for the outcome. I've had a run in with our local paper once before and got my reputation more than sullied. She knows in advance that I will probably be pilloried on a slow news day.
I've also told her that I'll have to 'asssume the position,' be searched and cuffed. It's no big deal for me. Been there, done that. I worry more about her. Other than a singular speeding ticket, she's had no contact with our legal/penal system.
Depends on if it is a "peacetime" or "wartime" situation.
Wartime is wartime. You do what needs done. Using DF against innocent civilians or subdued prisoners is not included. In case of invasion or civil war, I find it difficult to believe that I wouldn't be a partisan for the "good" side that stands for freedom, liberty and such. Meaning, I'd be a combatant, albeit an "irregular" one since I'm too old to go back in the Army.
Peacetime (or non-war SHTF) is different. I'd use DF in defense of myself, my family and perhaps (given the situation) my property against violent attack or in the case of property against destruction or theft. Yes, that includes theft, since it is quite possible that a burglar/looter who is surprised by me may turn and attack. The use of DF must cease when the threat has ended; be it by incapacitation of the BG or if the BG ceases to be a threat by way of surrender or retreat. This is me defending my castle.
It is also possible that I'd use DF if I were to come upon a violent felony in progress that does not involve myself, my family or my property if I determine that A> bodily harm or death of an innocent may be imminent and B> there is no other way for anyone else (such as law enforcement) to stop the attack. Again, the use of DF must cease when the threat has ended; be it by incapacitation of the BG or if the BG ceases to be a threat by way of surrender or retreat, or if LE were to show up on the scene. This is me being a "Good Samaritan".
Wartime is wartime. You do what needs done. Using DF against innocent civilians or subdued prisoners is not included. In case of invasion or civil war, I find it difficult to believe that I wouldn't be a partisan for the "good" side that stands for freedom, liberty and such. Meaning, I'd be a combatant, albeit an "irregular" one since I'm too old to go back in the Army.
Peacetime (or non-war SHTF) is different. I'd use DF in defense of myself, my family and perhaps (given the situation) my property against violent attack or in the case of property against destruction or theft. Yes, that includes theft, since it is quite possible that a burglar/looter who is surprised by me may turn and attack. The use of DF must cease when the threat has ended; be it by incapacitation of the BG or if the BG ceases to be a threat by way of surrender or retreat. This is me defending my castle.
It is also possible that I'd use DF if I were to come upon a violent felony in progress that does not involve myself, my family or my property if I determine that A> bodily harm or death of an innocent may be imminent and B> there is no other way for anyone else (such as law enforcement) to stop the attack. Again, the use of DF must cease when the threat has ended; be it by incapacitation of the BG or if the BG ceases to be a threat by way of surrender or retreat, or if LE were to show up on the scene. This is me being a "Good Samaritan".
Sorry Dwatts.
By liberal I meant "to give generously and willingly in copious amounts".
In situations that warrant of course.
For instance confronting vandals in the dark of night and being forced to escalate the situation because they advance on you.
Do you retreat or stand and defend?
By liberal I meant "to give generously and willingly in copious amounts".
In situations that warrant of course.
For instance confronting vandals in the dark of night and being forced to escalate the situation because they advance on you.
Do you retreat or stand and defend?
The Tourist
Moderator
2rugers said:
That's my fear.
We all seem to look at our interaction in a fight as being attacked by a skilled killer.
What if I hear a noise at night, go to investigate, and it's a frightened teenager holding my DVD player?
How fast do you think I'll be thrown into a cell if I rain "copious amounts" of punishment on him with a baseball bat or a straight razor?
The day that I let it worry me about whether it is legal and if I will get sued when I take another human lfe is the day that I no longer have a reason to exist. If it comes down to me or him I am going to choose me. I may be the victim of a killing but whether or not it falls under the castle doctrine is immaterial. I will worry about that later.
In my opinion, it might kill somebody, so one had better think very hard and seriously about taking an action that can result in another's death. I have no idea what you're getting at.
Well, I guess it depends on how badly do you want to shoot someone. Look, I'm not trying to be a troll here, and I know, there's the castle doctrine, the no-retreat doctrine, etc. Those may be legal standards, but just because you can legally shoot someone doesn't mean that you should, especially when we're talking about vandalized property, and a safe avenue of retreat is available for you to take.
Personally, if I can safely retreat, I'd do that rather than shoot someone over vandalized property. But if you want to shoot, and deal with the death, and the mess, and the cops, and the lawyers, and the memory of the whole mess, and the worry, time and money that goes along with all of it, I guess that's up to you.
