Justified use of deadly force

Justified use of deadly force (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

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

jlf1961 -> Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 11:52:12 AM)
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.

MercTech -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 1:16:35 PM)
I always remember the standing orders to armed guards in the military. C. Deadly force is to be used only when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed, and reasonably appears necessary for one or more of the following purposes: 1. when a person poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm either to law enforcement and security personnel or to other persons in the vicinity; 2. to prevent the commission of a serious offense involving an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; 3. to prevent theft or sabotage of an asset vital to national security; 4. to prevent the theft or sabotage of property that, in the hands of an unauthorized person, would create an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; 5. to prevent the sabotage of national critical infrastructure; 6. to arrest or apprehend a person who, there is probable cause to believe, has committed a serious offense involving an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; 7. to prevent the escape of a prisoner whom there is probable cause to believe: has committed or attempted to commit a serious offense involving an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

kdsub -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 1:32:51 PM)
You should have put never up there... Deadly force is never justified when there is an alternative. Defending ones self and family is the only reason in my opinion you listed where it could be justified and even then not always a reason for deadly force unless there is no other alternative. Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 1:55:18 PM)
I cant help but notice there are a lot of votes, but only two comments.

stef -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 1:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I cant help but notice there are a lot of votes, but only two comments. It's a shame your awesome powers of observation are wasted on a bsdm forum when they could be serving the greater good.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:00:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I cant help but notice there are a lot of votes, but only two comments. Engaging with gundiots and expecting intellectually honest discourse is a fool's errand.

crazyml -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:16:42 PM)
The question is flawed, as kdsub pointed out.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:20:06 PM)
No comment!! [:D]

FelineRanger -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Engaging with gundiots and expecting intellectually honest discourse is a fool's errand. And that comment is any better? To me the poll actually looks poorly constructed because there is too much crossover between the choices. One situation could all too easily include most, if not all the options. I think the options would have been better constructed with a brief hypothetical situation and "Is lethal force justified" at the end.

Owner59 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:28:39 PM)
I`m still ok with the no retreat rule....that says if you can retreat instead of shoot,that`s what you do. As well,the no back shooting rule,that says if an attacker/theif is running/moving away.you can`t shoot them. If the gunnteria didn`t take SYG out of the castle where it belongs,and out into the public street,anywhere an eager shooter(zimmerman) wants that "ground" to be,we would definitely have less killing of innocents.

jlf1961 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:30:47 PM)
Actually, I am going recalling various threads where people have said, "why didn't the witnesses do something?" Given the average response time for police, while calling the police would be a start, what do you do in the mean time? I have heard anti gun people scream that someone should have stopped a violent crime in progress, but when a gun is used to stop a violent crime, suddenly the shooter is the bad guy. I am sorry, but stopping a violent crime by walking up and saying, "Pardon me, would you please stop, I have notified the police, and you should wait over there." is not going to work. Speaking for myself, if I am not carrying my pistol, and I see a violent crime in progress, I have a crowbar, tire iron, and a couple other items either in the bed of my truck or in the tool box and somebody is going to have some broken bones if not out right killed by blunt force trauma. And I I am carrying a gun, and I kill the attacker, and some asshat screams I should be convicted of murder, that is one person that, should the same happen to them, I will wave and keep going. We live in a violent world, humanity has not evolved to the point of non violence. In fact, based on crime reports, we have evolved to co come up with new and more creative ways to do bodily harm. Two teenage girls forcing an autistic child to perform sex acts on a dog. All the female members of a family murdered and the father surviving by shear dumb luck. A kid set on fire for kicks. And then people are against the ownership of guns, killing in self defense, or turning a dog loose on an intruder. Humanity is not getting more civilized and taking guns away from private citizens will just increase the number of people killed by other people.

PeonForHer -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:41:23 PM)
Yep, I'm with kdsub and crazyml: the question is flawed. Tne fundamental principle in my book would be about the need to use a gun, not about whether one has a right to use it.

