To Kill or Not to Kill

[Shadow Hunter]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
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.

You may notice that I am definatly not on the side of the "kill them all and let God sort them out" crowd. But in the case of someone breaking into your home, it seems only reasonable to treat it as potential threat on your life unless you are 100 percent certain otherwise.

If you are talking about taking shots as some guy drives off with your car, then I agree with you. But anyone caught robbing my house while I am in it will be treated as a threat unless he is prancing through the living room nude and clearly not holding a weapon. That is not a case of protecting property with deadly force, that is a case of treating someone as a potential threat to your family's life.

 

[Cryozombie]

If I had my gun, I would have killed them. But thats just me.

 

[TKDman]

Just the fact that you had a gun would probabily scare them away or make them not want to bother you.

A gun is probabily the best crime prevention devise ever devised by man to date. I like those Brinks security commericials where a man breaks into the house and the wife/kids run into a room. The security system alerts the police which arrive there 10-30 mins later.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, fiddlesticks. First of all, let me just mention something that everybody knows--if you're thinking of defending yourself with a handgun, forget it. You won't have it available, you won't get it out in time--and you will most probably miss. Did I actually read a poster who recommended shooting at some guy driving away in your car? Cops aren't even allowed to do this--something about missing and killing a neighbor.

The recommendation I always heard is, if you must have a gun for home defense, get a shotgun, load it with birdshot. It's efficient, scary, and won't blow through your wall and kill the next door neighbor.

Even better, if you really want to defend yourself/your family, in the extremely-unlikely event that some goofball comes crashing through your door--work out a plan, practice it with your family, get out the back door---AKA, "fire drill." I mean, is the point to protect yourself and your family, or is the point to shoot the guy?

Again--everybody knows, or should, that your and your loved ones are statistically speaking in far more danger from family and acquaintances than strangers. You're in more danger of slipping in the tub, of being struck by lightning, than of getting killed in a home invasion, as far as I know. Cripes, checking the tires and brakes on your car, re-evaluating your driving habits, would be a far more-important safety measure...but I guess that's just not sexy enough.

I'm with the posters who were horrified, even revolted, at the notion of simply shooting another human being. And I'm with the posters who argued that yhou're pretty much safe from the criminal justice system, in the event you do shoot somebody in a real act of self-defense.

 

[KanoLives]

If it comes down to me or him, it's gonna be him everytime. And if it means that I'm locked up for defending myself that's fine too. I am rightfully judged by one being and that is the Lord above. Now I'm not into killing people I mean s**t who is? But I will do anything to protect my health, well being, family, and friends. And if it means taking another's life who did not respect life in the first place, well I have already made that decision.

Now as far as the topic that started this thread I would have went down swingin'. They came into your personal space, and then started to go to town on ya. I definitely would have started swingin and wouldn't have got out of my car. And it's not even the fact of protecting my property, it's the fact that these scumbags have the balls to jump in my car and expect me not to do anything except get out and run. What's to say they wouldn't or haven't done it again and again. I'd rather go down swingin then just go down because if you just go down you're already dead.

:asian:

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by TKDman
Just the fact that you had a gun would probabily scare them away or make them not want to bother you.

A gun is probabily the best crime prevention devise ever devised by man to date. I like those Brinks security commericials where a man breaks into the house and the wife/kids run into a room. The security system alerts the police which arrive there 10-30 mins later.

A gun does not scare some people as easy as you might think it does. How many times do you see a cop draw down on a guy who has a weapon, and he still keeps coming at them. Granted, there are people out there that want to commit suicide by cop, but lets for a min. put the shoe on the other foot. If a criminal has a gun and he is mugging someone, are there no people out there that make an attempt at a disarm? People can say, "Well, if I just give them my wallet and car, at least I'll be alive. Those things can be replaced." True, they can be replaced, but whats to say that after you give up your items, that he doesnt shoot you anyway? If you pull a gun on a guy mugging you, whats to say that he isnt going to call your bluff, and still make a move towards you.

I think people that own guns tend to get over confident with them. How many of the people that own guns, actually practice under stressfull conditions? Not many, if any at all. How many shoot at night? I'm not talking about military or LEO, I'm talking about the average person that has a gun. Its one thing to shoot at something that isnt moving, but its totally different to shoot something that is moving and is trying to hurt you.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
If it comes down to me or him, it's gonna be him everytime. And if it means that I'm locked up for defending myself that's fine too. I am rightfully judged by one being and that is the Lord above. Now I'm not into killing people I mean s**t who is? But I will do anything to protect my health, well being, family, and friends. And if it means taking another's life who did not respect life in the first place, well I have already made that decision.

