# Would you kill someone in self defense?



## Haloman800 (Jun 14, 2016)

..In self defense? For example, if they were threatening the life of you or your loved ones.

Personally, I would have no qualms over it. When I lived in the country, we had plenty of wild animals who would attack our pets; you either kill the raccoon or watch your cat die. I always saved my cat(s). I lost no sleep over the raccoon.

In my mind, anyone who is evil enough to attack innocent people is no higher than an animal.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 14, 2016)

It's easy to say 'yes'. However, I would have to.. I'm not exactly keen on someone threatening my family's life, let alone my own.


----------



## SonicCloud (Jun 14, 2016)

This is probably getting closed soon

Well only in self defense i case they we're threatening me
Otherwise, of course im not crazy to kill someone just because why not?


----------



## VashTS (Jun 14, 2016)

in self defense I think I would be able to but it is hard to say. 

i killed a possum one time that made in my home on 2 occasions, i have two little kids so i did what I had to do. lost sleep for about 3 days over it


----------



## insidexdeath (Jun 14, 2016)

Yes, but it's difficult to judge since I'm not in that position. Some might actually not be able to kill even if the opportunity is there. Taking a life away is just a huge thing


----------



## pastaconsumer (Jun 14, 2016)

Self defense? Not sure... depends on the circumstances... Almost all cases would be no. Neutralize them without killing? Yes.

Plot twist: What if to save you or a loved on, you had to kill a loved one who is adamant on killing all in his/her path? (My answer is: Neutralize them so they can't hurt anyone WITHOUT killing them or severely injuring them. Call the police and let them deal with it.)


----------



## hundshamer (Jun 14, 2016)

I think it would take a very special circumstance. Let's say my daughter marries someone who breaks and abuses her. I may be inclined to maim him *severely*. As in he would loose parts... If he doesn't survive... Oh well.


----------



## cvskid (Jun 14, 2016)

It's either you or them, and no one wants their own life taken away from them.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 14, 2016)

Neutralize first. They have a weapon? Blow their arm off. Stab their eyes out. destroy their kneecap. Death is always the final option.


----------



## cvskid (Jun 14, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Neutralize first. They have a weapon? Blow their arm off. Stab their eyes out. destroy their kneecap. Death is always the final option.


Depending on the situation the person if they lived will remember what you did to them and they might want revenge on you either by doing it themselves or getting someone else to do it for them.


----------



## Sliter (Jun 14, 2016)

If I can defend without killing would be better :/


----------



## MsMidnight (Jun 14, 2016)

I would kill because well, people call me heartless. If you ordered me to kill someone I'd do it regardless of relation. 

In self defense yes because it was your fault messing with me


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Neutralize first. They have a weapon? Blow their arm off. Stab their eyes out. destroy their kneecap. Death is always the final option.


I answered "No" for this reason. I'm not a fan of the implied point being made by the OP, but meh, civil discussions and learning people's views are always interesting


----------



## astrangeone (Jun 14, 2016)

The funny thing was in university, I discovered I was one of those people who reacted violently in cases of "fighting".  My roommates almost came to blows over a discussion over bread/communal food, and I didn't even think about jumping in between those two.  One of my roommates got very aggressive and stood up to intimidate the other one - as in "got in her face".  I didn't even think about it, just found myself standing up and jumping in between them.  Luckily it didn't escalate beyond that, and the other roommate ended up restraining the "aggressive one".  (Four people in the house....)

If someone were threatening me?  I would probably choose to disarm them.  I have pepper spray (yes, it's sold for canines only), but sometimes you'd see me palm the stuff in a bad area - and luckily, I haven't had to use it yet.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 14, 2016)

Short answer:  Yes.

Long answer:  I believe I'd be capable of it.  Something I've learned about myself is when I get angry (for lack of a better term), I tend to do irrational things (and subsequently regret it afterward).  But to kill someone?  That would have to be a special case, like my family is under immediate danger.  Needless to say, I'd have to receive professional therapy after ending another human life.  Hell, I feel bad about killing spiders sometimes.


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Jun 14, 2016)

No, Unless my life was at risk and I had no choice but I would feel terrible to do so.

@Haloman800 I love your signature.


----------



## anhminh (Jun 14, 2016)

In that situation, one wouldn't think about killing but to escape so the last thing they care is the life of the one who attack them.

I would just shoot at him immediately without thinking and hope he stop, if he dead then that just mean god want him in hell.


----------



## JustAKirby (Jun 14, 2016)

I wouldn't do it unless it was the only way to prevent them from taking my life or the life of my loved ones. Besides, with how the current law enforcement system is set up "self-defense" fails to function as a viable explanation


----------



## EarlAB (Jun 14, 2016)

Definitely, if it's legal.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jun 14, 2016)

JustAKirby said:


> I wouldn't do it unless it was the only way to prevent them from taking my life or the life of my loved ones. Besides, with how the current law enforcement system is set up "self-defense" fails to function as a viable explanation


Unfortunately you're right.  I don't want to start a debate, but the whole "tighter gun laws" ideology is BS.

EDIT:  I know that isn't exactly what you meant, but still.


----------



## Luckkill4u (Jun 14, 2016)

WWCND? (What Would Chuck Norris Do?)
Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: Only with non-projectile weapons and if for survival. Unless its a zombie apocalypse or an alien invasion, then gimme the guns!!!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

EarlAB said:


> Definitely, if it's legal.
> If it was a woman, I might force fuck her first though. LOL


Dude what the fuck that's not something you joke about


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 14, 2016)

I would try to be pacifist first. If I really have no other choice, then, yes I would.