LadyPact -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:45:13 PM)
Believe it or not, I actually do agree that "never" should have been one of the choices. I honestly believe that some folks would never kill another human being, even if it meant losing their own life. Personally, My choices were the following: Prevent a rape - To Me, that includes My own or anyone's. Prevent bodily injury to self or family member - Without doubt. Protect home from intruders - If a person is in the door, they have advanced enough. Protect self from armed attack - Let's just say I'm not much of a gambler. Protect self from attack - I stand all of 5'2". That means the odds of Me winning at hand to hand are pretty slim. The other choices I'd only do under certain circumstances. Things like I know the individual and already know that person is a threat.

Phydeaux -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:46:40 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 a gun, not about whether one has a right to use it. Just because the question doesn't ask what you want doesn't make it flawed. Other people thoughts that are relevant and interesting even if they don't meet your standard of excellence. Personally, I find the requirement that an armed person must retreat in the presence of crime to be repugnant. So you are a 90 lb woman, armed with a gun, watching a 200 lb man rape someone else. You are morally obligated to retreat instead of intervening? Thank GOD we ended that stupidity.

jlf1961 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:48:38 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 a gun, not about whether one has a right to use it. Since when is a gun the only deadly force around? For that matter, where did I say the use of a gun, I said "deadly force." I know of at least four people locally who could pretty much kill you with their bare hands without breaking a sweat. I know that a crowbar striking a person's skull can be instantly fatal, as can a tire iron, ball bat, and a length of pipe. Then a screw driver is pretty damn good at punching holes in people, and hitting the right spot would be easily fatal. I also forgot to mention I carry an axe and hatchet as well as a machete in my truck, which is not unusual around here. Add to that the lock blade knife I carry on my belt.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 2:53:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, I am going recalling various threads where people have said, "why didn't the witnesses do something?" Given the average response time for police, while calling the police would be a start, what do you do in the mean time? Shit police force. Simple! Use the profit from gun sales to hire more police and wheels. Or better still, eradicate guns and you won't need to face that problem. Even better [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I have heard anti gun people scream that someone should have stopped a violent crime in progress, but when a gun is used to stop a violent crime, suddenly the shooter is the bad guy. Compared to where the instigator of the crime is the shooter, I think this scenario is quite rare. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I am sorry, but stopping a violent crime by walking up and saying, "Pardon me, would you please stop, I have notified the police, and you should wait over there." is not going to work. Speaking for myself, if I am not carrying my pistol, and I see a violent crime in progress, I have a crowbar, tire iron, and a couple other items either in the bed of my truck or in the tool box and somebody is going to have some broken bones if not out right killed by blunt force trauma. And I think you'd be justified IMHO. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And I I am carrying a gun, and I kill the attacker, and some asshat screams I should be convicted of murder, that is one person that, should the same happen to them, I will wave and keep going. Isn't it said that discretion is the better part of valour?? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 We live in a violent world, humanity has not evolved to the point of non violence. In fact, based on crime reports, we have evolved to co come up with new and more creative ways to do bodily harm. Very true. But.... only in the US are there several orders of magnitude of deaths by gun than anywhere else in the world. Food for thought?? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Two teenage girls forcing an autistic child to perform sex acts on a dog. All the female members of a family murdered and the father surviving by shear dumb luck. A kid set on fire for kicks. Just sick fucks. Seriously sick mofo's. Every society has a bunch of those somewhere. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And then people are against the ownership of guns, killing in self defense, or turning a dog loose on an intruder. Dog, yes. Deadly force by gun?? Absolutely not. Never. Not warranted nor justified, ever. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Humanity is not getting more civilized and taking guns away from private citizens will just increase the number of people killed by other people. Compare the US gun deaths per capita with everywhere else in the world. Remove the guns and you'd be on par with other 1st-world countries. With the number of gundiots lurking all over the US, it's a recipe for daily disaster - as the stats clearly show.

