Question. Do you feel deadly force for self defense is justified?

[Tim01]

This sort of goes in the gun forum, but not really.

Do you feel deadly force should never be used for self defense?

Joe Average is in his own house at night with his wife and children. Somebody kicks on his back door until it breaks in and multiple people enter his house. The kicking wakes him and he grabs his trap shooting shotgun and goes to the hall between the intruders and his family. He tells his wife to call the police. He yells for the intruders to get out of his house. 2 men enter the hall and there is enough light to see the lead man carrying a gun which he points at the home owner.

Personally I feel the criminals chose to accept deadly risk when they broke into a persons house. And Joe Average should not play around in the above situation but shoot until all bad guys are on the ground. It will be the surest way to keep his family safe.

Does anybody feel shooting the bad guy is just wrong even in this situation? Can you explain?

Thanks.

[SlipperySlope]

1. Do you feel breathing air to provide oxygen is justified?

Do you feel eating food to provide nutrition is justified?

[flvegan]

2. I'm a vegan that doesn't believe in violence or the death penalty.

As much as I hate to say it, I'd do what I could to eliminate the threat. If that means emptying my Mossberg into a couple crims, then so be it.

[Tim01]

17. A pacifist vegan with the Punisher symbol?

[flvegan]

19. Yup.

[krispos42]

61. Peaceful, not pacifist.

There's a difference.

[armyowalgreens]

62. Most definitely.

Sometimes you have to fight to keep the peace.

[MADem]

3. Depends on the offense. If some old lady is hitting you on the head with an umbrella

because she thinks you cut in front of her at the grocer, or something, you're not going to bust one in her head. If people come in your home with guns pointed at you, you are justified in doing the old boom boom boom. It's situational how one uses deadly force.

[havocmom]

4. In many court cases, it has been decided police departments do not have obligation to protect people

So, yeah, people can defend themselves. People who have tried to sue various police departments for not arriving in time to protect them have lost. It is impossible for police departments to get everywhere in the nick of time.

Defense of self and family is OK fine. Expecting somebody to safe yer ass is just plain naive and unrealistic. Agree, armed intruders took the risk on themselves. Joe Family-man has an obligation to protect himself and his family. Same for Josephine Family-woman.

[Cleita]

5. Yes, if it's life and death. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. This is a use of deadly force model

next.

I'd only add one thing.

You reach for that shotgun and put finger on trigger, shoot for center of mass.

That is the PSA

If you are not willing.

DON'T EVER PICK UP THAT GUN or it will be used against you.

[proteus_lives]

54. +1

[Zavulon]

7. Of course.

Of course it's justified, and every time I see a story about a home invader or robber of a store who gets killed, it makes me smile. I wish every homeowner could use lethal force on every home invader.

It's because laws protect invaders in England that I didn't take a job there, and it was the gun ban that kept me from moving to D.C. proper.

[LisaL]

8. If somebody breaks into your house, I am pretty sure you'd be

justified in shooting them even if the intruder doesn't have a gun.

[Statistical]

93. +1. It isn't my job to risk my life determine how much of a threat the criminal is.

Many states now give the presumption of justification to persons involved in self defense in their own home.

Of course "castle doctrine" isn't a license to kill as many in the media make it out to.
It simply creates a presumption that someone entering your home unlawfully presents a threat of bodily harm or death.
Lethal force used in that situation is justified even if the homeowner hasn't accurately determined the extent of the threat.

If the homeowner HAS determined the person presents no threat then they are NOT covered by "castle doctrine".

My little PSA: Laws regarding firearms, self defense, and lethal force vary WIDELY by state. Always know your state laws.

[jgraz]

There are always situations in which deadly force is justified

They just happen to be a lot more infrequent than the situations in which deadly force is actually employed.

The situation you came up with is pretty cut-and-dried. Most are not.

[jgraz]

9. There are always situations in which deadly force is justified

duplicate posts are not one of them.

[Odin2005]

95. LOL, DUzy dupe!!!

:rofl:

[Why Syzygy]

10. No. It isn't wrong.

Deadly force for self defense is justified, even by law. IMO that's the only reason it is justified.

Did you hear the recent 911 call where just such a scenario took place?

[shraby]

11. Deadly force is sometimes necessary even

if there is only one armed intruder. The intruder set up the situation by breaking in and being armed which shows intent to do harm. It's entirely possible the homeowner is facing not only a person who is armed, but is also criminally insane. Asking questions is not an option because he can't take a chance with his own life and the lives of his family.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Clearly it your scenario it would be justified.

If I'm being attacked by an unarmed 80 year old then it probably wouldn't be. If I am being attacked by a an unarmed Brock Lesnar then it might be.