----------



## EarlAB (Jun 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Dude what the fuck that's not something you joke about


I didn't know, sorry.
I'm still adjusting to actually being social.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Fixed.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

EarlAB said:


> I didn't know, sorry.
> I'm still adjusting to actually being social.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


Thank you

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "if it's legal"?


----------



## EarlAB (Jun 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Thank you
> 
> Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "if it's legal"?


Well, I know in certain states (I think Texas is one) you can kill intruders and you won't be arrested.
BUT, it has to be a fair fight (as in, if the person has a gun, you can use your own gun (must be the same type) but if he/she has a knife or other hand weapon you CANNOT use a firearm).


----------



## Meteor7 (Jun 14, 2016)

I can't pretend like I'd know how I'd think and behave were I ever put in that situation, but morally speaking, I'd consider their life pretty much forfeit to me at that point, and I can't imagine hesitating.

That being said, if I can clearly see that they're starving and I can maybe save their life and clear their mind by feeding them something and talking to them, then I'd definitely go for that option instead. Yeah, it kinda depends on context, actually. In the case where they're just trying to rob me, or something similar, I'd want to fight to kill, without question.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

EarlAB said:


> Well, I know in certain states (I think Texas is one) you can kill intruders and you won't be arrested.
> BUT, it has to be a fair fight (as in, if the person has a gun, you can use your own gun (must be the same type) but if he/she has a knife or other hand weapon you CANNOT use a firearm).


Yeah, you're referring to "stand your ground" laws. Those are kind of a slippery slope, though, because there's actually been a positive correlation with gun deaths in areas where they're in effect (it makes it very easy to claim self defense in situations where that may not necessarily be the case, for instance)


----------



## _v3 (Jun 14, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> ..In self defense?


If it came to the point where my life or the life of a loved one was at stake then yes, but only after I've established that the person is not willing to back down or settle the argument with words.



Haloman800 said:


> For example, if they were threatening the life of you or your loved ones.


That's not a good example, threatening someone and actually going forward with the attempt to kill are very separate actions. I see death threats every day but 99% of the people that post them never do anything, take as an example the recent death threats that Sean Murray (developer of No Man's Sky) got.


----------



## Windowlicker (Jun 14, 2016)

I would definitely, no qualms. It's killed or be killed and I would not let the bastard live. Also, for people talking about the legality of killing in self-defense, would that be the first thing you would be thinking at such a moment?


----------



## GameSystem (Jun 14, 2016)

Hurrah for castle doctrine. The second someone steps foot on my property and I don't know who they are, it's light out for them forever.
I don't even want to take the risk of seeing the weapon first. I don't have time to put my life on the line to see if they are carrying a weapon.

PS: In America, we actually need to shoot to kill under every circumstance. If the guy lives, he can sue you for the injuries you gave him.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jun 14, 2016)

It would depend who or what I was defending myself from.
Would I kill someone in self-defense? Yes. Would it be my preferred solution? No.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

GameSystem said:


> Hurrah for castle doctrine. The second someone steps foot on my property and I don't know who they are, it's light out for them forever.
> I don't even want to take the risk of seeing the weapon first. I don't have time to put my life on the line to see if they are carrying a weapon.
> 
> PS: In America, we actually need to shoot to kill under every circumstance. If the guy lives, he can sue you for the injuries you gave him.


Police (at least in Iowa) are trained to shoot instead of taze in certain scenarios for that specific reason. It's kind of messed up


----------



## cearp (Jun 14, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Neutralize first. They have a weapon? Blow their arm off. Stab their eyes out. destroy their kneecap. Death is always the final option.


in some places and situations they can try and sue you if they are still alive after the incident, if they are dead (and you killed them legally) this is not going to happen 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GameSystem said:


> Hurrah for castle doctrine. The second someone steps foot on my property and I don't know who they are, it's light out for them forever.
> I don't even want to take the risk of seeing the weapon first. I don't have time to put my life on the line to see if they are carrying a weapon.
> 
> PS: In America, we actually need to shoot to kill under every circumstance. If the guy lives, he can sue you for the injuries you gave him.


yes true but please try to give people a small chance at least, for example a pizza guy or mail man given a wrong address (and not all wear uniforms), don't just shoot them immediately! legal or not.
but yeah, a bullet in the head and head is better than in the leg, so they can't sue you for being disabled lol...


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 14, 2016)

No. Never. Not only am I too much of a pussy but I respect other people too much to harm them. Even if it's my worst enemy.


----------



## cearp (Jun 14, 2016)

The Real Jdbye said:


> No. Never. Not only am I too much of a pussy but I respect other people too much to harm them. Even if it's my worst enemy.


never? so in this situation you would be dead... because you respect some random criminal or whoever in this situation


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jun 14, 2016)

Only in a dire situation, and after I've warned them. I really don't want to kill anyone in a situation like that. They could be robbing me because maybe they have a family to feed, and probably have a lot less then me.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> never? so in this situation you would be dead... because you respect some random criminal or whoever in this situation


Not saying I wouldn't try to defend myself, but I would probably do my best to get out of the situation without causing any major bodily harm to the other person.
But I don't know exactly how I would react in such a situation, panic and adrenaline can apparently do funny things to the human body 

I have never been in a life threatening situation so I can't really say for sure what would happen.

Most likely I would run for my life, I think. That seems to be my response to most things I don't like (metaphorically though)


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 14, 2016)

Yeah. If it was a case where somebody was robbing me and my family and had a gun or knife trying to hurt them I would. It would be hard to "restrain" them if they had a gun or knife without use of the gun.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You can shoot them in the foot or knee. But there probably not going to walk again. Or probably not without some major help.