Now as far as the topic that started this thread I would have went down swingin'. They came into your personal space, and then started to go to town on ya. I definitely would have started swingin and wouldn't have got out of my car. And it's not even the fact of protecting my property, it's the fact that these scumbags have the balls to jump in my car and expect me not to do anything except get out and run. What's to say they wouldn't or haven't done it again and again. I'd rather go down swingin then just go down because if you just go down you're already dead.

:asian:

Great post!!!!!

The criminal is making the first move here. They have already provoked the situation by breaking into the house or mugging you or whatever. Being empty handed is one thing, then yes, if the guy has no weapon, you using a gun IMO is not proper. But if this guy breaks into my house at 2am and I'm fearing for my life, my wife, and my kids, then hell yeah, all bets are off! I didn't hang a sign on my door telling this a**hole to break in at 2am--he did it on his own. Maybe he'll kick the s**t out of me, but I'm not going down without a fight. If I scratch his face, take an eye, or knock out a tooth, then maybe when the bag of s**t looks in the mirror the next day, that will serve as a little reminder to him.

Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Oh, fiddlesticks. First of all, let me just mention something that everybody knows--if you're thinking of defending yourself with a handgun, forget it.

Everybody know this? I don't know this. The people that teach self defense shooting probably dont know it either. I would bet most LE Officers don't know that either or they wouldnt carry a handgun.

"Everybody" was a pretty general statement.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Oh, fiddlesticks. First of all, let me just mention something that everybody knows--if you're thinking of defending yourself with a handgun, forget it. You won't have it available, you won't get it out in time--and you will most probably miss.

I agree with this only regarding a civilian. HOw many people that own guns actually, A- carry them with them all the time? And B, if they do carry them, they must be conceled. Now, lets think about this for a min. If its winter, you are wearing a heavy jacket, and someone approaches you, are you really going to have the time to get that gun out?? Odds are probably not that good.

Now, a LEO always carries the gun on duty, and has it easily accessible. Now, do they in every situation have it drawn? No, but if they feel that they might need it, they start to prepare for it.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please read the post, some of you folks.

First off, I didn't write that it was never acceptable to have a gun in the house. I wrote that it was silly to depend on a handgun--partly for reasons already mentioned, and partly because even trained police officers only hit their human target a little over 20% of the time.

I wrote, get a shotgun, as any serious professional would tell you--or so I've read. Certainly it's what the SWAT sniper I used to train with recommended--but, alas, to some idiot who was wedded to the idea of buying a Glock.

By the way, if ya really gots to stop somebody, go with the shotgun loaded with birdshot.

But much more importantly, if the point is to protect your family and yourself, there are a LOT of things that come before getting a gun.

I think I'll shut up now, before I go off on the interesting connection between invoking Christ and carrying guns.

Oh yeah, forgot..I mostly agree with Mike on this one.

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
[
Oh yeah, forgot..I mostly agree with Mike on this one. [/B]

Well thank you Rob. I know that we have had our differences in the past, but I do hope that we can put that aside and have a friendly, constructive discussion!

Mike

 

[jukado1]

In any situation my first goal is for my familey and myself to survive, and to do so as humanly as possable, but if the attack is visches enough, then my next thought is for the next person who gets carjacked. what if it were my wife or kids, could they defend them selves, i dont think so. if i have the oppertuinty to stop someone from doing another crime and i dont, what happens to the next person is on my head, AND a innecent persons life means more to me than a crimanal anaimel.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by MJS
... if the guy has no weapon, you using a gun IMO is not proper. But if this guy breaks into my house at 2am and I'm fearing for my life, my wife, and my kids, then hell yeah, all bets are off!

Does this mean you don't get your gun until you know for sure they're unarmed?

"Sir, are you unarmed? No? Oh, please excuse me while I get my gun."

And if you have a gun and they attack you WITHOUT deadly force, they can take your gun FROM YOU.

God forbid I'd have to pull a trigger, but someone in the dark uninvited is HUGE question mark. Assuming the worst is an ethical choice.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by MJS
...
I think people that own guns tend to get over confident with them. How many of the people that own guns, actually practice under stressfull conditions? Not many, if any at all. How many shoot at night? I'm not talking about military or LEO, I'm talking about the average person that has a gun. Its one thing to shoot at something that isnt moving, but its totally different to shoot something that is moving and is trying to hurt you.