[magellan]

13. In your scenario, absolutely

Reality isn't often so cut and dry, however.

[Warpy]

14. I prefer to damage a thug badly enough that he forgets the idea.

It's worked out OK for me so far.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. Break into my house at your own risk...

I'll give you one warning to hit the floor. If you don't, I'll MAKE you hit it. If you DO, I *might* call the cops right then.... or I might just tie your ass up in my shed and beat you like a pinata for a couple of days, then turn you loose. What are you gonna do? Call the cops on ME?

[Selatius]

16. In most states, the homeowner would not be prosecuted if he shot to death a burglar in home.

Very few juries would convict the homeowner if he had gunned down a would-be burglar inside his home.

Technically speaking, you could neutralize the threat simply by shooting out their legs to immobilize them or shooting their arms to prevent their using their own firearms, but most people are not a) sharpshooters, b) calm enough to think about not aiming for the center mass (the human torso) in an attempt to wound the intruder, and c) police officers or military personnel trained in aiming, firing a weapon in tense situations. As a result, I wouldn't blame the homeowner if he simply pointed his weapon at the intruder and fired.

Personally, I'd go for the legs, but I've been in some pretty rough situations in the past, so it's old hat for me. I don't want a dead body in the house or the thought that somebody died at my hands on my mind. There's been enough of that in my family due to the last unpopular war America fought.

[Irreverend IX]

45. Shoot the arms, shoot the legs...

That only works in the movies. No firearms training program, not even the most advanced, teaches people to shoot at limbs. They move too fast to hit with any reliability. Also, attempting non-lethal shots and firing warning shots can be construed as evidence that you didn't really believe your life was in danger when you fired. Strange, but that's how the legal system works. If you want to defend yourself with a gun, you have to be willing to shoot center mass.

[Art_from_Ark]

65. Interesting

"Also, attempting non-lethal shots and firing warning shots can be construed as evidence that you didn't really believe your life was in danger when you fired."

I can certainly imagine instances where someone was being threatened, but didn't want to resort to lethal action so he/she fired in the air as a warning shot, but resorted to lethal force when the warning shot didn't work.

[Irreverend IX]

70. A gunshot is potentially lethal...

So if you fire at an aggressor, whether or not you were trying to hit them you are considered to have used deadly force against them. So a warning shot is often considered to be a use of deadly force without a demonstrably grave fear of death or severe harm, since if you really were in fear for your life you would have shot the perp. Strange, but that's how the lawyer-brain works. Of course, you could fire a warning shot and say you just missed if you end up in court; it would be nearly impossible to prove you weren't telling the truth.

[pipi_k]

100. Yep...how can they prove you didn't just miss?

Someone breaks into the house...the adrenaline is flowing, your mind is racing, your hands are shaking, and you fire at the floor or the ceiling or hit a wall.

Was it a "warning shot" or just an attempt at self-protection that went awry?

If it went to court, I know I would be hard pressed to remember what I did or why...I was terrified...I aimed and fired, and that's all that I know. Prove otherwise...

[Statistical]

99. Discharging a weapon IS LETHAL FORCE. Period.

Firing into the air implies you felt the threat was not sufficent to aim at the intruder.
However you still used lethal force.

Warning shots are almost NEVER a good idea. Bullets go a long way, they can kill the neighbor 3 houses over.
The bounce off hard surfaces.

When I was in Iraq we tried to get another unit to not use warning shots as excessively as they did. It was our neighborhood & police station. We needed to work with the residents to accomplish our mission. One day on patrol the other unit fired a warning shot. It hits the road at a flat angle skipped and struck 9 year old girl in the head. she bled out on the scene.

Don't use warning shot. Don't use warning shots. Don't use warning shots.

If the person presents enough threat to discharge the firearm then the safest thing to do is to discharge it center mass.

If a criminal is fearless enough to break into your house, and fearless enough to continue to advance even after you point a weapon at him/her his thinking is you won't/can't shoot. A warning shot further reinforces your inability to shot him/her.

Warn verbally.
Aim center mass (visual warning looking down a barrel)
Shoot to stop the threat.

[DeschutesRiver]

107. Agree and your last paragraph sums up my and dh's position on handling such a thing. nt

[Pavulon]

18. Just beware of who is downrange..

if you live in an apartment be sure you are using between 4 and 0 shot. Kills like raid for assholes. Shotguns do the trick and spare your neighbors a rude awakening of handgun rounds. you are still liable for what goes downrange.

[rrneck]

20. Killing is always wrong. Sometimes it is unavoidable.

That's why it's called justifiable homicide.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. It may always be wrong for you personally. Not wrong for me in certain circumstances.

[rrneck]

112. I don't know if this is according to hoyle

but I'll try to respond to three posts at once here.