----------



## cearp (Jun 14, 2016)

VinLark said:


> You can shoot them in the foot or knee. But there probably not going to walk again. Or probably not without some major help.


yeah but in reality (depending where you are at least) - they can try and sue you because you made them disabled, which is a ridiculous but things like that have happened 
so it's best just to nip them in the bud


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 14, 2016)

If it is a viable and necessary strategy, and that includes considerations for what the law will say later and what might be behind the walls if I am using a projectile weapon. If I can't contemplate at that level I don't deserve to have the weapon. I would not be opposed to mandatory and regular/annual competence assessments either, and if medics can yank my driving license then I see no reason why they can not call for a disarming either.

Castle doctrine, stand your ground and other such things are bollocks concepts from where I sit. In civilian life your first duty in such situations is a duty of retreat and de escalation. If someone breaks in and is wandering out the door with both hands on my TV and is not in a position to break my TV on my head or those heads of someone I care about I would have to seriously hesitate before raising my weapon (sul might be acceptable, low ready possibly makes you a cowboy and some of the "modified" versions are right out, holding it next to your temple is cool if you are James Bond but you are probably not James Bond), let alone discharging it. We could possibly debate the disciplines you want to use vis a vis the safety, my leaning is towards secondary movement or even last moment but simultaneously as you raise it is not wholly unacceptable. Whether I would want to effect a citizen's arrest I do not know.

Contrary to what I might be implied to say elsewhere there are fates worse than death, especially if you consider lost potential as one of those -- some actually good (by local/regional standards anyway) football playing types thought they might have a game of start on the long haired/skateboarder type guys not long before trials (there is no such thing as a sure thing in those situations but it was as good as gets for them). Suffice it to say I didn't play nice with tendons and last I saw one was 26 and working a zero hours contract in a shop.
Similarly I know how easy it is to cause very serious head injuries and internal bleeding/haemorrhaging with basic martial training. I have not had to seriously clench a fist in a few years at this point, however it was something of an abstract logic rather than innate one last time I did. I don't feel bad if I have to, just empty. Nobody has ever seriously pulled something sharp on me, other than a dog once being set on me (still have the scars from that one).
I would be content to go the rest of my days with no more action than a sparring session (competition does nothing for me as far as competing goes) and never having to know. No chance* of me ever joining a military/mercenary or police force (I like thinking and my "superiors" are always something to be questioned) so I would never have to know there either.

*including conscript, crisis and convict.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> Police (at least in Iowa) are trained to shoot instead of taze in certain scenarios for that specific reason. It's kind of messed up


It gets more complex than that. The introduction of "less lethal" has actually seen a rise in their use. Afraid I will have to be the guy that links a ted talk today


----------



## dimmidice (Jun 14, 2016)

in my opinion anyone who answered no to this post is either lying or deluding themselves. survival instinct is strong.


----------



## raystriker (Jun 14, 2016)

There's always the choice of knocking the person out. Don't kill. Death is too easy a punishment.


----------



## TVL (Jun 14, 2016)

Yes, of course, if it's kill or be killed the other person has to go.


----------



## dimmidice (Jun 14, 2016)

raystriker said:


> There's always the choice of knocking the person out. Don't kill. Death is too easy a punishment.


always? there certainly isn't always that choice.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jun 14, 2016)

MsMidnight said:


> I would kill because well, people call me heartless. If you ordered me to kill someone I'd do it regardless of relation.
> 
> In self defense yes because it was your fault messing with me





Spoiler











Don't worry, middle school will be over soon


GameSystem said:


> Hurrah for castle doctrine. The second someone steps foot on my property and I don't know who they are, it's light out for them forever.
> I don't even want to take the risk of seeing the weapon first. I don't have time to put my life on the line to see if they are carrying a weapon.
> 
> PS: In America, we actually need to shoot to kill under every circumstance. If the guy lives, he can sue you for the injuries you gave him.


Interesting to see that the possibility of being sued successfully bears more weight on your shoulders than a conscience guilty of murder.

Americans are terrifying.


----------



## Meteor7 (Jun 14, 2016)

Lucifer666 said:


> Interesting to see that the possibility of being sued successfully bears more weight on your shoulders than a conscience guilty of murder.
> 
> Americans are terrifying.


It all lies in the reasons behind both of those things. It's choosing to murder someone out to do you harm over being legally punished because you defended yourself against an attacker. In that context, I think it's natural to make that choice.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jun 14, 2016)

Meteor7 said:


> It all lies in the reasons behind both of those things. It's choosing to murder someone out to do you harm over being legally punished because you defended yourself against an attacker. In that context, I think it's natural to make that choice.


