What are your opinions on deadly force?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My opinion is that using lethal force is the last thing you want to be forced to do.

Forced? Yes, forced to do by the other person's actions. Those actions could be directed at you or another person such as your spouse, child, parent or neighbor.

If I have to employ lethal force, I want to use the minimum number of shots that will stop the threatening actions. If, under stress, I fire one or two shots and the threat ends, that's all I need. If I need to fire more to stop a determined attacker, I'll do what it takes to stop the threat. The exception to this may be if I'm already down and taking injuries, in which case desperation may run until slide-lock.
 
I am active duty miltary and prior to deploying to Iraq they made sure our unit go through Rules of Engagement and Law of Armed Conflict. The guys I had in my section new what the lawyers wanted, but if we were engaged I'm not so sure if they will remember 2 hours worth of power point slides. Force to be used must be proportional to the required effect. Military and civilian self defense is totally different. In the civilian world you are to use deadly force only if your life is threatened. It differs in each state and I'm sure each judge will see each case differently.

For me if I wake up to a noise in the middle of the night in a house where my 3 sons and wife lives my first response is to gather everyone and ensure their safety. A 12 gauge shotgun and 2 1911 commander in 45acp will be deployed for defense. My next step will be to investigate what is going on downstairs and if confirmed that unwelcome person or people are in my house the call to 911 will be made and I will make sure that I include in there how many family members are present and where they are located and I will let them know that the residents of the house are armed with firearms. If 911 dispatch says officers are on the way I'll ask for estimated time of arrival. Now if dispatch says no officers available, I will make noise and turn on all the lights that I can. I will tell my wife to take a tactical point at the entry way to where the kids are. I'm hoping with the noises I just made this intruder(s) are making their way out, if they stay then they are there to do us harm instead of just burglarizing our home. If I see anyone come up the stairs with a weapon and he's not a cop the 12 gauge will bark, if this person is still clutching the weapon effectively he will get another one until the weapon is released or until I deemed it is not a threat anymore. If I proceed to advance downstairs anyone advancing even without a weapon will be treated the same way as the first guy. Anyone jumping out of a window or running out of the door will not be shot. josh
 
If I believe it is necessary to use deadly force to keep myself or someone else from being killed or suffering serious bodily harm, I will use it.
 
If deadly force is needed, there is no other option. All other options would have been exausted by then. Running away, turning the other cheek and so forth. That being said, if deadly force is needed to protect my loved ones or innocent bystanders, God help them.
 
BillCA said:
My opinion is that using lethal force is the last thing you want to be forced to do.
Click to expand...

That's the perfect way to respond to this debate.

I must admit that I get hinkie around my supposed brothers who crow about what they would do to a robber or aggressor. Almost like they would like nothing better than to try out those brand new hollowpoints.

Now I must (sadly) admit that there are things in life that can get me riled enough to react in a purely visceral manner. As you will remember, I think guys who torture animals deserve some 'elective surgery.' If my wife called out in terror, I might shoot to 'wound.'

But if this topic can be discussed with any aspect of logic, your actions in defense may indeed end someone's life. End someone's life. End someone's life.

I've had enough psychiatry treatments in my life to know that I don't want to add PTSD to the pile I already have.
 
I have a problem with Deadly Force! I will without hesitations, Kill anyone that pose a intimate life and death threat to my self or my family! When it comes down to Do or Die, I think I would choose Do! I would not be taking time to look over the Ramifications of the Laws! Normal self preservation instincts would take over.

In the event of ISHTF, I would protect my assets if threatened with same!
 
I would not be taking time to look over the Ramifications of the Laws!
Click to expand...

WildAlaska is right: someone who cannot be bothered to understand how the law applies to them and their firearm should not own a gun and certainly should not keep one loaded for self defense.

Normal self preservation instincts would take over.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Let me tell you the story of Dan McKown, a very brave man who was at the Tacoma Mall awhile back when he heard a disturbance. McKown was a legal concealed carry permit holder, and he had his handgun with him at the time.

