RE: Justified use of deadly force

RE: Justified use of deadly force (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Justified use of deadly force

Prevent a rape

16% (27)

Prevent bodily injury to self or family member

17% (28)

Protect home from intruders

11% (18)

Protect private property.

3% (6)

Protect self from armed attack

18% (30)

Protect self from attack

14% (23)

Finding an intruder in your home

8% (14)

Stop a trespasser

2% (4)

Stop someone attempting to break into your home.

5% (9)

Total Votes : 159

(last vote on : 3/25/2014 8:09:38 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

JeffBC -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/18/2014 10:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer "Yep, I'm with kdsub and crazyml: the question is flawed. Tne fundamental principle in my book would be about the need to use deadly force, not about whether one has a right to use it." This was my problem also. Let's be clear here. I have no problems with the use of deadly force and, in fact, may have done so on one occasion. But the "need" question looms large in my head. In all cases my head wanted more information surrounding the scenario including whether there were reasonably safe lesser alternatives open to me.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/18/2014 10:35:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer "Yep, I'm with kdsub and crazyml: the question is flawed. Tne fundamental principle in my book would be about the need to use deadly force, not about whether one has a right to use it." This was my problem also. Let's be clear here. I have no problems with the use of deadly force and, in fact, may have done so on one occasion. But the "need" question looms large in my head. In all cases my head wanted more information surrounding the scenario including whether there were reasonably safe lesser alternatives open to me. You don't know if you have done so?

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/18/2014 10:41:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer "Yep, I'm with kdsub and crazyml: the question is flawed. Tne fundamental principle in my book would be about the need to use deadly force, not about whether one has a right to use it." This was my problem also. Let's be clear here. I have no problems with the use of deadly force and, in fact, may have done so on one occasion. But the "need" question looms large in my head. In all cases my head wanted more information surrounding the scenario including whether there were reasonably safe lesser alternatives open to me. The thing that needs to be understood is that any force can be lethal force. Earlier I recounted an incident where a thug died from being placed in a headlock, not a chokehold, when, in trying to escape, the force broke his neck. We also mentioned in a thread a few months back where a man was punched once, fell, struck his head and was DOA. The has to be taken into account in threat assessment.

BitYakin -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/19/2014 2:13:30 PM)
an interesting fact All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered within the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25,[7] and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence.[8] The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be between 14 million and 17 million[8][9] with 9 million of those being unregistered.[7] Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide.[8] In 2004, the number was 36,000.[7] Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;[10] other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.[11] In 2005, a referendum was held in Brazil on the sale of firearms and ammunition to attempt to lower the number of deaths due to guns. Although the Brazilian Government, the Catholic Church, and the United Nations, among others, fought for the gun ban, the referendum failed at the polls, with 64% of the voters voting no.[7] The Brazilian government passed the law to completely ban all rights to the public even though the referendum failed. They bypassed the Brazilian democratic system despite the public votes.

JeffBC -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/19/2014 2:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You don't know if you have done so? Nope. Late night mugging. I "handled it" a bit more spectacularly than I had hoped (hand to hand). The bad guy was down in the snow with whatever injuries I'd just inflicted. I walked away happy the whole thing was over. He may have gotten up or maybe not. No, I'm not a ninja. I'd had some training more than a decade previous to that and the perp was drunk off his ass.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/19/2014 2:43:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You don't know if you have done so? Nope. Late night mugging. I "handled it" a bit more spectacularly than I had hoped (hand to hand). The bad guy was down in the snow with whatever injuries I'd just inflicted. I walked away happy the whole thing was over. He may have gotten up or maybe not. No, I'm not a ninja. I'd had some training more than a decade previous to that and the perp was drunk off his ass. Then you did. Had you shot him in the foot and left him in the snow the anti gunners would have accused you of willful disregard for his life. Personally I feel he had earned such disregard but you clearly know that being left in the snow can lead to death from exposure. Use of lethal force does not have to end in someone's death for example a drug dealer trying to get close enough to me to engage in hand to hand when faced with lethal force ( I put my hand on my firearm) suddenly became a sprinting pacifist. I consider that use of lethal force to avoid violence.