True but also


> The second someone steps foot on my property and I don't know who they are, it's light out for them forever.


that's kind of extreme and not immediate evidence that you're in danger

EDIT: You also ignore the fact that you are also just as likely to be legally punished for killing, rather than merely injuring


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 14, 2016)

Idk, I'm weak as fuck.
Luckily, I got a black belt Taekwondo owner as boyfriend c:


----------



## cearp (Jun 14, 2016)

Lucifer666 said:


> Interesting to see that the possibility of being sued successfully bears more weight on your shoulders than a conscience guilty of murder.
> 
> Americans are terrifying.


but depending on the situation and place, i wouldn't be legally 'guilty', or even feel morally guilty.
if they are doing, did or could do something bad enough, i'll sleep better knowing i killed them as opposed to them walking free/injured.
and getting sued is a valid concern, there are (true) stories about criminals robbing a house, tripping over and hitting their head on the stairs, and then suing the home owner.
similar stuff for getting injured from 'obstacles' in the garden. i don't want to go to court because some guy stealing my tv falls over a garden gnome.
and i don't want to go to court because i shoot someone in the leg and now he is in a wheelchair, because they were endangering my family.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> but depending on the situation and place, i wouldn't be legally 'guilty', or even feel morally guilty.
> if they are doing, did or could do something bad enough, i'll sleep better knowing i killed them as opposed to them walking free/injured.
> and getting sued is a valid concern, there are (true) stories about criminals robbing a house, tripping over and hitting their head on the stairs, and then suing the home owner.
> similar stuff for getting injured from 'obstacles' in the garden. i don't want to go to court because some guy stealing my tv falls over a garden gnome.
> and i don't want to go to court because i shoot someone in the leg and now he is in a wheelchair, because they were endangering my family.


Agreed, but unless you live in some dystopia where the jury haven't a shred of logic, anyone should be able to follow the argument that you attacked out of self-defence and 'at the very least', spared their life

Anyway I don't disagree with attacking out of self-defence in principle, I was just a bit confused about the person I quoted's response to what could really be a non-issue. (See my above post; there is no immediate evidence to suggest danger.)


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> but depending on the situation and place, i wouldn't be legally 'guilty', or even feel morally guilty.
> if they are doing, did or could do something bad enough, i'll sleep better knowing i killed them as opposed to them walking free/injured.
> and getting sued is a valid concern, there are (true) stories about criminals robbing a house, tripping over and hitting their head on the stairs, and then suing the home owner.
> similar stuff for getting injured from 'obstacles' in the garden. i don't want to go to court because some guy stealing my tv falls over a garden gnome.
> and i don't want to go to court because i shoot someone in the leg and now he is in a wheelchair, because they were endangering my family.


Sources? I've heard similar stories, but never bothered to look them up as I see an absence of logic in them. One of the ways a court can punish a person who has pursued a "frivolous" lawsuit, is by issuing judgment against the plaintiff party for compensations to the defense for time, legal fees, etc. Most(if not all) lawyers would most likely be hesitant to take on a case like this.


----------



## yusuo (Jun 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Thank you
> 
> Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "if it's legal"?


It's the 4chan over spill onto these forums. Stupid stupid 4chan


----------



## cearp (Jun 14, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Sources? I've heard similar stories, but never bothered to look them up as I see an absence of logic in them. One of the ways a court can punish a person who has pursued a "frivolous" lawsuit, is by issuing judgment against the plaintiff party for compenfsations to the defense for time, legal fees, etc. Most(if not all) lawyers would most likely be hesitant to take on a case like this.


not sure how often the criminal wins the case - but surely they have one at least once! just the process of having to go to court over this (whether they win or not, thrown out or not) can be an ordeal for the true victim who wants to get on with their life.
just a link i found, i didn't read much of it but looks annoying! 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223125/90-year-old-shot-face-burglary-SUED-burglar-World-War-Two-veteran-fired-back.html

i heard in china, if you run someone over and they live you can be made to pay for them over their lives to help for their disability that you gave them. whilst if you actually kill them, you get 'less', and that some drivers have actually reversed back to make sure the person was dead!... not sure how prevalent or true, but it wouldn't surprise me


----------



## Bimmel (Jun 14, 2016)

I'm sure nobody here knows what it really means to actually end a life and what it will do to you. And it's better that way.

Just stop playing these 999 games kids, your mental health suffered enough. Play some Flower and don't ask questions you don't wanna/can't know the answer to.






Have a wonderful and not violent day.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> not sure how often the criminal wins the case - but surely they have one at least once! just the process of having to go to court over this (whether they win or not, thrown out or not) can be an ordeal for the true victim who wants to get on with their life.
> just a link i found, i didn't read much of it but looks annoying!
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...burglar-World-War-Two-veteran-fired-back.html
> i heard in china, if you run someone over and they live you can be made to pay for them over their lives to help for their disability that you gave them. whilst if you actually kill them, you get 'less', and that some drivers have actually reversed back to make sure the person was dead!... not sure how prevalent or true, but it wouldn't surprise me


Read through it, comments and all. In this instance, fuck yeah. Blow dudes brains out. Twice for good measure. Here's the thing though. If you eliminate the threat factor without killing, there's a CHANCE you'll Have legal proceedings. If you kill, you WILL be in legal proceedings. This guy really had no other option but lethal force. He was a trained officer and knew that. Not all circumstances are like this though. PTSD is a very real thing, and many people who have seen armed combat suffer from it, simply for having taken a life, and seeing lives taken. Police forces even have psychological counter measures and procedures for dealing with an officer who had to kill in the line of duty. Taking a life shouldn't be taken lightly.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jun 14, 2016)

Lets say it was the end of the world. Everyone died except me and another man. Since there is no use of repopulating with him unless men can get pregnant by then. I would save him then kill him for food.


----------



## Damian666 (Jun 14, 2016)

oh yes I would, no second thought needed.

corner me, and ill fuck you up.


----------



## Patxinco (Jun 14, 2016)

Just adrenaline and guts rule in that situations, they will ultimately say what happens.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 14, 2016)

Patxinco said:


> Just adrenaline and guts rule in that situations, they will ultimately say what happens.


