To Kill or Not to Kill

[7starmantis]

I was thinking the other day about a situation I was in a few years back. I had been jumped by two guys who jumped into my car and tried to I guess beat me up and take the car. Anyways, they beat on me for a good 5 or 6 min until they got tired then I got a chance and kicked one of the out of the car and got out myself, at which point they took off.
Talking to the officers later that day, I spoke to one about the concealed handgun laws in my state. I had just finished the handgun course but was not carrying at the moment. I asked if that would have qualified as a situation to use the gun and he said decisivly yes.
Upon further thought however, I don't think I would have wanted to kill either of those guys. The situation ended peacfully enough and no one got hurt too bad (I got a black eye or two). Would I have really wanted to take one of their lives for that? So I began thinking, I don't think there are many situations where I would kill a person. Of course there are those extreme cases where I would have to kill, but this lead me to ask a question.
Who here would actually take a life in a hand to hand fighting situation? Couldn't you disarm them, or control them and end it without death? I'm not talking about someone holding a gun on you from 15 feet away, I'm talki about you getting jumped and fighting hand to hand or stick or whatever.
Any thoughts?

7sm

 

[theletch1]

Is the question one of legality or one of morality? My response to this question is a different one depending on your answer to my question. The morality of the situation is that I definetly attempt to do only as much damage to my assailant as is neccesary to get myself home to my family. The legality of the situation is that we are in a lawsuit happy environment and you are probably just as well off killing an assailant as waiting around for some thug to sue you for breaking his knee or shattering his elbow while he was trying to stick a knife between your ribs and take your wallet. I don't relish the idea of taking the life of another human being but I don't know that I would lose too much sleep over putting some low life in the ground after HE PUT HIMSELF in a position to force me to do so.

 

[Ender]

The simple answer is if they pull out a weapon, you can kill them....but in reality, there are so many variables to look at. could you escape? are you killing them to punish them? was your life in danger....all these questions will come up if you do...you just have to evaluate "hurt, maim or kill"

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Did anyone ever think how easy it is to kill someone? There is little "skill" in it.

Some of us train for years so WE WONT HAVE TO in even a life-or-death situation. The real skill is not to have to hurt someone, even if they're asking for it, and to control the situation.

 

[Kirk]

If your family were in the car with you, would that change your
mind?

 

[Kingston]

Originally posted by Kirk
If your family were in the car with you, would that change your
mind?

.....im not sure what your getting at. If his family was there it would be a different scenario requireing different actions, with most likely a different result...in the situation starmantis mentioned i dont think lethal force was required.

I think lethal force should be used only when neccesary......if someone attacks your family....you have the right to defend them....but, if his family was in the car...should his first reaction be to go for the kill? I would say no..UNLESS there was a weapon which would AGAIN make it a completely different scenario.....

Lets not get into the "what if?" game.

 

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by theletch1
The legality of the situation is that we are in a lawsuit happy environment and you are probably just as well off killing an assailant as waiting around for some thug to sue you for breaking his knee or shattering his elbow while he was trying to stick a knife between your ribs and take your wallet.

I'm sorry, I can't be polite in this situation. The above statement has to be among the most god damn stupid things I have heard.

Ever hear about what really happens when you use deadly force? First of all, they run an investigation into whether or not you really were justified to use it or not. And in 99 percent of the situations, they do not release you but keep you in jail until the situation is 100 percent clear. You are looking at weeks, if not months, of time off from work, away from family and in the showers of prison.

In the movies, they immediatly give a medal to anyone who shoots a bad guy. In the movies, triple spinning back kicks are the preferred method of ending a street fight.

And I have news for you, there is no statue of limitations on murder. If you kill someone and do not go in front of a court then for the rest of your life you have to live with the fact that some DA might come after you. If you piss off an ex- girlfriend, there is always the possiblilty that she can tell the DA that you admitted something to her that will make him re-open a case. And they can hold you for a few days while the determine whether to charge you or not. This can happen to you several times during your lifetime.

And if you are worried about someone suing you, how about the relatives of the guy you killed? Remember what happened to OJ Simpson?

How about asking people who have killed what advice they have for people still living in some sort of bull#%*& macho fantasy?

And as for the idea that some people train to not have to kill someone, with all due respect- unless you have been in that situation don't pretend to speak with any amount of experience.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter
... How about asking people who have killed what advice they have for people still living in some sort of bull#%*& macho fantasy?

And as for the idea that some people train to not have to kill someone, with all due respect- unless you have been in that situation don't pretend to speak with any amount of experience.