The disturbance was caused by an angry teenage boy with a rifle. The boy was shooting people and had already killed at least one person. McKown crouched behind cover when he first became aware of danger. He soon spotted the boy with the rifle. He drew his gun and had the boy in his sights. And then ...

He had second thoughts.

The boy was just a boy. McKown did not know if it was legal to shoot a minor in Washington state. He did not know if it would be legal to shoot without first warning the attacker. And he also did not want to get arrested for brandishing if he confronted the youth with a gun in his own hands. He did not know that Washington law specifically does allow the display of a weapon in such circumstances.

So because he did not know the law about the legal use of deadly force, he put his own gun back into its holster. And then this brave man stood up, with his hands empty, and confronted the attacker.

And the attacker gunned him down on the spot.

Mercifully, he lived. He is crippled for life, but he lived.

And that, my friends, is why you want to study the laws that govern deadly force where you live. You want to know about the law before you get into any kind of confrontation. You do not need to be having second thoughts or erroneous beliefs when your life is in deadly danger.

pax
 
Well said, Pax!

- I don't want to kill anyone.
- I don't want to maim anyone.
- I hope I never have to make the decision to shoot while tired.
- I hope I never have to decide to shoot as the lesser of two evils.

This does not mean I am not willing to shoot someone who is a threat to me, my family, friends or guests in my home.

If there is an unauthorized intruder in the house, I think it wise to consider him a potential threat until such time as proved otherwise. This may, or may not, require the cops to sort it out. Meanwhile, my house, my rules, my commands.

On the street, I'd rather leave the area than be forced to draw, if practical.

On the street, if drawing stops the threat, I want him to leave the area or get prone on the ground until the cops arrive.

If and/or when that moment comes where there is nothing else to do but defend myself;
Please Lord, let me be fast, let me be accurate and let me be just.
 
Unfortunately too many people get most of their training from cop shows or westerns. I have known too many people that have pulled a gun trying to scare an attacker with no intention of actually using it. When you pull your gun be sure that you are ready to use it. If it defuses the situation that is what you want but don't count on it. Be sure that you have made the correct decision before drawing and don't reholster until it is completely over.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I would not be taking time to look over the Ramifications of the Laws!
Click to expand...

Not to be contentious, but I'd suggest anyone who does not worry about whether their shoot is legal or not, or who does not worry about the afttermath of the shooting (at least in the CCW world), or who does not consider the legal ramifications of shooting, is missing some very important components of the issue.
 
I understand your thought and agree to a point but my feeling is that the decision to take a life must be of such importance that whether or not it is legal should not matter. If someone breaks into your house at 3:00 a.m. with a gun and threatens you and your family are you really going to be concerned about whether or not your state supports the castle doctrine? Legal ramifications do come into play but as much as we want them to be they are not cut and dried and will only be decided after the act is peerformed. When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.
 
When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and to a large extent I agree. Again though, that is why you have to study the issues beforehand. You obviously cannot be sorting through your own moral paradigms at the moment of truth. Your mind cannot be cluttered with frantic confusion about whether you're in the right or not and would be legally clear to defend yourself. You have to know clear down in your bones that you are free to act. Only then will you act with the immediate decisiveness that is most apt to ensure your physical survival.

Knowing where you stand means knowing in your guts that you're free to act. Not knowing where you stand leads to a cluttered mind, self-doubts, and confusion. None of these things are good. You have to keep your mind uncluttered enough to focus on the crucial problem of survival. And that means you have to know where you stand.

pax
 
pax said:
sorting through your own moral paradigms
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Acting responsibly always begins with a moral center.

The problem with taking life is that you will be judged by others in the community. My community is comprised of some truly leftist socialists.

Additionally, I don't think any "good guy" is prepared for the crushing cascade of PTSD.

Ask anyone who has spent a few months in a deep black hole, ramping up on meds and fighting for sanity with a cognitive guy. And I never dealt with anything as serious as PTSD.
 