Dear fuck no. It might help someone, somewhere (it is why the response evolved) but most of any martial/self defence/police/military style training is designed to get you to react properly. People panicky/twitchy and desperate are horrifically dangerous for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## cearp (Jun 14, 2016)

Bimmel said:


> I'm sure nobody here knows what it really means to actually end a life and what it will do to you. And it's better that way.


wow, what is it like? (the way you wrote makes me think you have done it, maybe i'm wrong!)
some people value all life of animals similarly, value their dogs lives over strangers, if many people can slaughter a pig for food similarly many people will kill someone for doing wrong.
it depends where, culture etc.

some people could never do something like shoplift, the guilt is too much. other people just don't care and do it without thinking. i'm certain people are out there who are like that for killing, even more so when they or their loved ones are in danger.
i'd kill an ant if it is biting me.
i'd kill a mouse, dog, etc biting me.
i'd shoot a horse coming to trample me, and i wouldn't get upset.
same with a guy trying to kill me. it would just be traumatic and scary, i don't think so much my actions, only theirs.


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> wow, what is it like? (the way you wrote makes me think you have done it, maybe i'm wrong!)
> some people value all life of animals similarly, value their dogs lives over strangers, if many people can slaughter a pig for food similarly many people will kill someone for doing wrong.
> it depends where, culture etc.



I value the lives of me cats over any human.
Drive over me cat and I'll drive over you, turn back and do a burnout on your face c:


----------



## mgrev (Jun 14, 2016)

I wouldn't hestitate.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> in some places and situations they can try and sue you if they are still alive after the incident, if they are dead (and you killed them legally) this is not going to happen



I'd rather be prosecuted for assault than deal with ending a life.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> wow, what is it like? (the way you wrote makes me think you have done it, maybe i'm wrong!)
> some people value all life of animals similarly, value their dogs lives over strangers, if many people can slaughter a pig for food similarly many people will kill someone for doing wrong.
> it depends where, culture etc.
> 
> ...


Holy shit you'd kill a dog for biting you?


----------



## Bimmel (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> wow, what is it like? (the way you wrote makes me think you have done it, maybe i'm wrong!)
> some people value all life of animals similarly, value their dogs lives over strangers, if many people can slaughter a pig for food similarly many people will kill someone for doing wrong.
> it depends where, culture etc.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I wrote that one a bit to emotional.

I did not experience it myself. But I've talked to someone who did take a life. His eyes had this strange look, there was guilt literally written all over his face. Shaking hands, speaking to himself in strange ways - things you only would see in movies. I think fear had taken over completely. Fear of what had become of him, with the incident happened several years ago. If I compare that to the way people described him from before this, it was to me as if they talked about another person. And it scared the shit out of me, making me never forget what killing another human being means.

But what I wanna say is: Ending an life, whatever the circumstances, changes you. And not for the better, I'm certain of that.

I wish everyone can live a life without this burden. There is a 5th bid for a reason.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

5th bid?


----------



## Bimmel (Jun 14, 2016)

Sorry, how is this in english? 5. Gebot?

You know: Don't kill. :-)


----------



## Luglige (Jun 14, 2016)

If it is my family, dogs, or any temper here I would fricking snipe their ass's


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2016)

Bimmel said:


> Sorry, how is this in english? 5. Gebot?
> 
> You know: Don't kill. :-)


No, I get what it must mean, but what are the other 4 "bids"?


----------



## Bimmel (Jun 14, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> No, I get what it must mean, but what are the other 4 "bids"?


Don't shock me here. You sure know them. The word I was searching for was "commandments", sorry for the confusion.


You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Well.. actually the order does not matter. As you see, murder is the 6th on this list.


----------



## Patxinco (Jun 14, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Dear fuck no. It might help someone, somewhere (it is why the response evolved) but most of any martial/self defence/police/military style training is designed to get you to react properly. People panicky/twitchy and desperate are horrifically dangerous for all the wrong reasons.


My father is policeman, sooo... he tought me some stuff


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 14, 2016)

cearp said:


> yeah but in reality (depending where you are at least) - they can try and sue you because you made them disabled, which is a ridiculous but things like that have happened
> so it's best just to nip them in the bud


Yeah, that's what I was implying in that post. Didn't know they could sue you.....


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 14, 2016)

I like how a moderator added "in self defense" to the title of the thread :3


----------



## Pacheko17 (Jun 14, 2016)

Already did. 
The fact of it being self-defense is what makes me cool about it.
I still don't like to talk about it much.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 15, 2016)

Bimmel said:


> Don't shock me here. You sure know them. The word I was searching for was "commandments", sorry for the confusion.
> 
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> ...


Oh, COMMANDMENTS. Sorry, I haven't ever heard of them referred to as anything other than that


----------



## Davidosky99 (Jun 15, 2016)

Yes, I would definetly muder a person in selfe defense or in defense of my friends or family in the case their lives or integrity were at risk 
(don't call me a psychopath this are just my morals)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 15, 2016)

Haloman800 said:


> I like how a moderator added "in self defense" to the title of the thread :3


Considering it was super click-bait-y before I'd say it was an improvement


----------



## k3rizz3k (Jun 15, 2016)

If I were put in that position.. In a heartbeat.  No question.


----------



## XavyrrVaati (Jun 15, 2016)

*iT'S KILL OR BE KILLED.*

Of course. If stopping someone from killing me requires killing them, then that's all there is. That said if it's avoidable, then killing them makes little sense.


----------



## GoodCookie88 (Jun 15, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Neutralize first. They have a weapon? Blow their arm off. Stab their eyes out. destroy their kneecap. Death is always the final option.


