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

MasterCaneman -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 9:21:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu 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. Hmmm, I carry an licensed pistol just about every time I walk out the door, yet I don't seem to recall ever thinking that I'm looking forward to 'ending another person's life'. My weapon is present to stop someone from assaulting, robbing, or killing me for what I have. I don't fantasize about shooting and killing people. I know what happens afterward. Issuing a blanket statement that it's 'wrong' to defend yourself is in itself wrong. We all have the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and mine is staying above ground and in one piece, more or less. And if it's necessary to protect me and mine, I have no problem with pulling a trigger again, and can say with all sincerity that all I'll feel is recoil. Edited to remove an incident in the past I do not feel appropriate to discuss on a public forum.

Musicmystery -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 9:22:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It really isn't. That's your propensity for extremes. And you promised to put me on hide. See, you really can't read. No such promise. I said it was a good idea.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 9:26:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It really isn't. That's your propensity for extremes. And you promised to put me on hide. See, you really can't read. No such promise. I said it was a good idea. My mistake I thought a person as brilliant as you would follow up on a good idea.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 9:30:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu 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. Does this mean I can't "reasonably" defend until they shoot at me or stab me? Not trying to be snarky but what, in your mind justifies self defense?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 9:49:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Does this mean I can't "reasonably" defend until they shoot at me or stab me? Not trying to be snarky but what, in your mind justifies self defense? No, it means when they make that final lunge at you or just that fraction of a second before they pull their trigger - not just because they are being threatening with a gun or still more than one pace away from you holding a knife. I think what others are suggesting is that you appear to be a little hasty in when to make that final judgement call. You always seem to suggest that you have to kill them first or they automatically get first strike/shot. What we are saying is there is always that split-second before that happens is when you shoot, not before and obviously not after. You don't seem to be able to make that sort of very fine judgement. And in all the threads where you seem to side with the shooter, there always seems to be a more defensive action or scare tactic they could have taken rather than shoot the person in a deadly fashion.