If it isn't too personal, were YOU in this situation before.

 

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
If it isn't too personal, were YOU in this situation before.

Don't ask for details. But I know what I am talking about here.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter
Don't ask for details. But I know what I am talking about here.

That's good enough for me. :asian:


Just please understand that many police advocate killing an intruder for the above reasons. Some of us never heard the other side of the story.

 

[progressivetactics]

Ever hear about what really happens when you use deadly force? First of all, they run an investigation into whether or not you really were justified to use it or not. And in 99 percent of the situations, they do not release you but keep you in jail until the situation is 100 percent clear. You are looking at weeks, if not months, of time off from work, away from family and in the showers of prison.

Not exactly true. Maybe in your state, they hold everyone for a length of time, but more times then not...if you have a clean record, and no probably motive, you are released until needed for investigation purposes. Look at Robert Blake. He, most likely, was involved in his wife's death, and he was not HELD for almost 2 weeks after it happened. As it looked more and more probable he had a part in it, that is when they picked him up and took him in. William Shatner has probably been involved in his 2 previous wives deaths and hasn't had to spend any time in Jail (going from memory.....I believe his first wife died mysteriously).

With great power comes great responsibilty. To have the ability to take a life, and not use it is a remarkable trait. Many people couldnt take a life because of fear, or what ever reason. Dispite training.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by progressivetactics
... Many people couldnt take a life because of fear, or what ever reason. Dispite training.

I may be one of those people, unless it involved someone else in a life-threatening situation.

I'm a pacifist. Once I was confronted by a guy who had been drinking and didn't want it to escalate. I don't know why, maybe because I knew he was hesitant to really fight, but I let him hit me twice in the face, and I didn't even flinch. I remained calm and even as a pond on a windless day. I just looked at him, polite tone in my voice. He freaked out, and pretty much ran away.

I had the police handle it, and they warned him. The funny thing is the people in the neighborhood explained to him that I wouldn't hurt a fly -- that's just the way I was -- but he was lucky anyway because if I wanted to he would have been the fly and me the swatter. Later, he sincerely apologized, no hard feelings, and we went on about our lives.

Wierd reaction on my part, but I'm glad I handled it that way.

 

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by progressivetactics
Look at Robert Blake. He, most likely, was involved in his wife's death, and he was not HELD for almost 2 weeks after it happened. As it looked more and more probable he had a part in it, that is when they picked him up and took him in. William Shatner has probably been involved in his 2 previous wives deaths and hasn't had to spend any time in Jail (going from memory.....I believe his first wife died mysteriously).

Neither one of these guys were found over their wives bodies claiming they had to shoot them in self defense. If they knew that someone kills, they will lock them up until they determine that the homicide is justifiable. If they do not know for certain that the suspect killed a person (as in the cases above) they will wait until there is enough evidence to charge them. But if they do find some evidence that Robert Blake or William Shatner killed their wives, then they have thrown any chance of having it declared self defense thrown out the window. They will be facing the death penalty for cold blooded murder.

If you are have to kill a person, your best bet is to come up front and admit it. Call the police immediatly. The key word is, "I was in fear for my life." Some idiots say you should just leave the scene and never contact the police. But if they find DNA or other evidence, even if you are not on file now, you may be 20 year from now. Then they will nail you to the wall. You need to call 911 and ask for police to come out. If the attacker is still breathing, you need to call for medical help too. If he dies on the way to the hospital you are still screwed up. But it is damn near impossible to prove that you were trying to kill the guy, only stop his attacks.

But they will treat it as a murder until they have all the facts in from the coroner and investigations into your past. This can take a minimum of about two months. You will sit in jail during that time unless there are special circumstances- like 300 people saw the event and all back up your story. You will need to get a lawyer on retainer and that will cost you about half a year's salary. I fit goes to trial you can expect to pay a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars. Don't take my word for it- talk to a criminal defense attorny and they will tell you how much prior clients had to pay.

Besides which, how do you make sure you kill someone rather than stop them? I am not talking about something silly like trying to wound someone with a firearm. Hitting a target shooting back at you is hard enough. You hit anything you can get. But the human body is pretty damn tough. If you immediatly call the medics after someone gets shot, the chances are pretty good they will survive. If you walk up to the wounded adversary and put a bullet in his head, or wait until he bleeds to death, then the police will be able to tell that from the coroner report and you are looking at a very expensive trial.