Holy shit bro your gruesome


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 15, 2016)

GoodCookie88 said:


> Holy shit bro your gruesome


I watched a lot of princess bride growing up.


----------



## GoodCookie88 (Jun 15, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> I watched a lot of princess bride growing up.


lol that movie is dope.


----------



## cearp (Jun 15, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Holy shit you'd kill a dog for biting you?


well it depends, but yeah in some circumstances! i would want to kill a violent dog that is biting my leg off and maiming me. in some cases, depending on the location and history and dog, the dog would be euthanized anyway, afterwards. some places don't want it to happen again, sometimes dogs do attack small children.

but just a small bite no, i'd just do what i can to stop it.
lots of different situations out there - but i'm just saying i would kill it if i had to.
as opposed to people who would say 'i would never kill a dog' - well i would.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 15, 2016)

I carry a knife with me when I go to lockup a do it yourself laundromat at 9pm every night.  I've had a guy come up and threaten me before when I told him he had to leave in 30 minutes.  

Another time I had a guy walk in and start threatening me for telling his girlfriend that she had to leave on closing time, and if she didn't I would shut off the breaker because she got sassy with me.  I told him to back off, and he kept at it, so I pulled out the knife and told him to back the fuck off while dialing 911.  The moment he would have touched me, operator would have been on the line, and I already had everything recorded.  No liability on me under self defense if I would have stabbed him at this point, but he left unfortunately.  I consider it a form of cleaning up my neighborhood and natural selection.  The moment they stop being intelligent is the moment they become mere beasts, and I have no guilt.


----------



## Burlsol (Jun 15, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Neutralize first. They have a weapon? Blow their arm off. Stab their eyes out. destroy their kneecap. Death is always the final option.


The problem here is that, atleast under the US legal system, the person you maimed or blinded can sue you for damages and disabling them regardless of your reasons for doing so. 

Meaning that if they were someone who broke in your home with intentions of stealing belongings and raping family members, and you disabled them in some way before they completed any of these acts, you would be spending the rest of your life paying for them to stay alive and comfortable with their new disability. If you did it to them after they completed or were in the process of one of those acts, they would be looking at prison time (2-10 years), but could still sue you for damages.

That which is morally just is not always appreciated as such in the eyes of the law.


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 15, 2016)

Burlsol said:


> That which is morally just is not always appreciated as such in the eyes of the law.



And I'll follow the morally just every time, even if the consequences ain't right


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 15, 2016)

Burlsol said:


> The problem here is that, atleast under the US legal system, the person you maimed or blinded can sue you for damages and disabling them regardless of your reasons for doing so.
> 
> Meaning that if they were someone who broke in your home with intentions of stealing belongings and raping family members, and you disabled them in some way before they completed any of these acts, you would be spending the rest of your life paying for them to stay alive and comfortable with their new disability. If you did it to them after they completed or were in the process of one of those acts, they would be looking at prison time (2-10 years), but could still sue you for damages.
> 
> That which is morally just is not always appreciated as such in the eyes of the law.


This is why every gun course tells you to shoot to kill. Justifiable homicide might be the best thing about laws.


----------



## cearp (Jun 15, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> And I'll follow the morally just every time, even if the consequences ain't right


i think it's morally right to kill a bad person, if they are bad enough!


----------



## osaka35 (Jun 15, 2016)

cearp said:


> i think it's morally right to kill a bad person, if they are bad enough!



I only find it morally permissible if others will die with no immediate action to end the other person's life (fixing to press a switch to explode a bomb, for example, and the only clear target I have is the head), and even then with great remorse. But such things are important to discuss =]


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 15, 2016)

On "I absolutely would" then have a look at war stats some time. The amount of people that shoot to kill is astoundingly low prior to the introduction of modern training (some things have world war 2 at 15% -- http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield ), and even then it is still only some 90% in some surveys for modern ones.



> Meaning that if they were someone who broke in your home with intentions of stealing belongings and raping family members


"and"... I don't think that is how it typically goes down. Indeed I would find it disturbing if that is how someone's thought patterns went.

Also on "they can sue you" the so can families for wrongful death. Similarly suing people seems to be a bit of US fetish so how many of those cases actually end in payouts?


----------



## Bimmel (Jun 15, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh, COMMANDMENTS. Sorry, I haven't ever heard of them referred to as anything other than that


Never trust that google translator.

Still gotta a lot to learn.


----------



## G0R3Z (Jun 15, 2016)

Absolutely. To defend my family, i'd do anything it takes.


----------



## Feeling it! (Jun 16, 2016)

I wouldn't know what to do in that case depending on how many of the people I know were involved but if it was another family member I would let them since they would have a good reason and since I  _*Can't.*_


----------



## Seriel (Jun 24, 2016)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Not saying I wouldn't try to defend myself, but I would probably do my best to get out of the situation without causing any major bodily harm to the other person.
> But I don't know exactly how I would react in such a situation, panic and adrenaline can apparently do funny things to the human body


^This.


----------



## Touko White (Jun 24, 2016)

I definitely would kill someone in self-defence.
Also if there name happens to be Donald Trump or Nigel Farage, I'd happily assassinate those two idiots


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jun 24, 2016)

in an instant, i would not even have to think about it... if someone is a threat to me, or my fam... but i live a dull life and so does my fam... so.. not really think there's someone that stupid...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 24, 2016)

I will really feel I am being forced to, for sure I would like it otherwise.
And I'm quite positive it will leave some trauma on me.
But if that were the case, I sure would try to subdue the attacker with all means and might I had without thinking (aka not giving a fuck) if that would kill them.
But in case they ended up subdued and still alive, I wouldn't push to kill them. That is not my purpose.