When some jack*ss in class days "I'll just shoot them" I ask if they even carry a gun regularly. You can guess the answer.

And the few that have one, I would be scared to believe use it with the same mentality as mace ... a crutch that without deisplay isn't even a deterrent, and is no substitute for self-defense training (with and without weapons).

Guns don't save people. PEOPLE save people.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson


... By the way, if ya really gots to stop somebody, go with the shotgun loaded with birdshot....

Finally, a sane alternative. (Another reason I find it hard to beleive non-lethal disablers like stun guns are illegal in my state.)

When I finally do my rightful duty as an American and learn how to use a gun, that's exactly waht I'm going to do.

Will it cause minimal damage / maximum shock?

 

[DAC..florida]

The use of deadly force in my opinion is a huge responceability and should be treated as such, just because you have the means and ability to take anothers life doesnt mean that is always the right answer. There are many people who feel that if they were violently attacked and allowed the criminal to get away when they had the means and were justified to use deadly force that anyone else that person attacked would be on them!
I sympathise with you here but who made you the judge and jury, what if this person was some high shcool kid on a bet.
We must all remember that everyone is someones kid, father, mother , brother or loved one and once you pull that trigger you cant take it back.

True story about someone I know! This man heard a noise in the middle of the night comming from his living room, he grabbed his gun and went to see what was going on. Upon entering the room he saw a figure coming through his window, once this figure got into the house the man opened fire and killed his 17 year old son who had snuck out to be with his friends.

Dont get me wrong if my life or the life of anyone else was about to be taken from them and thier was no other choice, then I would use deadly force to stop the threat.

Perfect scituation in my mind is to use the amount of force necessary to control the scituation and allow the criminal justice system do its job!
:asian:

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by Ken JP Stuczynski
Does this mean you don't get your gun until you know for sure they're unarmed?

"Sir, are you unarmed? No? Oh, please excuse me while I get my gun."

And if you have a gun and they attack you WITHOUT deadly force, they can take your gun FROM YOU.

God forbid I'd have to pull a trigger, but someone in the dark uninvited is HUGE question mark. Assuming the worst is an ethical choice.

I was referring to actually using the gun. Sorry I didn't make that as clear. If the person is unarmed, dont you think that the judge and jury are not going to question you as to why you shot an unarmed person? I know that if I was on a jury, that would be one of the first questions that came to my mind. Look at what happens when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect.

Mike

 

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by MJS
Look at what happens when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect.

Mike

Not to get off topic or anything and I know you're from CT, MJS and I'm sure you have heard of the East Haven incident. But personally I'm tired of hearing about cops using deadly force and then they are being put on trial and loosing their jobs and pretty much life, all because some idiot didn't listen to what the cops were telling them to do. It's just this simple, DO WHAT THE F***K THE COPS TELL YOU TO DO, and you won't get shot. That simple right? Sorry but I'm tired of hearing that it was racial profiling, and blah blah blah, the cops trigger happy blah blah blah. Granted this isn't the case for every situation but if this idiots would just do what they're told to do the cops have no reason to shoot them. And I give much respect to those guys who put their lives on the line to make this world a little safer. I mean they never know. I was watching Real TV I think, and this cop made a routine traffic stop for something stupid like not signaling a turn, as the cop walked over to the car and said hello the driver fired two shots into the cops chest. Luckily he had his armor on and was alright. It just goes to show what cops have to deal with, and I'm tired of them gettin a bad rap.

Sorry, I'm done now.

End :soapbox:

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
Not to get off topic or anything and I know you're from CT, MJS and I'm sure you have heard of the East Haven incident. But personally I'm tired of hearing about cops using deadly force and then they are being put on trial and loosing their jobs and pretty much life, all because some idiot didn't listen to what the cops were telling them to do. It's just this simple, DO WHAT THE F***K THE COPS TELL YOU TO DO, and you won't get shot. That simple right? Sorry but I'm tired of hearing that it was racial profiling, and blah blah blah, the cops trigger happy blah blah blah. Granted this isn't the case for every situation but if this idiots would just do what they're told to do the cops have no reason to shoot them. And I give much respect to those guys who put their lives on the line to make this world a little safer. I mean they never know. I was watching Real TV I think, and this cop made a routine traffic stop for something stupid like not signaling a turn, as the cop walked over to the car and said hello the driver fired two shots into the cops chest. Luckily he had his armor on and was alright. It just goes to show what cops have to deal with, and I'm tired of them gettin a bad rap.

Sorry, I'm done now.