Frankly I can’t see killing someone for a TV or a stereo but if they have come into your house in the middle of the night, it is not the TV I’m thinking about. On the other hand deadly force opens up a whole new can of worms. The truth is I really don’t want to shoot anyone. In fact I cant’ really think of anything that could happen that would be worse than shooting someone with the exception of someone shooting me or a loved one.
The problem is that once the gun comes into play the dynamics of any situation change dramatically. Hopefully in any such situation you will be dealing with a reasonably sane person and their own sense of self preservation will rule out. But there is no guarantee that that will be the case. What if you get one of these idiots who think “He doesn’t have the balls to pull the trigger”? So now your situation has really gone south on you because under no circumstances can you allow the bad guy to gain possession of the gun. Just not an option and there are just way too many idiots out there who think like that. So you could very well find your self having to use deadly force in a situation that you might not otherwise have chosen to do so. Frankly I think choosing to carry is a choice between bad and worse. What sucks is that the world is becoming such that that choice is being forced on us.
For the most part I keep my guns against the day that things really come undone and we see post Katrina New Orleans on a much wider scale. The truth is that I really think that day is inevitable given the way the world is shaping up.
Better to have em and not need em than to need em and not have em.
The problem is that once the gun comes into play the dynamics of any situation change dramatically. Hopefully in any such situation you will be dealing with a reasonably sane person and their own sense of self preservation will rule out. But there is no guarantee that that will be the case. What if you get one of these idiots who think “He doesn’t have the balls to pull the trigger”? So now your situation has really gone south on you because under no circumstances can you allow the bad guy to gain possession of the gun. Just not an option and there are just way too many idiots out there who think like that. So you could very well find your self having to use deadly force in a situation that you might not otherwise have chosen to do so. Frankly I think choosing to carry is a choice between bad and worse. What sucks is that the world is becoming such that that choice is being forced on us.
For the most part I keep my guns against the day that things really come undone and we see post Katrina New Orleans on a much wider scale. The truth is that I really think that day is inevitable given the way the world is shaping up.
Better to have em and not need em than to need em and not have em.
I'm wondering if this belongs in L&P ... ? No, not related to civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, concealed carry or general political issues.
General Discussion? No, not really firearms related or the OP would have said so. It's about Deadly Force.
Tactics & Training? Yup, best fit.
Moving to T&T ...
General Discussion? No, not really firearms related or the OP would have said so. It's about Deadly Force.
Tactics & Training? Yup, best fit.
Moving to T&T ...
The Tourist
Moderator
PT111 said:
I believe most of us think that same way. I believe that people answering this thread are actually very good citizens.
I also fear that many of them don't know just how bad it is to get caught up in the legal system. Even if you are innocent, the criminal and civil trial will bleed you bankrupt.
And I don't think your average-Joe will do well in a maximum prison. Heck, just jail did it for me. Being a volunteer at our vets' hospital and pulling duty on "2B" sustained any doubts I might have had.
In your heart, do you really want to kill somebody, even if it is a "good shooting"? I don't, and I suspect if the TFL took a secret ballot, most of us would feel the same way. We're the good guys.
JohnKSa nailed it.
Massad Ayoob teaches the formulation that deadly force is permissible only "when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."
Point by point:
The danger must be immediate. It has to be happening right now, right this very moment. It can't be (for example) in reaction to someone threatening to come back and kill you next week. It cannot be in reaction to someone threatening to come back and kill you in an hour, or in a few minutes. The danger has to be immediate.
The danger has to be otherwise unavoidable. If you can deal with the danger in some other manner, you should. If you can run away, if you can talk your way out, if you can go the other direction and never end up in that dark place ... do that. Avoid it if you can, any way you can. Don't willingly get into confrontations either. The danger has to be otherwise unavoidable.
The danger has to be serious: only death or grave bodily harm count here. A broken fingernail does not qualify. Even a broken bone might not. There has to be a risk that you will literally die or be maimed for life if you do not respond with appropriate force. The danger has to be serious.
The danger has to be to the innocent. If you goad it on, if you "ask for it" or trade insults or otherwise engage in brinksmanship -- you're not innocent! Don't bring it on, don't engage in stand offs, but do everything in your power to defuse the situation before it escalates to deadly force. The danger has to be to the innocent.
If you find yourself in a situation where there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent, deadly force is a reasonable reaction to that danger.