Every subject's duty is the king's;
but every subject's soul is his own.
William Shakespeare
Henry V (Act 4, Scene 1)


It's true that I set the bar as high as possible when it comes to killing people. That's because I consider myself to be the final arbiter regarding the morality of what I may have to do in a life threatening situation. Under those circumstances, the decision is mine alone, and I will have to assume full responsibility for it myself. I may have to defend my decision before a judge or a jury of my peers, but the most I can desire or expect of them is legal absolution. But as far as I am concerned, the consequences of my morality are mine alone to bear.

The history of brutality and victimization is bounded by mobile goalposts. Some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against others were the result of civil or ecclesiastical authorities saying "it's ok" when it really wasn't. At least some redress is possible for most offenses, but death is irrevocable. So for something that cannot be undone, I set the bar as high as possible to avoid killing someone unless in the uttermost need.

But that's just me. My morality is in no small part the result of my life experience. I can see by your "DU handles" that at least one of you has probably seen a fair amount of blood in the streets. Others may work within the system and have a greater understanding, and therefore trust, in its ability to equitably arbitrate the morality of an act. We all come to our sense of right and wrong in a different way. And that's just fine. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to be.

Just like the three rules of firearms handling, humans have developed a system that requires someone to do a number of things wrong before somebody else gets hurt. That's why we have laws, religions, customs, myths, and technology. It isn't perfect, but it's a work in progress.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. It seems we agree.

[armyowalgreens]

59. Homicide only means killing another human being. It has nothing to do with intent or legality.

That's why murder and homicide are not interchangeable.

Sometimes killing is not wrong.

[dysfunctional press]

103. killing is NOT 'always' wrong.

that's WHY some homicides are considered to be justifiable.

[Zodiak]

21. no

I feel there is no need to explain something so basic as self-defense and defense of family. Shoot the fucker.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Of course.

Fuck justified, it is required.

[Withywindle]

23. Yes, absolutely!

if someone else STARTS shit with you, that's his (or hers, but according to the FBI, 96% of the time "his" is correct) problem, not yours. Your problem then becomes saving your life and those of your loved ones by any means necessary. If you succeed, that's nothing to feel guilty about.

[shrdlu]

24. "Acting in fear of his/her life...

...officer dogood discharged his/her service weapon." This is the refrain of police in these parts when they blow away some unfortunate. Seems to work. So if I have to shoot someone I hope to remember that line.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Yes, for there to be utter safety, the attackers must die. They have to be killed dead. Cold Dead.

They could come back. They could have friends. If they are jailed they could be released and do it again or send people to get you.

The natural thing to do and the only way to restore the sanctity and safety of that home is to kill every one of them.

And you are right, they assumed a deadly risk.

Thanks for asking.

[Mugu]

26. If you step over the threshold of my home uninvited.

You're taking your life into your own hands.

[ZombieHorde]

27. Yes for protecting people, and though it was not mentioned in the OP,

no for protecting property, unless that property is a horrible weapon, such as a nasty lab virus.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Pretty clearly implied in the OP.

Armed criminals in an occupied dwelling are a definite threat to the people there.

[ZombieHorde]

31. Yes, I know. I mentioned the property because of something a person said to me in person a while

back and I was thinking about him today.

I stated the OP made no mention of shooting people over property, perhaps I was not clear enough. I know my entire post is a run on sentence.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. I understand now.

I've got bronchitis and took a bunch of codeine cough syrup, my apologies. I'll go to bed now.

David

[ZombieHorde]

34. Ouch, no apology needed, get well soon.

Sweet dreams.

[Hoopla Phil]

28. Yep, justified.

[subcomhd]

35. Justified for a very simple reason.

I would never take another's life to protect my property. But if someone breaks into my home while we are here, I don't assume he/she is a burglar. I assume the absolute worst possible motives on their part and I would not be willing to gamble the lives of my family members (or myself for that matter) to give them the benefit of the doubt. Under your scenario it would be legally justified in most, if not all states. It would be ethically justifiable (if not mandatory) to protect your family with deadly force under such circumstances.

[man4allcats]

32. If anyone breaks into my house

they better kill me before I get to my weapon. Otherwise that break-in will be the last thing they ever do in this life. I'll save you the trouble of clicking on my profile. I live in Texas, and under the Castle Doctrine it's legal to shoot to kill if they're in your house.

[subcomhd]

36. yeah, I took the question as an purely ethical one

Also being from Texas, the idea of any kind of legal problems never crossed my mind. A ticker-tape parade maybe. I would just have to make sure I had on my Obama shirt - or one with some similarly unpopular socialist sentiment - for my local hero picture in the paper.

