What are your opinions on deadly force?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with both sides. But that's normal, I guess, for complicated moral/ethical questions.

What is right is not always what is legal. Same with being moral.

If it was illegal to defend myself, I would still defend myself. Better than being dead. If the law requires me to be a submissive victim, I will break it.

Maybe PT111 is speaking in absolute terms, whereas others speak "assuming that the law lets you defend yourself"?

-Jephthai-
 
First and foremost are the laws that govern your state, or country. Study, learn and obey them! Then there are lawyers, psuedo internet lawyers or wannabes that feel they have an educated superiority to interpret the laws for the rest of us.
Train, know the laws and follow your instincts.
 
If it was illegal to defend myself, I would still defend myself. Better than being dead. If the law requires me to be a submissive victim, I will break it.
Click to expand...

You have very much hit on my thoughts with that. When SC recently passed the Castle Doctrine and remove the Duty to Retreat it really did not mean much to my thoughts on how I would defend myself from an intruder. Maybe I now have the legal right to shoot him once he breaks down my front door at 3 am but I am still going to make sure it it not my daughter who forgot her keys. I do not want to give the impression that the laws and knowledge of them is not important but determine all the possible outcomes of the legalities of a situation before it happens. If we could there would never be a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.

As for the teenage in the mall it does not matter if it is a 10 year old or a 30 year old you must make a decision on their actions. There is no law that I know of stating that a person must be a certain age for you to be able to defend yourself against them, only the public outcry over the fact that you killed a 10 year old. We see and hear that all the time. That is what I mean by an unwinable situation. Same with them breaking onto your house.

But I do disagree with trying to wound instead of kill. There is too much margin for error like trying to fire a warning shot. That only works in the movies.
 
For me the standard is to shoot to incapacitate and end the threat. Whether the criminal(s) is(are) alive the next day or not is between him(them) and the emergency room doctor afterwards.
 
Maybe I now have the legal right to shoot him once he breaks down my front door at 3 am but I am still going to make sure it it not my daughter who forgot her keys. I do not want to give the impression that the laws and knowledge of them is not important but determine all the possible outcomes of the legalities of a situation before it happens.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought when I saw in your posts, and I think you were misinterpreted. When you made reference to the castle doctrine, etc., I figured you've studied the law.

One should definitely know the law, and try as best as possible to understand it. But decisions based on legal environment happen before the event. When the event occurs, one should not be playing out legal decision trees in one's head.

So, know in advance if you need to retreat -- but if you don't or can't, don't die to validate a bullet point in the law (pun unintended)!

When I was stricken with cancer, I started to get comfortable with thinking "dark" thoughts. I kind of had to -- what if I do die, what should wife and baby do -- it's non-treatable, should I try experimental treatments if the surgery doesn't work, and so forth.

In this case, I guess if I do my best, going in with what knowledge of the law I can, and at a moment of urgency and extreme danger I make a choice that keeps myself and my family alive, and it's determined non-justifiable... well... at least myself and my family are alive.

Like my Dad always said... do what you can, and don't do what you can't.

-Jephthai-
 
I don't want to shoot anyone.
I don't want to kill anyone.
I don't want to deal with it physiologically.

If I'm forced to I will shoot.
If I'm forced to I will kill.
There will be no "if" to my moral stance on it because I know I am sound if I was forced to.

*forced=having no other choice and/or route to resolve and/or defuse immanent threats that are put upon me and/or significants without my and/or significant's consent.(lets face it, some people are sick these days and get their jollies on when physicly abused)

For the guy that defined the 10 yrs old, I comend you for your efforts, but a very dull move on your part in confronting a distrait armed person while unarmed (might as well have been)

For the lady that shot the warning shot then regreted not talking it out instead......lady, I'm suprised you're still alive being so naive. The guy was where he needed not be while in possession of a deadly weapon assaulting you and obviously ill-minded with plans in which you did not consent. And you would have rather talked it out?! If it was so easy for him to understand he should not do such things do you think he would have been there in the first place for you to talk to? Happy for you it wasn't you that became his victim, unfortunatly someone had to before you realized your ignorance.