 

[MJS]

There are many things that you have to take into consideration. First, what is the situation? Is it 2pm with lots of people around to witness what is happening, or 2am and the streets are empty? Second, how much force are they using against you? If there are no weapons, and they just grab you, a simple lock might be all you need. Or are they showing a knife or signs that they will not be giving up all that easy?

We do live in a VERY sue happy world. Its amazing as to how a criminal can sue you for defended yourself, even though it was HIM that was trying to rob you, rape your wife, steak your car, etc. And the courts always seem to favor the bad guy.

This is definately a very sticky situation and you have to be very sure that you have all of your facts in order, otherwise, you might be the one sitting in jail, not the bad guy.

If you use the necessary amount of force and can give a good detailed account of what happened, yoiu might stand a chance of convincing the jury that you are the victim not the criminal.

In my opinion, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

Mike

 

[John Bishop]

Originally posted by Shadow Hunter

But they will treat it as a murder until they have all the facts in from the coroner and investigations into your past. This can take a minimum of about two months. You will sit in jail during that time unless there are special circumstances- like 300 people saw the event and all back up your story. You will need to get a lawyer on retainer and that will cost you about half a year's salary. I fit goes to trial you can expect to pay a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars. Don't take my word for it- talk to a criminal defense attorny and they will tell you how much prior clients had to pay.

I don't know where you got the above information. But having spent 9 years as a city police officer, and the last 22 years as a District Attorneys Investigator, I can say that it is incorrect anywhere in the United States.
The U.S. Constitution provides that you can not be held in custody for a unreasonable amount of time without being charged (arraigned in court). The courts have ruled that this reasonable time is 3 court days.
If you are charged, then you have the right to a speedy trial. This has been defined to be 10 days.
Also, no D.A. is going to charge a person with murder or manslaughter unless he has all the facts and feels that he can secure a conviction. So nobody is going to sit in jail for 2 months while the coroner and D.A. sort things out.

 

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by John Bishop
The U.S. Constitution provides that you can not be held in custody for a unreasonable amount of time without being charged (arraigned in court). The courts have ruled that this reasonable time is 3 court days.

Yes, and if you are charged with murder you will be in jail without any bail until the case goes before a jury. The courts are most likely to charge you and then drop the charges as the facts of it being self defense come to light rather than let you loose. They can do this. If they know you killed someone, it is almost certain that they will have to do so.

Originally posted by John Bishop
If you are charged, then you have the right to a speedy trial. This has been defined to be 10 days.

Just how long was it before OJ was put on trail? Care to take a look at various cases and see just how many people go to trial months after they were arrested?

Originally posted by John Bishop
Also, no D.A. is going to charge a person with murder or manslaughter unless he has all the facts and feels that he can secure a conviction. So nobody is going to sit in jail for 2 months while the coroner and D.A. sort things out.

Can and do. They may not take a case to trail, but they are most likely to charge someone with murder and then drop them before trial than let a potential murder suspect flee the country.

If you shoot someone coming at you with a knife in front of 300 witnessess, then you may be released that same day. If the police respond to a 911 call of a burglery in progress and find you with a gun in your hand over a corpse, what are they supposed to think? It looks like a clear cut case of self defense, but what if they later find out that the guy on the ground was your ex-girlfriends current boyfriend? If they release you in that case, what is to prevent you from not being around when they come around to pick you up again? It is much simpler to charge you and keep you for 72 hours while the initial investigation goes on. If there is any questions, they will state that since it is an accepted fact that a homicide happened that they have reason to charge and hold you for trial.

That is just the reality in most cases I have seen.

 

[John Bishop]

Again, I ask where you are getting this information? Please name your sources or experience in the criminal justice system.
Like I stated, I have been working for a District Attorney's Office for the last 22 years. We are one of the largest prosecutors offices in the United States, serving a population of 3 million people.

Like I stated, the individual has a right to a speedy trial. It is up to him/her to waive their right in court to a speedy trial. If they don't waive their right, then the trial starts in 10 court days, or the case is dismissed. O.J. and any other defendant who "waited months" for a trial waived their right to a speedy trial so thier lawyers could collect defense evidence and prepare their defense. This is very common.

As to filing a case to hold somebody that you think will flee the jurisdiction. Very unlikely. The prosecution still has to present enough evidence in a prelimanary hearing or before a grand jury to bind a person over for trial. This has got to be done within the 10 day period.