[man4allcats]

96. If anyone would wish to count me as a local hero for

defending myself inside my own house, then so be it. Personally I have no interest in vigilante justice. I'm just looking out for me when I'm in my home. Nevertheless, I have no control over some yahoo reporter choosing to cast me as Charles Bronson's character, Paul Kersey. I must admit though, if it came to a photo op, I probably would wear my Obama shirt.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. You're gonna hate my answer...

No, it is not justified, and often is more cowardice than heroism. But, that's not the whole answer.

This is a question that's brought up in ethics courses and often as not to torment pacifists, and can be approached in several ways. The Quaker view, which happens to be my view, being a Quaker and all, is that if I were attacked and had an option to use deadly force, I would be making a choice of who lives or dies.

Yeah, you say-- should be an easy choice, right? and should be the same choice if I see someone else being attacked or threatened.

Not necessarily. The trivial answer is that an attacker has some lesser right to live than I do, and admittedly that would seem to be the case, but then the question is what gives me the right to make that judgement. There is also the possibility that I could be wrong and there could be some rationale for the attack, and this person might, if left alone, become far more useful to society than I would be.

So, it's not a question of ethics or morality, but simply a question of my survival over his. I have decided my life is worth more than his, even though I have no real evidence of this. Just my shitscared will to survive-- no more or less than the cockroach running away from my foot.

The other curious thing that happens should I kill this attacker is that I have stolen from him the ability to repent and be forgiven, perhaps even become a substantial member of society. He dies as simply a thug. Again, such people rarely do repent and change, but why do I have the right to take the chance from him?

So, deadly force ends as simply the coward's way out-- a reflexive action of simple survival instincts no more heroic, honorable, or human than a rabbit running from a fox.

But, still the other question remains-- does that make it wrong? Tough to tell, since "right" and "wrong" aren't exactly well-defined or accepted Quaker concepts. Since we torture ourselves with these little games all the time, we generally assume we will find a way to come to the least violent outcome possible. That is not necessarily no violence at all, but as little as possible.

As one of our early Quakers famously said "There are times when you are a coward if you don't fight. Other times you are a coward if you do."

The trick is to know the difference.

[ddiver]

39. That was the most stupidest answer I ever had the bad luck 2 read.

REMARKABLE

[armyowalgreens]

66. It's actually a fairly strong argument...

[Dogtown]

98. Probably you just don't get it

It was chrystal to me, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.


You might try explaining *why* you think it's the "most stupidest"(sic). Then you're reply would be actual discussion rather than incoherent snark.

[Quantess]

40. I have to agree with ddiver on this one.

(but not with his txt-spelling) ;)

[subcomhd]

44. Well I respectfully disagree

I respect your ethics but I think your questions are easily answered.

The ethical responsibility to protect my children is one I took on the moment they were born. That is what, in my ethical framework, gives me the right to decide who lives or dies in the OP's scenario.

To value the life of my family (or even myself) over that of an intruder with a weapon in my house (sticking to OP) is a no-brainer. Does the Quaker faith call for pacifism in such a case?

And furthermore, did you ever read In Cold Blood, or see the movie? I would do whatever to whomever to prevent what happened to that family from happening to mine.

[TreasonousBastard]

81. the Quaker faith calls for...

thoughtful decisionmaking within an ethical framework.

The questions are not that easily answered, nor should they be. One can easily come up with a snap answer or judgement, but the point is to continually ask the questions and look for new insights as one grows. Should we be faced with such a situation, it is expected we have the tools to handle it. And, as I already said, one of those tools could well be violence.

Fight or flee has been a similar psychological and anthropological question for years, and we're learning something new all the time.

[Quantess]

47. It's actually a very interesting point of view, from an intellectual standpoint.

But why do you assume that it is only you who chooses who lives or dies, in a death-battle? Are you immortal or something?

The cockroaches who are crushed under humans' feet have their own fate, simply by being born a cockroach. But, they make sure and look out for themselves.

All animals look out for themselves, and their offspring. It is inherent in animals' survival to follow their own best interests.

Do you view humans as divine creatures? With your viewpoint, it suggests that you have some ideas that humans are somehow immune to survival instincts.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. Because otherwise it would be the attacker's decision...

to decide that I die. If I kill him, it is my decision.

I view humans as creatures with extraordinay possibilities, but we haven't come close to using our potential. We have been very effective at killing things we don't like (including other humans) and building stuff, but we've been lacking in doing much more than a very advanced beehive.

Whether we are divine or not is another unanswerable question. The Quaker teachings about the Light within us neatly avoids endless discussions over the soul, divinity, or other unknowables.

[madeline_con]

51. Quakers don't believe God makes these decisions? n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

83. Not really. We tend to think God tends to...

mind his own business a lot.