End :soapbox:

I hear ya and I agree with you 100% I was stating that it will be no different when a cop shoots someone or if a civilian shoots someone. They are both going to have to answer questions as to why they shot! It is sad, especially today, that the cops always seem to be under the spotlight. Regarding the East Haven shooting, well I wasnt there, I don't know all the circumstances, so I can't really be a good judge of that. I will say though, that if its true what the cop said, that he really felt his life was in danger due to the car rolling back towards him, then I dont blame him for shooting at all. Of course, some people will say, why didn't he shoot the tires rather than the kid driving. Well when a cop has to draw his gun and he is faced with shooting someone, he's trained to shoot center mass, not at the legs, arms or anything else. You hear that all the time from people.."Why didn't he shoot him in the leg, rather than the chest, maybe he'd still be alive today!" Well, I'd like to see these "expert" marksmen that do all the complaining, try to shoot something that is moving. And, maybe if they were aware of where there 15 yo son was at 2AM, maybe he'd be alive today. Do you remember the shooting in Hartford? Same thing. A 12 yo kid, out at that hour of the night. Where are the parents??? Wait, I know where they are. They are probably at home to high on drugs or too drunk to realize that their kid even left the house.

Mike

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
Not to get off topic or anything and I know you're from CT, MJS and . . .. It's just this simple, DO WHAT THE F***K THE COPS TELL YOU TO DO, and you won't get shot. That simple right? Sorry but I'm tired of hearing that it was racial profiling, and blah blah blah, the cops trigger happy blah blah blah. . . .I'm tired of them gettin a bad rap.

Sorry, I'm done now.

End :soapbox:

Here we go. Sorry for the length and just to let everyone know this isn't an attack just a debate.

I would generally agree with you, but you have to remember that there are rules that the police must abide by, and in some situations decide not to. I don't think that you should "do whatever the cops say". That is a one way ticket to a police state. Keeping this in mind, we must use common sense and not do anything that is physically threatening or poses a risk to ourselves or others, but there are many example of police officers abusing their power over the common civilian. We have had a local case here about a cop that acted like he was going to arrest a woman and instead raped her. If you want a grand scale of power abuse, just take a look at the Patriot Act. Good ol' Ashcroft is already abusing this one. He has directly defied a federal court order to release people from encarceration. I hate to come off like a paranoid, but freedom requires vigilance, not compliance. " “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

In terms of the original topic here, I think I wouldn't have killed if given the choice, but would have no compunctions if the perp dies. The truth is that I feared for my life and used all methods at my diposal to defend the one thing I can't get back after it is lost, that same life.

How many people have heard of the case in Britain where the farmer shot two burglers with his hunting shotgun and killed one of them? The burglers had repeatedly burgled this same house (six times) and finally got caught. The farmer is currently in prison and the surviving burgler is trying to sue for his injuries, including lost wages. He was listed as unemployed. How could he lose wages when you get unemployment eitherway. Is he speaking of all the houses he could have robbed since the injury. The worst park is that the farmer's wife who had little to do with the situation may be liable, because the farmer is in prison and broke. THIS MAKES ME SICK. Getting caught and the possiblilty of getting shot is an accepted employment risk if you commit a crime where someone is in danger or thinks they may be.

One last note is that, just like showing a gun, posturing and intimdation can be effective. Primates, which we are, rarely kill during disputes in the wild. Most of the confrontations resulting a lot of huffing and puffing. Once, when I was on my way to pick up my girlfriend and I had an altercation (rude gestures) with some high school kids in a car. The kids tailed me all the way to a parking lot near her work. I knew they were there and didn't want to let them know where I was going, so I pulled over and got out of the car. They pulled up gunned the engine and started to get out of the car. I pulled the little league bat I had in the car out. I screamed and pounded the bat on the ground with both hands as hard as I could while I jumped up and down and acted generally insane (or stupid). Either way it worked the kids quickly hopped back in the car and took off. I know this wouldn't help in the original situation of this thread, but its another example of a way to deal with a confrontation.

P.S. to the "held before trial" debate. I don't belive that they put you in prison while being held, only the local holding cells or jail. There is quite a differance there. While I'm not an officer and have no LEO experience, I can't imagine they would put a suspect in "Gladiator School" before he is found guilty. If for no other reason than the possiblity of a law suit if anything happens in holding. there is a local case here where exactly that happened. A man in holding cell was raped and the officers knew it was happening and didn't attempt to stop it. This man won his case.

Okay, I'm out of gas to vent.