Otherwise? It's not.
pax
Massad Ayoob teaches the formulation that deadly force is permissible only "when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."
Point by point:
- immediate
- otherwise unvoidable
- danger of death or grave bodily harm
- to the innocent.
The danger must be immediate. It has to be happening right now, right this very moment. It can't be (for example) in reaction to someone threatening to come back and kill you next week. It cannot be in reaction to someone threatening to come back and kill you in an hour, or in a few minutes. The danger has to be immediate.
The danger has to be otherwise unavoidable. If you can deal with the danger in some other manner, you should. If you can run away, if you can talk your way out, if you can go the other direction and never end up in that dark place ... do that. Avoid it if you can, any way you can. Don't willingly get into confrontations either. The danger has to be otherwise unavoidable.
The danger has to be serious: only death or grave bodily harm count here. A broken fingernail does not qualify. Even a broken bone might not. There has to be a risk that you will literally die or be maimed for life if you do not respond with appropriate force. The danger has to be serious.
The danger has to be to the innocent. If you goad it on, if you "ask for it" or trade insults or otherwise engage in brinksmanship -- you're not innocent! Don't bring it on, don't engage in stand offs, but do everything in your power to defuse the situation before it escalates to deadly force. The danger has to be to the innocent.
If you find yourself in a situation where there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent, deadly force is a reasonable reaction to that danger.
Otherwise? It's not.
pax
Wildalaska
Moderator
The ONLY thing governing the when, where, how and under what circumstances you may use deadly force is YOUR particular State law, which everyone who carrys a gun should read and understand, INCLUDING the judicial decisions surrounding the statutes.
One can obtain these materials on line or at a law library. One should also fully understand the various degrees of culpability involved in Offenses against the person, including criminal negligence and recklessness.
WildhavefunAlaska TM
One can obtain these materials on line or at a law library. One should also fully understand the various degrees of culpability involved in Offenses against the person, including criminal negligence and recklessness.
WildhavefunAlaska TM
Rifleman 173
New member
I think that we, as a society, should expand the legal uses for the death penalty and justifiable homicide. Let's take back the streets AND prisons from the dirtbags and scum of the earth. In fact, let's enact a prison lottery system. If you're in jail or prison and if ANY PART of YOUR inmate/jail number gets drawn then you get a FREE EXECUTION!!! So if you're inmate # 3 in Podunk Jail or Inmate # A-15793673 in San Quentin then you also get a free execution because you have one of the numbers from the lottery in your number. The first lottery number drawn should just happen to be: 3216547890. So if you have ANY of those numbers in your jail number please report to the execution chamber or in front of the firing squad's wall. Thanks for your cooperation...
Wildalaska
Moderator
Gee that adds a lot to the discusssion
WildallrightybacktosearchingforpickelhaubepatternpajamasAlaska TM
WildallrightybacktosearchingforpickelhaubepatternpajamasAlaska TM
ActivShootr
New member
Deadly force
Sucks! I hope no one on this forum ever has to use said force on any living thing. That being said, if one does have to take a life, may it be in the defense of his/her own or the defense of a loved one. If you are an emplyoee of an
agency and you have had to use force to defend a partner/coworker then my hat is off to you. You are justified in your actions IMO. If you are a citizen and have not, I hope you put much thought into this subject before you pull the trigger. You will be held liable for your actions. "Castle doctrine" be damned. I have done much research on this subject and the conclusions I find lean more toward the the favor of the shootee than the shooter. Look up the many cases of homeowners being sued after an intruder injures himself while breaking into a home. I am not against defending one's property, home, ,or life but I think we should all know and understand that there will be a consequence for any action we take in doing so. Putting on turnout gear now.
Josh.
Sucks! I hope no one on this forum ever has to use said force on any living thing. That being said, if one does have to take a life, may it be in the defense of his/her own or the defense of a loved one. If you are an emplyoee of an
agency and you have had to use force to defend a partner/coworker then my hat is off to you. You are justified in your actions IMO. If you are a citizen and have not, I hope you put much thought into this subject before you pull the trigger. You will be held liable for your actions. "Castle doctrine" be damned. I have done much research on this subject and the conclusions I find lean more toward the the favor of the shootee than the shooter. Look up the many cases of homeowners being sued after an intruder injures himself while breaking into a home. I am not against defending one's property, home, ,or life but I think we should all know and understand that there will be a consequence for any action we take in doing so. Putting on turnout gear now.Josh.
- Status