If you could use any level of force against an attacker

[DebateChallenge]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

 

[HumblePi]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

I think that's already a thing. If someone is attacked they can defend themselves no matter what it takes. Why would anyone 'get in trouble' for defending themselves?

 

[DebateChallenge]

I think that's already a thing. If someone is attacked they can defend themselves no matter what it takes. Why would anyone 'get in trouble' for defending themselves?

Because you're only supposed to use "reasonable" force to stop your attacker. If you go beyond the level or reasonable force then self defense will not work for you as a defense in court. Exactly what is reasonable that varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Rebuttal: if one is allowed limitless amounts of violence against an attacker, all they have to do to be acquitted of murder is to tamper with the scene of their crime enough to make it look like their victim was the aggressor.

 

[The Mark]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

It depends on many factors.
Such as whether the person is actually attacking, or only perceived as such by the person who reacts. If the former, then it still depends but less so. If the latter, there may be problems for the person who thinks they are or claims they were defending themselves.
Or how close the attacker is, relative to how they are attacking.
For example if someone is threatening you with a knife but they're 20 feet away on the other side of a solid door, using lethal force against them is probably unnecessary.
On the other hand if they're smashing said door down with an axe/sledge or some such, that's quite another.

This is all based on my detailed knowledge and experience from not once being attacked that I know of.

 

[Bullseye]

Because you're only supposed to use "reasonable" force to stop your attacker. If you go beyond the level or reasonable force then self defense will not work for you as a defense in court. Exactly what is reasonable that varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

So, you're saying if a person walking his dog and allows it to crap on my law I should be able to empty my AR-15 mag on him?

 

[HumblePi]

Because you're only supposed to use "reasonable" force to stop your attacker. If you go beyond the level or reasonable force then self defense will not work for you as a defense in court. Exactly what is reasonable that varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

If someone is physically attacked, they can assume they are about to be killed.

 

[Carjosse]

If someone is physically attacked, they can assume they are about to be killed.

Not necessarily. In Canada and I am sure some jurisdictions in the United States you can only defend yourself with an equal amount of force and can only use lethal force if you legitimately fear for your life. Someone coming at you with a knife, deadly force is perfectly acceptable but if some drunk starts throwing drunken punches at you, no. A drunk may be attacking you but you have no reason to fear for your life.

 

[HumblePi]

Not necessarily. In Canada and I am sure some jurisdictions in the United States you can only defend yourself with an equal amount of force and can only use lethal force if you legitimately fear for your life. Someone coming at you with a knife, deadly force is perfectly acceptable but if some drunk starts throwing drunken punches at you, no. A drunk may be attacking you but you have no reason to fear for your life.

But that doesn't make sense. Who can possibly determine what an 'equal amount of force is' ? If a 110 pound female gets attacked with a choke hold from behind her from a 210 pound 6 ft tall male and he ends up dead, who determines whether that was an 'equal amount of force' if this 110 pound woman happened to be a cage fighter with MMA and put that guy away with two blows to his throat? Circumstances are unique for each situation but I assume that any situation in which a person is physically attacked, they have to assume they feel their life is in jeopardy.

 

[KevinKohler]

Not necessarily. In Canada and I am sure some jurisdictions in the United States you can only defend yourself with an equal amount of force and can only use lethal force if you legitimately fear for your life. Someone coming at you with a knife, deadly force is perfectly acceptable but if some drunk starts throwing drunken punches at you, no. A drunk may be attacking you but you have no reason to fear for your life.

Unless, you know....its Warren Sap, or someone else 8 ft tall, and 1,200lbs of muscle.

People die every year from being punched in the head.

 

[KevinKohler]

There is no blanket statement, rule, or law to cover self defence. It will always have to be determined on a case by case basis.

 

[DebateChallenge]

So, you're saying if a person walking his dog and allows it to crap on my law I should be able to empty my AR-15 mag on him?

He's not attacking you. He might be defacing your land but he's not attacking you.

 

[DebateChallenge]

If someone is physically attacked, they can assume they are about to be killed.