[madeline_con]

133. What'is keeping him so busy, he is not mindful of us?

[TreasonousBastard]

134. Ask God.

[Rebubula]

52. My head hurts...

...trying to understand that logic.

Good luck with that.

[proteus_lives]

55. So basically you'd let an intruder kill you and your family?

I call bullshit. If someone entered your home with hostile intent and your family was behind you, you'd tear his throat out with your bare hands if you had to. It's human instinct.

"The other curious thing that happens should I kill this attacker is that I have stolen from him the ability to repent and be forgiven, perhaps even become a substantial member of society. He dies as simply a thug. Again, such people rarely do repent and change, but why do I have the right to take the chance from him?"

Are you willing to stake lives on that? If you disable him in some fashion and then go to call to call the police, what if he ends up with a knife to someone's throat? Or re-orients himself and shots you in the back as you use the phone or run out the door?

Your post strikes me as a classic example of "passing the buck." It's simply refusing to make a hard choice and accept the consequences of it.

[TreasonousBastard]

85. I didn't say that at all. I said...

that it's not easy coming up with a workable ethic.

Perhaps you missed that point buried in there while in such a rush to call bullshit.

[krispos42]

63. Good answer

I don't agree, but good answer. Thought-provoking.

[TreasonousBastard]

88. That's the point!

[armyowalgreens]

64. An interesting view at utilitarianism, however it's pointless to speculate...

You cannot judge what the intruder is going to do with the rest of his or her life. You cannot judge what you will do with the rest of your life.


All you can do is weigh the consequences of the situation at hand.

The intruder is pointing a gun at you, you can only assume he has the ultimate goal in mind of killing you. In order to defend yourself from murder, you must shoot the intruder.

I agree the ultimate goal should not be to kill the intruder. You only want to eliminate the threat. Maybe one shot to the stomach will take out the threat without having to kill. But if you do end up killing the intruder, it is most definitely not planned.

In the OPs case, the intruder is a potential threat to an entire family. You have to assume the worse, meaning that the intruder will kill the entire family. The cost of one life to save an entire family is a lesser bad than if the family was killed and the intruder lived.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. Of course I can't predict the future, but the larger point...

is that if one is to live an ethical life, one must explore the possibilities and the possible effects.

Another of my favorites is coming upon a rapist doing his dirty work, a rapist about twice my size, and I see this baseball bat...

And then there's the one about throwing the switch so the train will definitely kill one person rather than possibly killing hundreds...

There are plenty more hypothetical examples out there everyone can torture themselves with, but the idea is to think about actions and consequences, and how there are always consequences even when the actions seem so obvious.

[varkam]

69. I think our perspectives have a lot in common.

I guess I'd probably go ahead and say that violence is sometimes a necessary and inevitable fact of life - or at least that's what I think.

I also think, though, that violence represents a breakdown of everything that is good about ourselves. That we couldn't muster the skill or the determination to negotiate, to forestall, or to simply avoid such a situation represents a failure, in my opinion.

But I also think that, sometimes, violence might be the only way. I do not think, however, that it should ever be cheered. We should never take glee in the deaths of others, no matter how much they may have seemed to invite it on themselves. Death and violence are terrible things, though they don't seem to be for people that haven't seen much of either.

That thug in your house, the gangbanger on the corner, the robber in the store - beyond that they are all still human beings. They probably have family and friends. They probably have things that they love, things that they have lost, and things that they fear.

Would I shoot? Yes. I probably would.

I would never smile about it, though.

[TreasonousBastard]

91. Violence is always due to someone's failure, but...

we're often not quite sure whose. And even less sure what to do about it. (Maybe that's because everyone is at least a little bit at fault.)

I'm always appalled at violence, but become depressed when I see people revel in it, or defend it. We'll always have to defend those who are prey to the criminals, sociopaths and warlords, but we don't have to like it.

[Tim01]

101. Thank you for your answer. More questions for you.

Do you shoot the wolves trying to kill you? Or humans considered special?

Were you born into this religion, is this your belief or what you were taught to believe?

I really appreciate your answers. It seems like a very noble belief system.

[TreasonousBastard]

110. I suppose I would shoot the wolf, bear, or snake...

that made the bad choice to attack me-- I haven't reached the point of Dr. Schweitzer who, legand has it, wouldn't even swat a mosquito. But, I do question the right of humans to inject ourselves into the realms of the wild sharks and beasts and then complain when they treat us as any other interloper-- or as food. Best to avoid the situation if possible.

And no, I wasn't born into this, but I discovered that my thoughts over the years converged with much Quaker thought, so I became one.

[Tim01]

128. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I appreciate it.