Musicmystery -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 9:52:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It really isn't. That's your propensity for extremes. And you promised to put me on hide. See, you really can't read. No such promise. I said it was a good idea. My mistake I thought a person as brilliant as you would follow up on a good idea. Nothing's stopping you from hitting "hide" either. It was your idea, after all.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 10:23:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Does this mean I can't "reasonably" defend until they shoot at me or stab me? Not trying to be snarky but what, in your mind justifies self defense? No, it means when they make that final lunge at you or just that fraction of a second before they pull their trigger - not just because they are being threatening with a gun or still more than one pace away from you holding a knife. I think what others are suggesting is that you appear to be a little hasty in when to make that final judgement call. You always seem to suggest that you have to kill them first or they automatically get first strike/shot. What we are saying is there is always that split-second before that happens is when you shoot, not before and obviously not after. You don't seem to be able to make that sort of very fine judgement. And in all the threads where you seem to side with the shooter, there always seems to be a more defensive action or scare tactic they could have taken rather than shoot the person in a deadly fashion. Actually I have pointed out that in real life situations I have had to make those very decisions and by making them understand that I am as fully capable of dealing out deadly force as they are AVOIDED violence by waiting as long as you, with only theory to lean on, I would have let them decide to push it over that boundary and been forced into violence.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 10:24:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It really isn't. That's your propensity for extremes. And you promised to put me on hide. See, you really can't read. No such promise. I said it was a good idea. My mistake I thought a person as brilliant as you would follow up on a good idea. Nothing's stopping you from hitting "hide" either. It was your idea, after all. So you can snark all you want without any backtalk from me?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 10:31:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Actually I have pointed out that in real life situations I have had to make those very decisions and by making them understand that I am as fully capable of dealing out deadly force as they are AVOIDED violence by waiting as long as you, with only theory to lean on, I would have let them decide to push it over that boundary and been forced into violence. Perhaps you can explain why then, when given various scenarios in the news where there is pretty much always a way out but the shooter did the dumb-ass thing and killed an innocent person, that you almost always defend the shooter?? [8\|] And, as we have seen, they often come up with some excuse under the asinine SYG laws and walk away with it?? All too often we see this in the news where, as far as I'm concerned, a murderer walks free or isn't even prosecuted.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 10:33:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Actually I have pointed out that in real life situations I have had to make those very decisions and by making them understand that I am as fully capable of dealing out deadly force as they are AVOIDED violence by waiting as long as you, with only theory to lean on, I would have let them decide to push it over that boundary and been forced into violence. Perhaps you can explain why then, when given various scenarios news where there is pretty much always a way out but the shooter did the dumb-ass thing and killed an innocent person, that you almost always defend the shooter?? [8\|] And, as we have seen, they often come up with some excuse under the asinine SYG laws and walk away with it?? All too often we see this is the news where, as far as I'm concerned, a murderer walks free or isn't even prosecuted. You mistake imperfect tactics for criminal behavior.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 10:37:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Actually I have pointed out that in real life situations I have had to make those very decisions and by making them understand that I am as fully capable of dealing out deadly force as they are AVOIDED violence by waiting as long as you, with only theory to lean on, I would have let them decide to push it over that boundary and been forced into violence. Perhaps you can explain why then, when given various scenarios news where there is pretty much always a way out but the shooter did the dumb-ass thing and killed an innocent person, that you almost always defend the shooter?? [8\|] And, as we have seen, they often come up with some excuse under the asinine SYG laws and walk away with it?? All too often we see this is the news where, as far as I'm concerned, a murderer walks free or isn't even prosecuted. You mistake imperfect tactics for criminal behavior. No, I mistake a murderer being let to walk free under stupid laws when they should be hanged or at least tried for manslaughter if nothing else. Your sig line sums you up very nicely "God created man, Colonel Colt made them equal". Typical pro-gun nutter who takes the extreme position and usually takes the shooter's side.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 10:46:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Actually I have pointed out that in real life situations I have had to make those very decisions and by making them understand that I am as fully capable of dealing out deadly force as they are AVOIDED violence by waiting as long as you, with only theory to lean on, I would have let them decide to push it over that boundary and been forced into violence. Perhaps you can explain why then, when given various scenarios news where there is pretty much always a way out but the shooter did the dumb-ass thing and killed an innocent person, that you almost always defend the shooter?? [8\|] And, as we have seen, they often come up with some excuse under the asinine SYG laws and walk away with it?? All too often we see this is the news where, as far as I'm concerned, a murderer walks free or isn't even prosecuted. You mistake imperfect tactics for criminal behavior. No, I mistake a murderer being let to walk free under stupid laws when they should be hanged or at least tried for manslaughter if nothing else. Your sig line sums you up very nicely "God created man, Colonel Colt made them equal". Typical pro-gun nutter who takes the extreme position and usually takes the shooter's side. Gun nutter how open minded of you. We disagree so I think you are wrong. We disagree so you say I am nuts, who is taking the extreme position?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 10:52:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Gun nutter how open minded of you. We disagree so I think you are wrong. We disagree so you say I am nuts, who is taking the extreme position? Check the stats for gun deaths of the US and the UK. Now tell me who is living in a psychopathic gun-nutters society.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 11:05:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Gun nutter how open minded of you. We disagree so I think you are wrong. We disagree so you say I am nuts, who is taking the extreme position? Check the stats for gun deaths of the US and the UK. Now tell me who is living in a psychopathic gun-nutters society. Are you saying that the fact that I know your murder rate which was always far lower than ours has not been affected by gun laws while our murder rate has dropped precipitously without them makes me a psychopath?

