• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Use of deadly force

i agree. If someone is in my house, i dont know them and i cannot tell if they are armed or not, shoot them. How bout if they are standing on my front porch looking mean?

no .
 
As a last resort of self-defense when one is attacked unprovoked. I'll give three examples to illustrate my position.

1. A person breaks into my house and I'm standing in the room they broke into. They point a gun at me or a loved one. Deadly force is ethically appropriate.
2. A person attacks me without any physical provocation by me (including me taking out a weapon). Deadly force is ethically appropriate.

3. I push someone and that person punches me and proceeds to assault me to the point where I fear for my life. Deadly force is not ethically appropriate because I initiated contact, but I'd probably use it anyway as survival would come before ethics. I would just go straight to hell after I died.

WTF is this disclaimer. If your family was in the room, and someone pointed a gun at you or them, and you started to think about the ethic of this, I would think you needed you head examined. You don't ****ing consider ethics when your family is in mortal danger, you understand that. You do everything you can right then and there to make sure the perp DIES DIES DIES!
 
I would not shoot someone over my car. Is your car insured?

Ah, I see - insurance makes the difference, eh?

My house is insured, so I cannot defend it, or my family in it?

My wife has life insurance, so I cannot defend her life?

Spin again.
 
As a last resort of self-defense when one is attacked unprovoked. I'll give three examples to illustrate my position.

1. A person breaks into my house and I'm standing in the room they broke into. They point a gun at me or a loved one. Deadly force is ethically appropriate.

2. A person attacks me without any physical provocation by me (including me taking out a weapon). Deadly force is ethically appropriate.

3. I push someone and that person punches me and proceeds to assault me to the point where I fear for my life. Deadly force is not ethically appropriate because I initiated contact, but I'd probably use it anyway as survival would come before ethics. I would just go straight to hell after I died.

If you shove someone, and that someone decides to beat you to a pulp. You would be legal to defend yourself to whatever extreme.
Force for force. Not force for I will let you beat me into mental retardation.
 
No, I was just wondering if $500 was worth a human life to him. Or if it was a thousand or a couple of thousand. It was not spin just getting directly to the point. and this post really aint spin either, it just makes no sense.
Ah, I see - insurance makes the difference, eh?

My house is insured, so I cannot defend it, or my family in it?

My wife has life insurance, so I cannot defend her life?

Spin again.
 
No, I was just wondering if $500 was worth a human life to him. Or if it was a thousand or a couple of thousand. It was not spin just getting directly to the point. and this post really aint spin either, it just makes no sense.

According to the insurance corporations a human life is worth $50,000.

That being said people have killed people over $5.
 
I'm not a gun owner and never used a gun before, so pardon me if this sounds stupid, but using a gun to stop a crime does not necessarily mean using deadly force. It's an argument made against police on a regular basis, and they usually are able to defend against it, but with a private citizen I'm not sure. Since we're not talking about legal rights here, I'd say it would haunt me forever if I killed someone and simply wounding them or scaring them would have sufficed.

I agree...there's a lot of John Wayne wannabe's on this site though.
 
I agree...there's a lot of John Wayne wannabe's on this site though.
Says the "very liberal".
Iam not John Wayne, but I can and will protect my family at the drop of the hate with leathal force.
I have trained for through work and on my own through private companies.
You may wish to run and hide or cowar down in the face of danger or threat, but not many of us.
I also wonder about people that question my willingness to protect those that I love.
 
Says the "very liberal".
Iam not John Wayne, but I can and will protect my family at the drop of the hate with leathal force.
I have trained for through work and on my own through private companies.
You may wish to run and hide or cowar down in the face of danger or threat, but not many of us.
I also wonder about people that question my willingness to protect those that I love.

No idea what my lean has to do with anything.

Not sure why treating taking another life with gravitas means I run and hide and cower in the face of danger or threat.

I don't question your willingness to protect those you love, I question the responses typically in every thread in the "gun control forum (which should be labeled the "jerk off to guns" forum).

Guns have a purpose, killing sometimes has to happen...this "violence porn" or whatever fantasies wannabe vigilante's seem to display comes across like some 14 year old comic book fantasy. What's dangerous is virtually everyone in this thread actually has a weapon. Hopefully this tough guy devil may care attitude is just some tough guy persona and not how people actually treat the responsibility of deciding whether or not to take another life.
 
No idea what my lean has to do with anything.

Not sure why treating taking another life with gravitas means I run and hide and cower in the face of danger or threat.

I don't question your willingness to protect those you love, I question the responses typically in every thread in the "gun control forum (which should be labeled the "jerk off to guns" forum).

Guns have a purpose, killing sometimes has to happen...this "violence porn" or whatever fantasies wannabe vigilante's seem to display comes across like some 14 year old comic book fantasy. What's dangerous is virtually everyone in this thread actually has a weapon. Hopefully this tough guy devil may care attitude is just some tough guy persona and not how people actually treat the responsibility of deciding whether or not to take another life.
You paint with some very broad strokes.
 
