Would you kill someone in self defense?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Haloman800
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 10,157
  • Replies Replies 129
  • Likes Likes 1

Would you kill someone in self defense?

  • Yes

    Votes: 113 80.7%
  • No

    Votes: 27 19.3%

  • Total voters
    140
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.
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
 
in my opinion anyone who answered no to this post is either lying or deluding themselves. survival instinct is strong.
 
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
synsj9.jpg
Don't worry, middle school will be over soon
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4
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
 
Last edited by Lucifer666,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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 ;)
 
Last edited by cearp,
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.

flower-620x250-465x190.jpg


Have a wonderful and not violent day.
 
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.
 
Last edited by brickmii82,
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

Site & Scene News