JeffBC -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/19/2014 3:24:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Then you did. Fair enough. quote: Personally I feel he had earned such disregard I do too. I'm not sure the law would agree though. And even if it did, maybe I just like beating up on drunks at 1am? Maybe I just got scared by some poor innocent guy who frightened me in the scary dark? To everyone but me it'd be just another stand your ground case to be debated back and forth. As it pertains to this thread, clearly while I identify as "liberal" I do not share with that ideology this idea that all human life is precious. Even so I couldn't answer the questions because I'd need to know a lot more than "I was protecting personal property" before I could decide if I wanted to kill someone over it. Some guy steals my bic lighter (HAH! I don't smoke as of a year and change) off the counter I'm unlikely to want to apply lethal force... or honestly get my lazy ass out of the chair to chase him down. Some guy is pouring gasoline all over my house waving around a torch? No question.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/19/2014 4:51:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Then you did. Fair enough. quote: Personally I feel he had earned such disregard I do too. I'm not sure the law would agree though. And even if it did, maybe I just like beating up on drunks at 1am? Maybe I just got scared by some poor innocent guy who frightened me in the scary dark? To everyone but me it'd be just another stand your ground case to be debated back and forth. As it pertains to this thread, clearly while I identify as "liberal" I do not share with that ideology this idea that all human life is precious. Even so I couldn't answer the questions because I'd need to know a lot more than "I was protecting personal property" before I could decide if I wanted to kill someone over it. Some guy steals my bic lighter (HAH! I don't smoke as of a year and change) off the counter I'm unlikely to want to apply lethal force... or honestly get my lazy ass out of the chair to chase him down. Some guy is pouring gasoline all over my house waving around a torch? No question. If he asks me for I lighter I'd most likely give him one. If he told me to give it to him or else then it is no longer about the lighter. But if he pulled a knife on me and demanded that I give him the lighter and I shot him for pulling the knife we would be hearing on here that I shot him because he wanted a lighter.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/20/2014 5:41:04 AM)
Lest there be any confusion not killing is better than killing In the example I gave earlier just scaring him off was best all around. I didn't have to kill. I didn't get hurt. Kill him it gets forgotten in a couple of months Having him scared to get close to my property is a deterrent for much longer. By now he probably escaped with his life after I gunned down two of his friends after all he has to come up with a reason to be afraid of my yard that doesn't make him look bad.

graceadieu -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/20/2014 10:04:43 PM)
I'm not clear on the distinction between "prevent" bodily harm and "protect" oneself from attack. If bodily harm is imminent, if violent attack is happening and unavoidable, then yes to both. But deadly force should be a last resort, if running away or handing over material goods is not an option. And even then, scaring them off or injuring them into compliance is better than killing them, if possible.

SadistDave -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 3:06:31 AM)
Frankly, I think we should shoot more fucking criminals. Every item on the poll is a crime. I have no problem with people killing violent criminals (like Trayvon Martin) when they viciously attack people. If someone means to do you bodily harm or to kill you, you should have the right to protect yourself. Having the right to kill someone isn't a requirement to kill someone though, by any means. If a woman is perfectly fine with being raped in the hopes that justice will eventually be done.... well, that's her call and she will just have to live with any physical and psycological damage she may suffer for willfully engaging in a little non-consentual rough sex with a stranger. On the other hand, if a woman doesn't particularly want to be raped I'm all for her using any and all means at hand to protect herself. If she can live with killing someone who is attacking her.... highball! Property crimes like theft and trespassing I think are a little subjective, but as a whole I'm all for deadly force for any felony being committed against a citizen. If someone is protecting their property and it would be a felony to steal it or destroy it, I'm sort of fine with deadly force there too. I just don't give a fuck about criminals. People who act outside the law should not be more protected by it than the people they commit crimes against. -SD-

DianeB269 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 6:54:44 AM)
If someone kicks in my front door at 2am, I would use deadly force...

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 6:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There seems to be some differences of opinion on when deadly force is justified and when it is not. This is with any weapon from gun to knife to cast iron skillet. So, people, in the words of a wise man, put your money where your mouth is. Multiple choices allowed. Can you add "All of the above?"

graceadieu -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 7:02:30 AM)
I am amazed at how lightly some people seem to view ending another person's life, and also risking their own. Life is precious and short. Do you really want human blood, another person's life, on your hands, if you can easily avoid it? Do you value your own life so little that you're willing to risk it fighting over replaceable stuff? If somebody looks scary to you and is not attacking you, don't follow them and start a fight with them just because they seem like a "violent criminal". If they are actually a violent criminal, you're being totally stupid and risking your own life, and if they're not, you've murdered an innocent person. If somebody wants your wallet, man, it's not worth risking your life fighting over it. Cancel your credit cards and let them keep the $40 in cash you had in there.

PeonForHer -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 7:28:44 AM)
It's all the slavering over what people would do with, say, an intruder, that gets me. It smacks too much of joyful aggression dressed up as righteous defence - so many 'solutions', in other words, waiting in eager anticipation of the problem one day coming along to fit them.

Zonie63 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 7:41:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It's all the slavering over what people would do with, say, an intruder, that gets me. It smacks too much of joyful aggression dressed up as righteous defence - so many 'solutions', in other words, waiting in eager anticipation of the problem one day coming along to fit them. [image]http://togif.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/goahead.gif[/image]

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 8:48:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It's all the slavering over what people would do with, say, an intruder, that gets me. It smacks too much of joyful aggression dressed up as righteous defence - so many 'solutions', in other words, waiting in eager anticipation of the problem one day coming along to fit them. That is like saying that using my seatbelt is slavering for a car wreck Or working out in advance the best way to get out of a fire means you are waiting for a house fire with eager anticipation

Musicmystery -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 8:53:49 AM)
It really isn't. That's your propensity for extremes.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 8:59:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It really isn't. That's your propensity for extremes. And you promised to put me on hide.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 9:05:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It really isn't. That's your propensity for extremes. Saying I want to shoot someone isn't extreme but saying I just want to be prepared as I would for other situations is?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875