....wait a sec....you said "and this was in light of" so she knew about him and his victim prior to her encounter?

If so HOLY MOLY what is wrong with her? It physically and mentaly pains me when I see things as such on the news about females being victims of sexual assault (my brain physically hurts-one of the reasons why I dont follow those news stories) Hope you will always be around someone alittle more "real-world-ready" than yourself at all times.

Kinda got off the main point there....but it needed addressing IMO
 
Tricon45 - I think you need to re-read that paragraph. She did not regret taking the (misaimed) shot. Her intent was to perforate him and she missed through fear while using her boyfriend's rifle. The man did successfully rape another woman later that same night and hurt the victim seriously. It was her circle of friends who thought she should have been more passive and talked him out of it (even though they realized what he'd done later). In fact, one "friend" of hers said if she had only "had an open dialouge" with him, the other woman wouldn't have been raped. :rolleyes: I guess some people are simply to wedded to their own fantasyland to see reality.

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.
Click to expand...
MyXD40 - I know what you're trying to say... but I think all of us would think twice about shooting a pre-teen if we recognized them as such. I'm sure many of us, if nothing else, would be shocked at the youth of the shooter. In such a case, we'd be shooting to save lives and possibly trying to aim low to stop him, hoping his determination is thwarted by the pain of his injury.
 
A youth even at the tender age of 10 who is armed with a firearmed should have not been treated any different. If a car being driven wreclessly through the streets is there any difference in threat if the driver is a male/female or young and old? josh
 
If it was illegal to defend myself, I would still defend myself. Better than being dead. If the law requires me to be a submissive victim, I will break it.
Click to expand...
+1

I don't want to shoot another person.
I don't want to kill another person.

But I refuse to submit to criminals who intend to harm me or my family.
And I refuse to sit by, doing nothing, and watch, as criminals harm other innocent people.
And I refuse to sit by, doing nothing, as criminals take that which I have worked so hard to have.
And I refuse to run away or hide while criminals invade my home.
 
EasyG I agree with some of your comments, but disagree with others.

"But I refuse to submit to criminals who intend to harm me or my family."

I agree, and will use whatever force is at my disposal in defense of my family. I have inspected and launched aircraft capable of taking out whole cities, perhaps even small countries, without moral hesitation. If I didn't believe in using force to protect my family, even extended family, this would not have been morally OK with me.

"And I refuse to sit by, doing nothing, and watch, as criminals harm other innocent people."

Again, I agree. For me to function in the military it helped me to think of all my countrymen as "extended family". Of course I live in appalacia so most people I run into are in actual fact "extended family".

"And I refuse to sit by, doing nothing, as criminals take that which I have worked so hard to have."

This is where I have a problem. While I would not "do nothing" I fear you consider anything less than using deadly force as "doing nothing". I would not use deadly force to protect belongings, but understand why others might.

"And I refuse to run away or hide while criminals invade my home."

Pride goes before the fall, or whatever that quote is. Nothing you said bothers me as much as this. It implies that your pride is more important than your life. I have no macho need to prove myself by putting myself in harms way if I can possibly avoid it. I am a single parent of a 13 year old, and although my mother or grown daughter could probably raise him they might not do so the way I would. I feel sorry for anyone who is so insecure that they would rather risk their life than be seen as a coward. I know I am a coward, I have run from people with knives and tireirons, I have crawled on my belly in a stream while idiots shot at me, and I would do so again in those same situations. Alas I can not crawl or run as well as I once could. My years of experience have taught me that running and hiding is a very underrated self defense tool.
 
The disturbance was caused by an angry teenage boy with a rifle . . . . . . The boy was just a boy.
Click to expand...
Actually, Maldonado was 20 years old at the time. He just looked young. Sort of off topic, but a child with a firearm is just as lethal as an adult and should be treated accordingly.

