The use of deadly force....

[JediAthos]

I submit this to you for consideration on this topic: In the military we constantly go through training for use of deadly force. One of the things that is listed as justification for the use of deadly force is: " To prevent serious offenses against persons that involve an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (E.G. murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault)."

 

Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but to me repeated physical abuse is serious bodily harm. So, I would say that on the topic of abuse in most cases, not always, but in most cases the abuser is more powerful than the victim or holds power over the victim and if deadly force is the only way the victim can fight back, I think that it is more than justified.

[Prime]

So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?

Doesn't it?

[Cygnus Q'ol]

So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?

 

If it's a matter of my life being threatened,

YES, everything flies out the window, including the head of who's threatening me or my family.

[Prime]

It would certainly be the natural reaction.

[JediMaster12]

I see that there is some agreement that it is a matter of survival when our lives are being threatened. My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?

[Mace MacLeod]

I see that there is some agreement that it is a matter of survival when our lives are being threatened. My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?

When there's no clear and present danger to justify actually taking someone's life.

 

So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?[/Quote]Yeah, pretty much. If I ever thought that a situation became Me or You or My Family or You, you're as good as cat food. And I actually like you. But yes, if I ever thought that you represented a life or death threat to me or anyone I care deeply about, I'd cut your throat or snap your neck without even thinking twice. I'd never feel guilty, I'd never weep for the loved ones you left behind, and I'd never lose a single night's sleep over killing you. I'd have done what I had to do, and that would be the end of it.

[Emperor Devon]

My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?

 

If it staves off imminent danger, it's defense.

 

@Mace, that's certainly an interesting example.

[Jae Onasi]

If it staves off imminent danger, it's defense.

 

@Mace, that's certainly an interesting example.

 

When you have kids, somehow a little switch gets implanted in you if you're not normally the aggressive type. It's the 'Kill and Maim if They Mess With My Kids' switch. Normally I'm of the same opinion of my TKD master--'the best way not to get hit is to not be there'. I'd rather talk someone down or walk away than fight them, and I don't care if it means a drunk gets away with calling me an a--hole at a bar. So they were stupid and called me a name. Big fat hairy deal. It's not worth a fight.

 

Now, if someone tries to mess with my kids, the switch gets flipped, and I've found myself in a couple of people's faces with the 'You want a piece of me?!?' attitude almost before I realized what was happening. It was a surreal experience. What was really crazy is that both times they were men who were taller than me, and they were the ones that backed down. I don't know if it's because I looked crazy or scary or outweighed them or a combo of that or what, but as long as my kids were safe, I don't really care what they thought of me. If my _only_ choice was my children dying or the attacker dying, the attacker would be dead as quickly as I could make him.

 

Usually, though, it's not the only choice; there are oftentimes alternatives.

[JediMaster12]

I can understand the switch on the need to protect the kids. I'm 21 and my mom still protects me. I can see that the use of violence can be used as a means to do defend oneself. Thankfully I haven't had the need to do so yet.

As to the moral question I asked earlier the reason being was that I was thinking of a scenario that was portrayed on CSI with the airliner and all the passengers in first class killed that one guy. Grissom pointed something out interesting though, no one stopped to ask if the guy was all right. I can justify using violence to bring down someone enough so that you can get away but to keep at it and eventually end up killing them, that I think crosses a line.

[Bimmerman]

Here in Colorado we have a "make my day law" where if you are on your own property and have been threatened, and feel that your life is in danger you are legally allowed to use whatever force is necessary to subdue your assailant, even deadly.

[Emperor Devon]

Now, if someone tries to mess with my kids, the switch gets flipped, and I've found myself in a couple of people's faces with the 'You want a piece of me?!?' attitude almost before I realized what was happening. It was a surreal experience. What was really crazy is that both times they were men who were taller than me, and they were the ones that backed down. {snip}

 

Not surprising. Natural instincts are quite strong. I've read some stories about what mothers can do for their kids, (such as lifting up a car) and it's quite extraordinary.

 

I'd actually beeen refering to how Mace was using JM12 in his example, btw.

[JediMaster12]

Oh I guess I better hide then if Mace wants to do that if I became a threat to his survival. Nice to see that you like me Mace. I am sorry if I am being persistent on the moral factor because you all are quick to say yes I will use violence to protect myself if necessary. Sometimes the need to stop and think about what you are about to do is a necessary. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that maybe you should stop and really think about it. It would be something that you would have to live with for the rest of your life.

[Dark_Lady]

Oh yes. When someone slams you with a baseball bat and then lifts it up to give you another blow, that's not exactly the perfect time to start contemplating the mysteries of life. I agree that we should use judgement, but every person has a right to protect himself. If you beat the guy and he starts running or is knocked out, then call the police.