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 11:18:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Does this mean I can't "reasonably" defend until they shoot at me or stab me? Not trying to be snarky but what, in your mind justifies self defense? No, it means when they make that final lunge at you or just that fraction of a second before they pull their trigger - not just because they are being threatening with a gun or still more than one pace away from you holding a knife. I think what others are suggesting is that you appear to be a little hasty in when to make that final judgement call. You always seem to suggest that you have to kill them first or they automatically get first strike/shot. What we are saying is there is always that split-second before that happens is when you shoot, not before and obviously not after. You don't seem to be able to make that sort of very fine judgement. And in all the threads where you seem to side with the shooter, there always seems to be a more defensive action or scare tactic they could have taken rather than shoot the person in a deadly fashion. If you wait till their finger is tightening on the trigger you get shot even if you shoot them. If you wait till they charge or start slashing with a knife you get cut even if you shoot them. Doesn't it make sense to let them know that it is going to cost them big time if they go that route. Doesn't it make sense to take action if, when advised of the cost, they persist? I have repeatedly AVOIDED violence by making they aware of the cost.

lovmuffin -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 11:48:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Does this mean I can't "reasonably" defend until they shoot at me or stab me? Not trying to be snarky but what, in your mind justifies self defense? No, it means when they make that final lunge at you or just that fraction of a second before they pull their trigger - not just because they are being threatening with a gun or still more than one pace away from you holding a knife. I'm not sure how you would know the split second when a threatening person with a gun is going to shoot you. If he is threatening, has a gun and goes for it or starts to point it at you, ya take em out. You don't try to determine the split second time frame he's going to pull the trigger. Where are you coming up with that ? The knife, that's a maybe but even then if the guy is 5 paces away and starts coming at you, what would you think his intent is ? Some people are crazy like that, especially if you're holding a gun. More than 5 paces you could point your gun and may have time for a verbal warning but if he keeps coming you're probably going to shoot. Of course the armed attacker scenerio doesn't really compare to the shooting incidents we've been discussing on these threads and forgive me if I don't take your tactical advice.

Musicmystery -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 11:56:33 AM)
A lot of the disputed shootings involve someone without a firearm. I certainly take your point if it's a shoot-out. But otherwise, while granting you may not know whether he's packing, the later point is more common in these factors. And sometimes it can't be avoided. Locally, a woman high on bath salts, with a history of drug abuse, tried to knife her dog, strangle her kid, and was crazed on the village streets. Deputies tried to control the situation, but she kept attacking, so they tazed her, and called an ambulance. In her already challenged state, she died at the hospital. This is, while unfortunate, an appropriate use of deterrent force by the officers, who did try to diffuse the situation as peacefully as they could.

PeonForHer -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 12:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 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 If I'd ever seen a thread on here about comparing seat belts, with pictures of each poster's seat belt, demonstrating the lovingly-detailed stitching of each and general craftsmanship, along with comments like 'Mine can hold a force 50/500/500 Gs, what can yours hold?' . . . I might agree that yours is a fair comparison. And if you and others were once to talk about your guns as ugly things that do an ugly, but occasionally necessary, job (let alone the ugliest of all jobs - as I see it) . . . my opinion might alter.

BamaD -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 1:30:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 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 If I'd ever seen a thread on here about comparing seat belts, with pictures of each poster's seat belt, demonstrating the lovingly-detailed stitching of each and general craftsmanship, along with comments like 'Mine can hold a force 50/500/500 Gs, what can yours hold?' . . . I might agree that yours is a fair comparison. And if you and others were once to talk about your guns as ugly things that do an ugly, but occasionally necessary, job (let alone the ugliest of all jobs - as I see it) . . . my opinion might alter. So you see that I am right except for my failure to hold firearms in the same distain you do. Well that is something.

JeffBC -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/21/2014 1:34:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So you see that I am right except for my failure to hold firearms in the same distain you do. Well that is something. I disagree. I'm pretty content with calling American culture highly violent. It shows up pretty much everywhere including our mass media. Peon's characterization of "slavering" is perhaps unflattering but not without merit. Of course, that's pretty much entirely orthogonal to a discussion of guns. Adding or removing guns won't change that attribute of our culture. Aswad made a similar comment. There was a thread where some person had done something horrendous and everyone wanted to <insert horrific torture here>. His comment was simply that the root of the problem seemed to be demonstrated in the very thread discussing it. We're down with torture. We allow our government to do it. We fantasize about it ourselves.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Spam Policy

6.298828E-02