----------



## Bubsy Bobcat (Jun 27, 2016)

Nope. I'm a pacifist.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 27, 2016)

I really don't see how anyone could vote no on this. The premise here is that you either kill someone, or they kill you or someone close to you. If you don't kill them then either you or someone innocent dies. What purpose does that serve? Instead some psychotic bastard will live at the cost of someone innocents life. I suppose you could try to injure them instead, but that isn't necessarily an option. You may not be able to simply injure them without killing them. Sometimes its the only way.


----------



## mikey420 (Jun 27, 2016)

Wouldn't be the first time I've killed something for harming me. Hell I have bashed a dude with a stool because he wouldn't leave. Someone forcing there way in would likely meet a fate equally as rough if not worse. My home is my sanctuary if invaded I have no remorse for harming the intruder however if avoidable I sure wouldn't kill them. If I can disable them without killing them that's the route I will take however in the extremist situation I'd certainly pull the trigger first.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 27, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> I really don't see how anyone could vote no on this. The premise here is that you either kill someone, or they kill you or someone close to you. If you don't kill them then either you or someone innocent dies. What purpose does that serve? Instead some psychotic bastard will live at the cost of someone innocents life. I suppose you could try to injure them instead, but that isn't necessarily an option. You may not be able to simply injure them without killing them. Sometimes its the only way.



Psychotic bastard posing immediate threat to you or those you might care to defend is a narrow and specific set of circumstances.

Psychology would tell us there is a serious aversion to killing things in most people, the first place most would meet it is in the discussion of weapons and range -- club is further than teeth and nails but still requires effort and gets you blood splattered, so we have spears, so we have bows, so we have firearms (ish and then definitely), so we have artillery... Also good is the rationalisations that some non combat military people use -- you might be a chef, a navigator, a bomb loader, one that loads the shells in a ship cannon and you did not "do anything to hurt anybody", but back in the civilian world I build a bomb and am nowhere around or pressing buttons to arm it and I would still get the book thrown at me, or I knowingly drive the truck to the parking lot and put it under that nice support section and same again.
There is also the "contagious gunfire" issue to consider -- if inexperienced people are pointing weapons at each other (though experience is hardly a sure fire dodge for it) and someone fires, or even sometimes a loud noise is happening) then it all kicks off and people potentially get hurt. It is why the adrenaline and guts comment a few pages back got the response it did from me.

Similarly others already mentioned the various degrees -- I already mentioned I think stand your ground and castle doctrine are dangerous and silly laws. 

Equally I have some people I would consider truly pacifistic.

It is also not necessarily some psychotic bastard -- desperate people exist, otherwise mentally ill people exist, people that have not got a clue exist (see also make things idiot proof and you only create a better class of idiot), people that also do not have a clue about how dangerous things are (kicking people in the head is bad news, glass will ruin someone's life easily enough, knives are known to most people by virtue of them eating dinner most days and tend not to run out of ammo), drugs can make some interesting things happen though I might put that under desperate people.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 27, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Psychotic bastard posing immediate threat to you or those you might care to defend is a narrow and specific set of circumstances.
> 
> Psychology would tell us there is a serious aversion to killing things in most people, the first place most would meet it is in the discussion of weapons and range -- club is further than teeth and nails but still requires effort and gets you blood splattered, so we have spears, so we have bows, so we have firearms (ish and then definitely), so we have artillery... Also good is the rationalisations that some non combat military people use -- you might be a chef, a navigator, a bomb loader, one that loads the shells in a ship cannon and you did not "do anything to hurt anybody", but back in the civilian world I build a bomb and am nowhere around or pressing buttons to arm it and I would still get the book thrown at me, or I knowingly drive the truck to the parking lot and put it under that nice support section and same again.
> There is also the "contagious gunfire" issue to consider -- if inexperienced people are pointing weapons at each other (though experience is hardly a sure fire dodge for it) and someone fires, or even sometimes a loud noise is happening) then it all kicks off and people potentially get hurt. It is why the adrenaline and guts comment a few pages back got the response it did from me.
> ...


It may not be a psychotic bastard, but that doesn't mean it can't be. The way I interpret this thread, is that the OP is asking if under any circumstances you would kill someone to defend yourself. I think it is safe to say that most people would avoid the option of killing someone if possible, but this is a situation where you couldn't. This isn't necessarily a question of whether you would want to kill someone, its more a matter of whether a situation would arise where you would be willing to do it. What if someone was going to go on a killing spree, and you could prevent that by killing them. By saying you wouldn't kill anyone under any circumstances, that means you would be willing to let dozens of innocent people die for nothing.


----------



## proflayton123 (Jun 27, 2016)

If I had to kill someone regardless of ethic and morals, depending on what it was down to, yeah.


----------



## nero99 (Jun 27, 2016)

I'd do it with no mercy, no regrets, and it wouldn't even bother me one bit. In this world, it's kill or be killed lately.


----------



## DKB (Jun 27, 2016)

Like the bitch owes me money, yes.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 27, 2016)

DKB said:


> Like the bitch owes me money, yes.


Dead people don't pay and when you collect from their relatives apparently you are the arsehole.


----------



## DKB (Jun 27, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Dead people don't pay and when you collect from their relatives apparently you are the arsehole.



What?


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 27, 2016)

Not only would I but also feed it to the pigs and dogs.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 27, 2016)

You said you would kill someone like they owed you money, I pointed out that in most cases people involved in loan giving don't want the person with the debt to die as such things tend to get erased with the death of the person having the debt, or at least seriously limit the scope to collect upon that. If you then go to the relatives and say blah died and owed me money they tend to be under no obligation to pay you.