crazyml -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 3:06:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux 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 a gun, not about whether one has a right to use it. Just because the question doesn't ask what you want doesn't make it flawed. Actually, it does. This is meant to be a poll. Polls are intended to garner people's views. That is the whole point of a poll. The questions are flawed in that they are destined to fail to garner everyone's views. quote: Other people thoughts that are relevant and interesting even if they don't meet your standard of excellence. I'm quite sure that neither I nor peon implied anything like this. Would you mind pointing out what brought you to this misunderstanding. In fact the opposite is true. Different views and opinions are all valuable. And it is a shame that the questions, as asked, make it impossible for people who might hold differing views to you are prevented from making a contribution which I am sure stands a chance of being as useful as yours. quote: Personally, I find the requirement that an armed person must retreat in the presence of crime to be repugnant. Personally, I find the notion that an armed person should be allowed to execute anyone for any crime to be repugnant. Oh no... wait... you don't actually mean that do you? You elaborate.... quote: So you are a 90 lb woman, armed with a gun, watching a 200 lb man rape someone else. You are morally obligated to retreat instead of intervening? Thank GOD we ended that stupidity. Now you're changing the questions. This is a poll, with a set of questions. They've already been set. To posit another question in the middle of the thread is absurd. In a way, by "enhancing" the question, you've proved the point we were trying to make. Thank-you so much.

PeonForHer -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 3:09:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Since when is a gun the only deadly force around? For that matter, where did I say the use of a gun, I said "deadly force." Good point - you didn't mention guns. So I'll modify my response to: "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." In a lot of the situations where one has a 'right' to use deadly force, there's also a need to use it, and vice versa. But 'needs' puts a different slant on the question and, to my mind, focuses it better. Here in the UK, for instance, the general principle is that one use the minimum necessary force and inflict the least injury required in order to prevent a harm.

crazyml -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 3:12:14 PM)
[ED to fix idiotic quoting on my part - Thank-goodness I changed it before a gun toting crazy popped a cap in me for harshing his/her online experience] quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I am sorry, but stopping a violent crime by walking up and saying, "Pardon me, would you please stop, I have notified the police, and you should wait over there." is not going to work. Actually, it's worked a treat for me on a fair old number of occasions. quote: Speaking for myself, if I am not carrying my pistol, and I see a violent crime in progress, I have a crowbar, tire iron, and a couple other items either in the bed of my truck or in the tool box and somebody is going to have some broken bones if not out right killed by blunt force trauma. And I I am carrying a gun, and I kill the attacker, and some asshat screams I should be convicted of murder, that is one person that, should the same happen to them, I will wave and keep going. Ah... so your principled stand is dependent on the gratitude of the person you're helping? That doesn't seem quite as noble. quote: We live in a violent world, humanity has not evolved to the point of non violence. In fact, based on crime reports, we have evolved to co come up with new and more creative ways to do bodily harm. Two teenage girls forcing an autistic child to perform sex acts on a dog. All the female members of a family murdered and the father surviving by shear dumb luck. A kid set on fire for kicks. Yes, some fucking horrid things happen (with or without the involvement of firearms). quote: And then people are against the ownership of guns, killing in self defense, or turning a dog loose on an intruder. Humanity is not getting more civilized and taking guns away from private citizens will just increase the number of people killed by other people. Oh.... no wait... is this about gun ownership again? Haven't we had one or two gun ownership threads before. I thought this was going to be a discussion about if/when it would be justified to use deadly force. Never mind.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Justified use of deadly force (3/17/2014 3:14:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Personally, I find the requirement that an armed person must retreat in the presence of crime to be repugnant. So you are a 90 lb woman, armed with a gun, watching a 200 lb man rape someone else. You are morally obligated to retreat instead of intervening? And since when were you appointed judge, jury and executioner of justice?? [8\|] Discretion is the better part of valour. Phone the police on your cell phone. Let them deal with the incident. It's not your problem. [ETA: There's far too many gun-toting self-appointed asshats doing this shit already] quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Personally, I find the notion that an armed person should be allowed to execute anyone for any crime to be repugnant. I quite concur with that idea. [:)]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.09375