I agree...there's a lot of John Wayne wannabe's on this site though.

nah, just a lot of people that will not leave the world as a victim, unlike yourself.
 
Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?

I'm sure there are probably exceptions, since it's hard to put something like this in a sound bite, but I believe that the use of deadly force is generally appropriate when there is a reasonable belief that your life, or the life of another innocent person is in jeopardy, or that it is necessary to stop a sexual assault.

This is one case where I think the law (in most places at least) gets it pretty right.
 
I've never been a victim and not afraid of being a victim.

Since you call those that would defend themselves 'john wayne' in a derogatory manner, it certainly seems you are against self defense, so your above statement may not end up being the case....
 
Since you call those that would defend themselves 'john wayne' in a derogatory manner, it certainly seems you are against self defense, so your above statement may not end up being the case....

The John Wayne comment is in regards to the blase attitude to taking another's life. The person I was responding to was talking about the gravity of taking another life.

Not sure how you got the idea that my post was targeted at the act of self defense.
 
Illegal to shoot them while on your porch!
If you do make sure you drag them into the house,
or else you'll be arrested.



Please do not give advice on things of which you are clearly ill-informed.

Dragging them into the house will leave forensic evidence, and then you're REALLY screwed.

Also, whether it is illegal to shoot someone on your porch depends on the jurisdiction, laws of the state, and totality of circumstances. In my state, it would be fine if they were acting as a serious threat, for instance... but not in every state.
 
Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?


When it is a reasonably necessary action taken to prevent the commission of a serious crime; particularly a crime of violence which is a felony, especially if the act being attempted is likely to result in grave bodily harm or death.






Personally, I'd also add "preventing someone from stealing or destroying my valuable property I can't afford to lose", but most states do not recognize that. There was a time when horse thieves and barn burners were hung... because the law recognized that either action could take something from a man that could have a serious impact on his or his family's ability to survive and prosper.
 
Illegal to shoot them while on your porch!
If you do make sure you drag them into the house,
or else you'll be arrested.

Not in Louisiana apparently.
 
Please do not give advice on things of which you are clearly ill-informed.

Dragging them into the house will leave forensic evidence, and then you're REALLY screwed.

Also, whether it is illegal to shoot someone on your porch depends on the jurisdiction, laws of the state, and totality of circumstances. In my state, it would be fine if they were acting as a serious threat, for instance... but not in every state.

In Washington State as someone walks onto my property they are trespassing and I have the legal right to shoot them.
 
In Washington State as someone walks onto my property they are trespassing and I have the legal right to shoot them.


It varies from state to state, quite a lot.

In my home state, SC, there is no duty to retreat anywhere you have a legal right to be, unless you're on someone else's property and have been told to leave. Also, protections for in your home, outside your home, your yard and outbuildings are stronger.... but they still have to be exhibiting some kind of threat behavior or criminal activity (breaking and entering would do, or charging aggressively) to be definitely shootable.
 
If you shove someone, and that someone decides to beat you to a pulp. You would be legal to defend yourself to whatever extreme.
Force for force. Not force for I will let you beat me into mental retardation.

I go with if they lay their hands on me they are toast. They put their lives in my hands at that moment. I am too old and too slow and too cranky to get into fist fights. That's for fools.
 
If you shove someone, and that someone decides to beat you to a pulp. You would be legal to defend yourself to whatever extreme.
Force for force. Not force for I will let you beat me into mental retardation.


Um. Laying unwelcome hands on someone is assault... doing so forcefully is battery. If you were still in their face after shoving them, they'd probably be in the right to slug you... but not to beat you half to death necessarily.

And if you tried to retreat, they don't get to pursue... though personally I think that's BS, someone shouldn't get to hit you and run away clean...


Solution: don't shove people.
 
Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?

ETHICALLY? That concerns some moral code of conduct, and could be personal, social, or professional. It has no place in your question because Legality is the real issue.

LEGALLY? In the majority of states you may legally use deadly force in self-defense if you have a reasonable belief that you are facing immininent death or serious bodily injury. You may use deadly force in defense of another if you have a good faith belief it would prevent the death or serious bodily injury of that other. In most states you do not have a duty to retreat, but in some states, if you can retreat you have a duty to try before using deadly force. In the almost all states (except one, I think it is Minnesota) with a duty of retreat, it does not apply if you are within your own home. Some few states allow a victim of a sexual assault to use deadly force in self-defense.

Almost all states have a caveat that if you are the initiator of an attack you cannot claim self-defense and try to use deadly force. Many states allow a transfer of the right of self-defense if the initial aggressor sincerely tries to cease his attack and the original defender continues to fight creating a threat of serious bodily injury or death.

To be clearest, check you own State statutes to see when deadly force is usable by a citizen.
 
Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?
To stop an imminent physical threat or other forcible felony, to include non-life-threatening forcible felonies such as burglary or car jacking.
 
Back
Top Bottom