Have a great day.:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

102. no wonder there's so few quakers around.

:eyes:

btw- does that mean that nixon was a qino?

[TreasonousBastard]

111. You lost me there.

[pipi_k]

104. Interesting viewpoint...

I think that the question of "right" and "wrong" aren't solely Quaker concepts...even Atheists and Agnostics (or the ones I know, including myself) have trouble with defining what's "right" and "wrong" because there are so many variables in life.

For example, what if someone enters my home with a gun but it's not loaded? Or it's not even a gun at all, but merely resembles a gun? If I were to use deadly force on someone like that and ended up killing or seriously maiming the person when he didn't even have a gun or didn't have one that was loaded, I know that I would torture myself the rest of my life. It wouldn't help for me to say, "Well, I didn't KNOW it wasn't loaded" or "How should I know it wasn't a gun?"

Like many other issues in life, this one has lots of shades of gray.

The only problem is in "knowing the difference" between which action or non-action is best. In some cases, even with experienced police officers, it's a split second decision triggered by something other than reason.

[TreasonousBastard]

115. Of course-- we didn't invent the fuzzy lines in...

morality. Most of us seem to be in many ways closer to agnostics than more traditional Christians and since we have no creeds or written ethics we have to think this stuff up by ourselves, just like the nonreligious should.

Like asking how many angels can dance on a pinhead, what is the sound of one hand clapping, or any of the other riddles in philosophy or religion, we are simply exercising our imagination and testing our logic.

Exercising our moral values, hoping they are in good shape when needed.

[subcomhd]

123. Reminds me of this

Little Bill Daggett: You just shot an unarmed man.
Bill Munny: He should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend.

Breaking into someone's house at night with a gun = stupid and dangerous

breaking in with an unloaded gun = suicide.

[ItNerd4life]

119. No, he should have his phasor set on stun.

That's my pie in the sky answer.

[ddiver]

38. Yes.

Indeed.

[SeattleGirl]

41. If I felt it was them or me, yes.

Though the idea of killing someone is sickening to me, I would do it if I felt my life were in danger.

[lindisfarne]

42. Joe Average has a his wife and children, plus a gun in his house. One child shoots & kills a sibling

Thank goodness there was a gun in the house, in case someone broke in!

[madeline_con]

50. Here we go!

Or, Joe Average teaches the kids to use and respect firearms so they don't do something stupid.

[rpannier]

57. One in every crowd

Though here there's often 101 in every crowd

[Scout]

108. if he did that, he would not be Joe Average n/t

[armyowalgreens]

60. Combination safe or trigger lock...

Properly teaching children about gun safety is also another good preventative measure.

[subcomhd]

125. my daughter is seven

And one of our plans for the summer is to teacher her the basics of marksmanship. Basically it will just be how to line up front and rear sights of a BB gun with a target. I will keep it locked up and she will only use it under supervised conditions. When she is much older, I'll teach her how to use a weapon for self defense - practical feminism, let's call it.

[krispos42]

68. Could happen

However, his wife could also trip and break her neck on the staircase while racing downstairs to save their child drowning in the pool.

Assuming the kid is between 1 and 4 years old, there's a 2.7 in 100,000 the kid will drown, a 0.8 per100,000 chance the mom will slip and break her neck.

The change the kid will die from an accidental gunshot is so low as to be reliable; the mom, .2 per 100,000.


The overall chance of somebody dying during their lifetime of accidental drowning is 5.5 times that of being accidently shot to death. You're statistically as likely to die from appendicitis or meningitis as you are accidently shot to death.

[Odin2005]

94. Typical anti-gun, anti-self-defense BS.

[pipi_k]

105. Nope

I have guns in my home.

I'm very PRO self defense.


But it doesn't hurt to read, or consider, another viewpoint.

[Caliman73]

109. So you agree that one of your children will eventually shoot a sibling with your gun?

That is what the poster is saying. As krispos said, "that could happen...", but the poster in the sub thread is stating that outcome as if it were the most likely outcome.

You are right that it doesn't hurt to take in other viewpoints, but have you challenged the quite matter of fact statement made by the poster regarding "Joe Average"? or do you accept the argument the poster is making in regards to having a firearm in the house with your family. If you accept the statement then you should get rid of your firearms.

[Romulox]

43. Self defense is a human right. The response must always be proportional to the threat. nt

[miyazaki]

46. in many situations, pacifists are the first to die.

-unless your McGyver.

[rrneck]

118. I would be more likely to use

deadly force in the defense of another than myself.

At least I'd like to think so.

[A1Sauce]

48. Yes, if your life or your loved ones are in danger.

How is it not?

[frog92969]

49. Any stranger uninvited in my house will be shot

If they don't have a weapon, I'll give them one afterwards.