[JediMaster12]

That was not my intention Dark Lady. I meant in terms of your response here on this thread. As to the rest of your post, I agree that you should exert enough force to get away and then get help.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

We are discussing deadly force here, aren't we.

 

Whacking a person with a bat is hardly deadly, unless you're Albert Pujols or Robert Deniro in " The Untouchables".

 

This would be more about weapons wouldn't it?

 

You're dseperately trying to stave off an abduction in a parking lot or your dark garage and you have one brief opportunity to reach your pistola and in a moment of emminent peril, you fire and kill him.

That's self defense.

 

A group of hooded figures spooks you while walking alone on a dark night and you whip out and start firing...

That's something different.

 

Of coures for Jae, this is different.

Her hands and feet are registered in Madison as lethal weapons.

[Darth_Velrogh]

Yes it is right to use force to kill somebody in self-defense and for me also when its not in self defense >.

 

Is it moral? Nah, but as far has i'm concerned, is anything but breathing moral? And I don't really think morality is such a big deal.

 

and no, it does make you better than the attacker if you actually defeat him. It proves your more powerfull than him.

 

The strongest survives in this dog eat dog world! If you think i'm mean then you wouldn't last long in star wars universe

[Balderdash]

If your life is not in any danger, then you're walking a fine line between victim and vigilante, and then the morality of your choices is in question. But if it's a case of your your life or your attackers, then you have to say yes, it is acceptable (not only acceptable but necessary).

 

Victims of physical abuse / violence, I would say have the right to use any means at their disposal. It's a no-brainer really. As long as it's self defense, and not an eye for an eye.

[Dark_Lady]

Sorry if I sounded snappy, JediMaster12, nothing personal. I just grew up in a rotten neighborhood, so I've had friends who were severely injured by this kind of stuff, and I was attacked once myself. I have a tendency to go overboard on self-defense issues. And, Cygnus, whacking somone with a baseball bat can be deadly, especially if you do it again, and again, and again.

[El Sitherino]

I see no reason why anyone would be against the use of deadly force.

 

Should it be first reaction in defense? Certainly not.

But, if death is the only means to prevent someone from doing you (or those you care about) harm, I see no issue.

[JediMaster12]

No harm Dark Lady. I went to a school where I witnessed fights at lunch that were not deadly but very harmful. My brother went to a school where they sent all the juve kids. Dog eat world if you ask me. The only way to distinuish us as people who try to do right from those that revel in harming is morals. Yes I would defend myself, it's what I was taught. I was taught to hurt them enough to get away and call for help. If it has to I probably would pull the trigger if they were still coming at me.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Don't get me wrong M'Lady. I'm not defending attackers.

 

I think the subject has grey area because there is a grey area between our perception of life threatening and whether it is actually life threatening.

 

Somethings start out non-life threatening and then esculate into a more serious situation.

 

Of course, if you're the one under attack it becomes much more difficult to assess this. In this arena, it's better to err on the side of caution.

 

{safety off, aim, squeeze...}

[JediMaster12]

Probably you are right Cygnus. I am just in the habit of asking those questions that are overlook or persist to get a real answer. This really is a shade of grey because it is based on perception and most of us know that truth is relative.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Yes Master, you are excellent at pulling the core of the idea out of us.

Sometimes persisting on a topic or playing Devil's Advocate adds greatly to the conversation.

 

You truly are a master.

 

I didn't want Dark Lady to think I was insensitive to her opinion.

I was just eluding to the fact that a gun and a bat are two different weapons.

 

But, she's right, both can be deadly.

[JediMaster12]

Well not a master...yet. I am still four maybe 6 years away from obtaining masterhood (Ph.D). Right now I am just a padawan.

I don't think you insensitive to opinions. Everyone has them. It is just a matter of tact when presenting it. I believe the other topic concerning religion is a good practice because it is a sensitive subject.

 

As to your comment, yes both can be deadly. In fact anything can be turned into a weapon. Just last night on the news there was a report about someone being arrested for assault with a deadly weapon when a customer flung a cup of hot coffee at the cashier at a fast food place. I think it was McDonalds. Yes a deadly weapon since that coffee is heated to approximately 170-180 degrees Farenhiet (excuse spelling). That is enough to cause serious injury. I have been burnt by the hot water that is the same temp and used for tea and hot chocolate at my weekend job at Burger King.

[Totenkopf]

I'd say, yeah. If someone thinks they can keep beating you with impunity than you may have to use deadly force the next time they attack you. However, how many times have they done so? If they were sober, then perhaps they never intended to kill you. If so, is it then moral to kill them when you could just maim/incapcitate them and run like hell? If a battered person killed someone while in the process of being beaten by them (yet again), I wouldn't think twice about mitigating circumstances being allowable. If, on the other hand, they waited till the assailant was asleep or in the tub (man, electrocution burns...), that's different.