That depends. Not all attacks are deadly.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Not necessarily. In Canada and I am sure some jurisdictions in the United States you can only defend yourself with an equal amount of force and can only use lethal force if you legitimately fear for your life. Someone coming at you with a knife, deadly force is perfectly acceptable but if some drunk starts throwing drunken punches at you, no. A drunk may be attacking you but you have no reason to fear for your life.

And if Canada and if those jurisdictions in the USA that place limits on the level of force you can use got rid of those limits then there would be far less knife attacks and there would be far less punching attacks.

 

[Bullseye]

He's not attacking you. He might be defacing your land but he's not attacking you.

But he might if I tell him to pick up his dog's crap. Why take the chance?

 

[DebateChallenge]

But he might if I tell him to pick up his dog's crap. Why take the chance?

You're not defending yourself if he hasn't yet attacked you.

 

[Carjosse]

But that doesn't make sense. Who can possibly determine what an 'equal amount of force is' ? If a 110 pound female gets attacked with a choke hold from behind her from a 210 pound 6 ft tall male and he ends up dead, who determines whether that was an 'equal amount of force' if this 110 pound woman happened to be a cage fighter with MMA and put that guy away with two blows to his throat? Circumstances are unique for each situation but I assume that any situation in which a person is physically attacked, they have to assume they feel their life is in jeopardy.

What do you think the justice system does? I gave an example of a common situation where someone could be attacked but thier life is clearly not threatened. What if someone throws a soda can at you? That is attacking you. You think you have the right to shoot them?

 

[ecofarm]

I think we should be allowed to taze people in general, relatively unprovoked.

 

[radioman]

I think we should be allowed to taze people in general, relatively unprovoked.

Agreed.
I can't tell you how often I've been walking down the street and muttered to myself..."That guy needs to be tased"

 

[Sabre]

That depends. Not all attacks are deadly.

Catch 22 here. You will not know if the attack is deadly until it is over, then it could be too late.

 

[ecofarm]

Agreed.
I can't tell you how often I've been walking down the street and muttered to myself..."That guy needs to be tased"

And we should think of the children. "You're gonna throw a fit in the grocery store because mommy won't buy you candy?" *zap* "You're welcome, ma'am." Then maybe zap her too, she's the real issue. "How dare you?" *buzz*

That's justice.

 

[radioman]

And we should think of the children. "You're gonna throw a fit in the grocery store because mommy won't buy you candy?" *zap* "You're welcome, ma'am." Then maybe zap her too, she's the real issue. "How dare you?" *buzz*

That's justice.

I was actually just kidding about the taser, but you are making some really solid points.
Not to mention that I happen to love the smell of ozone and singed human hair in the morning.
That's the smell of victory !!!

 

[Drawdown]

If you could use any level of force against an attacker and not get in trouble, if the courts would see any level of force against an attacker as reasonable, there would be far less attackers.

Any Level of Force+Victim Culture=Dystopia

 

[HumblePi]

That depends. Not all attacks are deadly.

But that's not what I said. Of course, not all attacks are deadly. My point was that if you're a person that's unarmed and taken by a surprise physical attack, the majority of people will feel as though their lives are in danger and react to the attack with that in their mind.

 

[HumblePi]

What do you think the justice system does? I gave an example of a common situation where someone could be attacked but thier life is clearly not threatened. What if someone throws a soda can at you? That is attacking you. You think you have the right to shoot them?

Having a soda can thrown at you is not an 'attack'. This is where people are getting this wrong. The OP specifically says "attacked". Attack always implies something abrupt and unexpected, like the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What you're talking about with is an 'assault' which is much different than an attack. An attack is an action verb and it means aggression, a charge or ambush, like a military attack, it's sudden, unexpected and violent. An assault is a noun that describes an action like the soda can being thrown. It's not completely unexpected. Two people might be in a debate and one picks up his soda can and throws it. Or a couple of high school boys start fighting outside and one picks up a rock and hurls it at the other. That's assault, not attack.

Shooting someone in self defense is not something anyone could be charged for. It was a surprise attack. But shooting someone because a guy threw a can at them should be charged with murder. It was an assault, not an attack.