[proteus_lives]

53. Yes it is justified.

You can't go in guns-blazing in all situations. But if someone breaks into your home, nine out of ten times you are justified in killing them.

A person's first responsibility is protect themselves/their families and their homes. The rights/reasons of the intruder are a distant, distant second.

[rpannier]

56. I'm okay with it

You break into someone's home you are assuming that risk.

[armyowalgreens]

58. Killing in self-defense is not wrong.

Now if the intruder was on the ground gasping for breath after taking one to the chest, and the homeowner popped another one into him, that would be murder.

Also, the asshole that shot and killed two robbers as they RAN away from his house is a murderer as well.

[anonymous171]

114. Agreed. As long as the intruder is a threat, deadly force is justified.

When the threat ends so does the justification for deadly force.

[subcomhd]

127. If your talking about the guy in Houston

It was actually someone running from his neighbors house and the cops on the phone told him not to go out and confront him. I think it is disgusting he wasn't indicted. But I also find state laws that deny anyone the right to use deadly force on an intruder in their home to be stupid too.. That pharmacist guy should go to jail also.

[varkam]

67. Justified? It can be. Should it be cheered or lauded? No.

Even if a killing is justified, that doesn't mean that we should do a dance on the graves of the newly-dead. I'm of the camp that believes that violence, while sometimes necessary, is never a good thing.

[1]

71. self-defense? yes it is justified. if a bad guy enters the house, then shooting is OK by me...

even if i shoot the bad guy in the back while he is in my house.

because the bad guy shouldn't have been in my house in the first place.

or if i shoot the bad guy while he is running off of my property, if he was in my house, because the bad guy shouldn't have been in my house in the first place.



don't come into my house unless i invite you.

i beg you, for your own safety, mr. bad guy...

[struggle4progress]

72. Yes,but awareness, caution, and a peaceful frame of mind may produce better results

than an overly-nervous trigger-finger. It happens too regularly that armed daddy shoots teenage daughter when she's sneaking back into the house through a window in the wee hours of the AM. And one might expect most burglars to show a different psychological profile than, say, stick-up artists: for the burglar, the thrill may be the sneaky defilement of your living space, whereas for the stick-up artist the thrill may be the adrenaline rush

[Quantess]

73. See, "the adrenaline rush" is what I do not understand about guns.

It is the only thing I could understand about guns, actually.

The real guns part escapes me.

[1]

74. do you understand "the adrenaline rush" of someone raping or killing you? your children?

is that the same kind of disconnect with you?

[struggle4progress]

75. Don't ask me to explain some people. There is all kinds of weirdness out there

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. That's odd I haven't read a story with those circumstances in years, do you have a link?

[struggle4progress]

135. 'Intruder' shot by cop is his child

Thursday, May 31st 2007, 4:00 AM

Spooked by a shadow in thebasement, an off-duty New Haven cop took out his service pistol and opened fire.

But the shadow turned out to be his teenage daughter, who had sneaked back into the house after a secret rendezvous with her boyfriend.
Officer Eric Scott "was under the impression his daughter had gone to bed for the night," said Capt. Thomas Rodia of the Stratford, Conn., police. "He did not expect his daughter tobe outside or down in the basement."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/05/31/2007-05-31_intruder_shot_by_cop_is_his_child.html

[struggle4progress]

136. Young girl mistaken as intruder, shot and killed by stepfather

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x755777

[struggle4progress]

137. Natchez man shoots wife in mistaken home invasion

By Adam Koob | The Natchez Democrat

Originally published 12:22 p.m., January 1, 2008
Updated 12:01 a.m., January 2, 2008

NATCHEZ, MS. — ... Police Chief Mike Mullins said Glenn and Deborah Mizell woke to the sound of their barking dog. Glenn went to investigate, taking a pistol with him. Mullins said as Glenn patrolled the house, he was unaware that his wife had left the bedroom and gone into the kitchen. “He mistook her for an intruder,” Mullins said ... http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/natchez-man-shoots-wife-in-mistaken-home-invasion/

[struggle4progress]

138. Happens all over the world: Rugby star kills daughter in mistake for thief

From The Times
May 25, 2004
Rugby star kills daughter in mistake for thief
From Michael Dynes in Johannesburg

A CELEBRATED former Springbok was charged with murder yesterday after mistakenly shooting dead his 19-year-old daughter in the driveway of the family home, believing her to be a car thief ... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article431906.ece

[struggle4progress]

139. It's been happening for years: Boggy Creek Masonic Cemetery

... According to local tradition, in the winter of 1859, 23-year-old John Davis joined a community wagon train headed for work in the pine forests of Bastrop County. Davis, sprayed by a skunk during the night, began running wildly through the camp. He was mistaken for a Comanche intruder and accidentally shot to death. His father, Jenkins Davis, buried his son here, on 2.3 acres he purchased near Boggy Creek and his Manchaca home. John's 1859 burial is the earliest recorded here ... http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM5P5M

[struggle4progress]

140. So confusing a family member with an intruder is a well-documented hazard

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

141. You managed to document 1 case with those circumstances and that was 2 years ago.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. That wasn't the claim, nice try though.