Lethal force should only be used when no other option exists. No matter how justified your shooting is, your life will change once you shoot someone. You will have the initial phases where there may/may not be a lengthy investigation, charges, trial etc.. But even if you aren't charged there will be subtle changes. Some of your associates/friends/coworkers will look at you differently (as in Bill's example), you may be viewed as a pariah or hero in you town (even good changes can have bad unforseen consequences). You run the risk of retaliation and may have to look over your shoulder or move to another state. Unless you thrive on turmoil, you are better off retreating than shooting. I am not advocating submission in any way, shape or form. It just makes more sense to not pull the trigger until you have no other choice. In the end the only thing that matters is that you and your loved ones are safe.

KNOW YOUR STATE'S LAWS! Before the incident. The last thing you need to do in a crisis is try to decide if your actions are legal or not. If you understand the basic concept of your state's laws regarding the use of leathal force ahead of time, you will already know if your actions are legal.
 
Pondering too long on whether or not to put down an aggressor, though, could easily be the last decision you find yourself deciding on in the realm of the living. Has anyone other than me caught the fact that death of the receiving party of potentially lethal force is only a side effect, and that incapacitation, though near to or indistinguishable from death as it may be, is the only real immediate goal in defensive shooting? Lung shots or even heart shots that can instantly end aggression are entirely possible to survive with prompt medical treatment. I suppose that in most cases the desire to eliminate that person's threat from society forever is indeed a worthy objective, but secondary to eliminating that capacity for further violence right there and then. Death is between them and the medical folks...your survival is your only concern.
 
I wonder if you have the opportunity to be making all these judgements as to the legality and repercussions of your action,perhaps you are not substantially in fear.
 
I honestly doubt knowing your state laws in this type of situation will change anything, for me at least.

I'm at the mall with my wifey and kid, shopping, and some punk has a riffle and is picking people out.

I duck behind a massage chair, able to see the suspect..I draw, aim, one shot to the shouler, see what it does, then a 2nd shot.

I can't see that situation comming back to me in court, and me going to jail for it, dispite what any law says.
 
I can't see that situation comming back to me in court, and me going to jail for it, dispite what any law says.
Click to expand...

Thats the attitude I love in modern America:

I believe so therefore its reality. Why take a chance in finding something that may CHANGE my belief.

Easier to do that than take a Saturday off and head to the law library and read up, neh? Who knows, there may be a case right on point.

I duck behind a massage chair, able to see the suspect..I draw, aim, one shot to the shouler, see what it does, then a 2nd shot.
Click to expand...

WAs Rule of Life 1:

Life isn't Hollywood.

WildwheredoesthisstuffcomefromAlaska TM
 
^I'm sorry.. I'll stand behind the fake tree plant, and just stand there and watch some sick kid pick off people. Clearly a better choice, IMO
 
I'm sorry.. I'll stand behind the fake tree plant, and just stand there and watch some sick kid pick off people. Clearly a better choice, IMO
Click to expand...

Who is suggesting that?

WilddidyounotreadwhatipostedAlaska TM
 
^I did. Either you're still half asleep or you are hyped up on fumes of a dry-erase marker. Either way, let me break it down for you..

I don't see going to jail for a very very long time. Sure I'll be arrested or at least brought in for questions after that situation. No doubt about it. but to rot in jail becasue I killed a killer? or even just shot a killer? Sorry but unless the jury is clueless, I can't see it possible what-so-ever.

A person has a gun as is KILLING people..what woudl YOU do? ..lets think here please.

And hollywood? sorry, but it's unkown what will be around or if you'd even be in a mall if something like this happend to you..but a lot of the malls around here have massage chairs, which would be a great use as COVER. you know, a material to protect yourself from whatever might be comming or looking your way...


:rolleyes:
 
The Hollywood reference pertains to this statement:

I draw, aim, one shot to the shouler, see what it does
Click to expand...

Why not just shoot the gun out of his hand (just like in the old Western movies)?!? :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top