I think that we all are really saying the same thing. The intruder in your house at 3 am is much different than the case that you brought up about the shooting at the mall. Mr. McKown was in an almost unwinnable situation in that if he had shot the teenager we know what the outcry would have been no matter what the legalities were. Here in SC we not only have the Castle Doctrine but also the Alter Ego principal. If you choose to invoke it then you may be legally correct but also you must be prepared to be morally correct for yourself. A six year old boy ran out in front of my Aunt's car and there was nothing she could do but hit him. She wasn't charged and the boy's parents understood and comforted her. However if affected her greatly. I remember back in the sixth grade the teacher telling that the role of the legislature was to make the laws, the executive branch to enforce the lasws and the judicial branch the interpret the laws. I thought why do they need interpreting? Now I somewhat understand what she meant but still don't know if I agree with it.
 
I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer,but I can't imagine a state that has a concealed carry permit would not allow you to keep yourself from being shot and paralyzed.It's a contradiction.
 
I am a socialist, and a leftist(of sorts). There are plenty of libertarian oriented leftists who understand self defense just fine, and there are plenty of right wing fundamentalists who do not. You really should get to know your "peers" a bit better. It's important to know what your fellow citizens actually think about certain acts rather than just painting them with a broad brush.

Anti gun people do enough painting with a broad brush for everyone. Nobody wants their political or economic view of the world used to dismiss everything they say on any subject. The older I get the more I believe that most people want the same thing for their families and their communities, they just have different views on how to get there.
 
I understand your thought and agree to a point but my feeling is that the decision to take a life must be of such importance that whether or not it is legal should not matter.
Click to expand...
And I would take the other position, that taking a life is of such importance that whether one's action is legal or not should be near paramount in your thoughts.
If someone breaks into your house at 3:00 a.m. with a gun and threatens you and your family are you really going to be concerned about whether or not your state supports the castle doctrine?
Click to expand...
No, because that is irrelevant. I know it is irrelevant because I am aware of the legal considerations present in such a case.
When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.
Click to expand...
And determining how to make that choice is based as much on legal issues as anything else. Is force authorized in this type of situation? How much force can I use to ensure outcome "A", and so on. My $.02.
 
With regards to the legal question;

When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.
Click to expand...

The exigent circumstances in which you find yourself dictate what kinds of actions are open to you. For example, finding the thug halfway through a window dictates different actions than finding them in the hallway. Knowing what the law says and having considered various scenarios beforehand allows you to act with knowledge that you won't be dragged into a legal quagmire later.

Mr. McKown was in an almost unwinnable situation in that if he had shot the teenager we know what the outcry would have been no matter what the legalities were.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Anytime you have an active shooter in a public place who is obviously shooting (at) innocents their age is of less importance than saving multiple lives. I'd say many of us might have doubts about shooting a teenager, just before dropping the hammer. But I think each of us can see that the action becomes a necessity in order to preserve life.

The older I get the more I believe that most people want the same thing for their families and their communities, they just have different views on how to get there.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. When those "different views" are not only impractical but border on fantasyland you can find it impossible to convey the degree of danger. I talked you a young woman who, in a small bedroom, pointed a rifle at a semi-naked man coming through the window with a knife. He first said she didn't "want to shoot" him and he'd give her "pleasure". When she refused his comments changed to "B--ches like you won't shoot", then went on to graphically describe what he thought she needed. She touched off a .22 round into the wall next to him and he fled. However, most of her friends were (her words) shocked, disgusted, revolted or mad that she'd used a gun instead of talking him out of it. And this was in light of the fact the same man raped and nearly killed another young woman three blocks away the same night.
 
deadly force is perfectly fine when protecting the lives of others or yourself.

like Pax story about that guy, Theres no way I'd 2nd guess myself, in that kind of situation, no matter how young the person is, or even how old. They have a gun, and could take the life of someone just as young or younger if wanted.

Deadly force should only be used when no other options are possible. Now you can shoot someone in the shoulder, or leg without killing them (hopfuly) if you don't feel you need to kill the person in order to stop the threat.

I have no problem using deadly force. Now I'm not going to kill a guy who is beating an animal, but if they have something that could kill someone and are withn reach to kill a person, by all means do what you gotta do.

Some of you wouldnt shoot someone if someone elses life was in a threat..I can tell you one thing, if I was in a corner and some guy had a knife to me..I'd hope you'd shoot him!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top