[struggle4progress]

143. All illustrate the advice I gave in #72. Imbeciles with itchy trigger-fingers shoot family, after

confusing them with intruders

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. However only one addressed my question and your scenario and it was 2 years ago, not very common.

[struggle4progress]

145. *snort*

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

146. Indeed.

[Vidar]

76. Yes

[ThomWV]

77. Both Locke and Hobbs said that self defense is demanded of all men

You are, according to the philosophical fathers of the Democratic and Republican Parties, obliged by your creator to defend the life he has loaned you. That's my reading of it.

[1]

79. i loved that cartoon. locke and hobbs...

[old mark]

78. YES. nt

[Kitty Herder]

80. Yes; it is justified.

I don't like violence, but sometimes it is necessary.

[Ganja Ninja]

84. I feel that when a person needs to use extreme violent force to

defend themselves they should be considered temporarily insane for that moment in time. Whether they fire 1 shot or empty the whole clip into their assailant they are not responsible.

[ThomWV]

86. Amazing how completely we disagree. That is the moment they are most responsible

If you are not responsible at the moment you put your finger on the trigger then there is no other moment in your life that you could be considered responsible. Even contemplation of the act of taking another person's life demands utter responsibility.

[Echo In Light]

89. Absolutely justified in dire circumstances

If someone wants to harm you and/or your family, you're going to do anything in your power to protect them and yourself. No question about it.

[salguine]

90. This question is ridiculous. Anyone who wouldn't use deadly force on "moral" grounds when his

wife and children were threatened by armed intruders needs to have their head examined. What are you supposed to do, gesture to your family and say "there they are, have at 'em?" I'm as pacifist as they come, but if someone enters my HOME with a weapon, and I have a shotgun, one of us is leaving in a bag.

[Odin2005]

92. IMO Joe Average has every right to shoot the intruders dead.

People have an absolute right to defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary.

[AngryOldDem]

97. In your scenario, I think it's justified.

Even if there aren't a wife and kids around. If someone busts into your house, it's never for a good reason. Defend yourself. I have been a victim of a home invasion, and I sure as fuck wished someone in my household had access to a gun that night.

[TexasObserver]

106. Yes, deadly force for self defense is justified.

Not a decision to be made lightly, however.

[anonymous171]

113. Yes, I do believe that deadly force for self-defense is justified. nt

[LanternWaste]

116. from an academic angle, no-- I don't belive so.

From an academic angle, no-- I don't believe I am ethically entitled to take another person's life (see A. Schweitzer's "Civilization and Ethics" and his perspectives on the concept of 'reverence for life' to preempt any sub-literate, waste-of-time questions).



On the other hand, I can only pretend to know what I would do under any given situation. We may prognosticate with our testosterone on full display all we wish without changing the fact that no one has an absolute answer what would happen were we put into that situation.

I imagine the loudest among us would simply freeze and wet our pants in that scenario, while others-- the quiet, the unassuming and the passive may be the first ones to deal death without a second thought.

The best we can do is simply state what we hope we would do. What we would actually do is an unknown and an abstract (foretold mainly by the ineffectual, the imaginative, and the over-confident)

[votingupstart]

117. to save my life / limb/ eyesight or the same of my family or another - yes

if i can defend myself with less than lethal force then i will - if i am not sure or have to make a snap judgment i will use the most amount of force i can to stop the life-threatening attack. Then judge if i can use less force if the attack continues or if i need to continue to using lethal force.

and to answer the OP - no, i don't feel shooting the intruder(s) is wrong.

[Fire1]

120. If I knew some form of marshall arts, perhaps not but since I

don't possess those skills, I would have to say, absolutely.

[rrneck]

121. k&r Damn good thread. nt

[MilesColtrane]

122. I give them a chance to live.

The first load is heavy dove shot.

The rest, double aught buck shot.

[OhioChick]

124. In that situation...without a doubt. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

126. The only real answer: "I don't know."

It's like, "Would you go into a burning house to save a child."

What's striking is the certitude of some of the responses to a hypothetical situation.

[Imagevision]

129. The cops have tasered deadly 300+ times in 2008 so think like a cop...?

[H2O Man]

130. Definitely.

No question about it.