 

[clapping_tiger]

In regards to the situation that happend to mantis, In my opinion he would have been justified to use deadly force in that situation. Deadly force by definition does not mean to kill someone. It simply means that the force used has a high probability to cause serious injury or death. IF you are attacked by 2 people, I would not try to ride it out and see what happens. And if the attack lasted that long, in my opinion these people were there to cause you serious harm. I think that you got lucky, that these guys didn't kill or seriously injure you. In this case I think hind sight is 20/20 like they say and because Manits escaped unharmed after the attack, that does not mean at the time that he should not have taken extreme measures to protect himself.

If you want to learn more about the psychological effects of using deadly force, you should read "On Killing". It talks about how most of the population, including soldiers just cannot kill, even if their life is in danger. It compaires people talking about Killing someone is self defense as the same thing as a bunch of virgins talking about what sex is like. It is easy for us to be macho and say I would have no problem killing someone if they pulled a knife on me. But you really don't know until it happens.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, the post that started this thread made no mention of the writer's having been threated with a weapon, or feeling that they were in immanent danger of serious injury or death. If that's the case, there was neither a legal nor a moral justification for, "the use of deadly force."

Second off, you're stuck in a car with two guys who are whomping on you. A gun is going to help you how, exactly? Assuming you can get the damn thing out--doubtful--there's a pretty good chance you're going to get shot, not them. How is this smart self-defense?

Third off, some of the posters seem to suggest that deadly force is justifiable in protecting property--not legally true, not morally true, unless you argue that in a capitalist society, your money is in fact the same thing as your life.

Fourth, I note again that violence is being justified on the grounds of society's being filled with mortal threats--threats from criminals, threats from the criminal justice system. Sorry, simply not true. (And before anybody starts up--guys, among other things, I taught at Compton College--yes, that Compton--for ten years. I had real problems twice; I never had to hurt, or even hit, anybody, so spare me.) The professionals on this thread seem right: barring really, really, really bad luck, you're pretty safe from being killed by a stranger, and you're virtually immune from being wrongly imprisoned for injuring/killing someone in a case of genuine self-defense.

Just incidentally, it's my understanding that cops who have to kill somebody often have bad dreams. As for the rest of us--you're in infinitely more danger driving. Our eating habits put most of us at more risk....so...

 

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by John Bishop
Like I stated, the individual has a right to a speedy trial. It is up to him/her to waive their right in court to a speedy trial. If they don't waive their right, then the trial starts in 10 court days, or the case is dismissed. O.J. and any other defendant who "waited months" for a trial waived their right to a speedy trial so thier lawyers could collect defense evidence and prepare their defense. This is very common.

Ah ha!!! So many people either waive their right to a speedy trial or go into it under- prepared!!! Sounds like most people will be sitting in a jail cell for a few months.

The burden of proof for a conviction is on the prosectuters, but in a case of a claimed self defense killing they already know that a homicide has been committed. This is probable cause in most areas I know of to hold a person for trail.

Originally posted by John Bishop
As to filing a case to hold somebody that you think will flee the jurisdiction. Very unlikely. The prosecution still has to present enough evidence in a prelimanary hearing or before a grand jury to bind a person over for trial. This has got to be done within the 10 day period.

And if it is an established fact that the person being held has killed someone, how hard is it to convince a grand jury that a homicide has been committed? If you are talking about an 80 year old woman who is deacon of her church and confined to a wheel chair holding a gun over the corpse of a serial rapist in her home, you have a case where they will probably not be charged or booked into jail. But if both participents dated the same woman after another- how complete are you going to be before determining that the guy left standing was not either a psyco ex- boyfriend or a current boyfriend whacking his possible competition?

But let us go back to the original thing that set me off. Basically it was a case of if you had a choice of killing or not killing that you should kill the guy in order to avoid a possible lawsuit in the future. Do you care to defend that position? I think it is morally bankrupt, and the chances of it being pulled off without spending months in jail very slim. If you have to shoot, shoot as center target as you can. But if they guy drops and is lying on the floor, can you make a choice to kill the guy in cold blood and resonably expect that there will not be enough evidence to make the DA say, "wait a minute?"

If you have to kill, then you have to do what you need to survive. You will need a lawyer at that point and even if it does not go to trial that will set you back about half a years wages. (Mr Bishop- do you concur that the best thing someone who has had to kill do is get a lawyer and that just putting one on retainer will be several thousad dollars?) If there is any reason at all for the DA to press charges because you chose to kill the guy, you are looking at about a quarter of a million dollars in legal costs. And if you chose to kill someone, I can pretty much bet that an amatuer will leave behind enough evidence to cause suspicion.

Kill if you have to. But don't kill if you can avoid it. I would rather loose all my physical possesions than take the chance of facing a murder charge.