Unless of course you meant it like that, and in that case I apologise for the failure of my deeper meaning detector and ultimately spoiling the joke.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jun 27, 2016)

If someone was out to kill me, and I could not pacify them so we'd both live at that moment, then yes, I would kill them in self defense.


----------



## Engert (Jun 29, 2016)

I wouldn't. I'd give them flowers instead.


----------



## Nyap (Jun 29, 2016)

my life > the guy whos threatening me life


----------



## G0R3Z (Jul 8, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> You said you would kill someone like they owed you money, I pointed out that in most cases people involved in loan giving don't want the person with the debt to die as such things tend to get erased with the death of the person having the debt, or at least seriously limit the scope to collect upon that. If you then go to the relatives and say blah died and owed me money they tend to be under no obligation to pay you.
> 
> Unless of course you meant it like that, and in that case I apologise for the failure of my deeper meaning detector and ultimately spoiling the joke.



Indeed, there's a reason loan sharks only break a limb or two.


----------



## Crusylicious (Jul 8, 2016)

I only would if I absolutely had to. If I could incapacitate them without killing then thats what I would do EVEN if they were indeed trying to kill me. Though as with all things, I'm sure there are exceptions.


----------



## SapphireDaisy (Aug 21, 2016)

yes if i had no other choice


----------



## Xanthe (Aug 21, 2016)

No...I would not. Why? Because I'm waiting to go to Heaven. I would rather be in Heaven than on Earth, as do a lot of people I suppose. This would probably be my gateway to Heaven...


----------



## Jack Daniels (Aug 21, 2016)

Adamant Lugia said:


> No...I would not. Why? Because I'm waiting to go to Heaven. I would rather be in Heaven than on Earth, as do a lot of people I suppose. This would probably be my gateway to Heaven...


what proof do you have of this dream land excists more then they told me so or a relly old book tells me so? if theres a god he meant us to make that dreamland right here, but we can't... since the dream as like you read it differs from the dream when i read it, my dreams will never be your dreams. sorry to bring it to you but this is gonna be it, afterlife is just a human creation for those who're afraid of th dark/death...


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 21, 2016)

Every person has a right to defend themselves provided that they do it under non aggressive principals.


----------



## cearp (Aug 21, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Every person has a right to defend themselves provided that they do it under non aggressive principals.


yeah, kill them with a smile, if you're snarling when you fight back to defend yourself, that's bad


----------



## MionissNio (Aug 21, 2016)

Touko White said:


> I definitely would kill someone in self-defence.
> Also if there name happens to be Donald Trump or Nigel Farage, I'd happily assassinate those two idiots


Clinton as well!

Anyways, what I would do is have a laser like arctic silver or a pepper spray, flash it in their eyes and marathon as far as possible.
Teaser would also work though. As for killing I cannot, I cry even after killing a fly man.


----------



## cearp (Aug 21, 2016)

MionissNio said:


> I cry even after killing a fly man.


kill all the flymen!


----------



## Meteor7 (Aug 21, 2016)

cearp said:


> kill all the flymen!


Whoa, racist.


----------



## cearp (Aug 21, 2016)

Meteor7 said:


> Whoa, racist.


why? a fly man is a race/belongs to a race?


----------



## Meteor7 (Aug 21, 2016)

cearp said:


> why? a fly man is a race/belongs to a race?


You've also assumed their gender. You are so cisgendered and I am so triggered.
(I'm being facetious, by the by.)


----------



## Xanthe (Aug 21, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> what proof do you have of this dream land excists more then they told me so or a relly old book tells me so? if theres a god he meant us to make that dreamland right here, but we can't... since the dream as like you read it differs from the dream when i read it, my dreams will never be your dreams. sorry to bring it to you but this is gonna be it, afterlife is just a human creation for those who're afraid of th dark/death...


This thread wasn't meant to be turned into a religious debate, so don't make it one. I don't care if you don't believe in the after life. As far as I can tell, you also have no proof.

My proof is through my personal experiences. You don't have to believe in them.


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 21, 2016)

Adamant Lugia said:


> No...I would not. Why? Because I'm waiting to go to Heaven. I would rather be in Heaven than on Earth, as do a lot of people I suppose. This would probably be my gateway to Heaven...


Honestly that sounds a bit close to being suicidal... If thats how you feel it might be best to talk to someone.


----------



## cearp (Aug 22, 2016)

Adamant Lugia said:


> Because I'm waiting to go to Heaven.


how long are you willing to wait for? i guess you could find someone on craigslist for a few $$$.


----------



## FeverishJackal (Aug 22, 2016)

If I really had to yeah I would do it. But I'd have to have no other options, like running away or just getting something metal and beating them until they're unconcious


----------



## Xanthe (Aug 22, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> Honestly that sounds a bit close to being suicidal... If thats how you feel it might be best to talk to someone.


Wanting to go to Heaven to see whom I believe is the Man that created me? No there is nothing wrong with that. My life goal is to make it to Heaven, and killing someone is not ethical to me, especially considering that it's against my beliefs. That is no where near suicidal.


cearp said:


> how long are you willing to wait for? i guess you could find someone on craigslist for a few $$$.


You mean a hooker?....Well that is Heaven if I'm being honest xD


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 22, 2016)

If its my life or theirs, i'm doing whatever it takes to make sure its not mine.

And as long as i'm reasonable with it, the law is on my side.


----------

