Use of deadly force

[mak2]

No. I was not asking about legally. Just because you can kill someone legally doesn't mean you should. I just find it strange I used to hang out on conservative and gun forums, and the consensus was pretty much what mine currently is now. Sometime in the very recent years it seems the opinion has slipped to fire at will if someone is stealing your lawn chair off your front porch. I am just trying to figure out how I missed this change.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?

To stop a crime in progress, basically the same criteria used to support a "citizen's arrest". Consider this scenario: one discovers that a thief (or crew of thieves) is loading their work tools into a truck. Once they thief (or thieves) discover that they are being observed they can simply take off with a partial load and stand little chance of ever being caught. In that situation, I feel that one is justified in saying "stop or I will shoot" and backing up that assertion if they so much as take a single step to take cover or flee.

 

[GottaGo]

Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?

If I cannot remove myself or those around me immediately from imminent danger, I will defend.

There is no time to pose to oneself the ethics of the situation, or consider the value of the exchange of lives in such a situation.

I will bear the guilt and grieve the loss of life when I know everyone else is safe. But at least I and/or others will be alive to do so.

 

[Leo]

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

I am interested in this conceptual right, expressed by so many posters here, to use deadly force upon someone who is considered to be committing simple trespass (i.e. walking onto your property without permission).

Under English Common Law you can't be prosecuted for straight-forward trespass per se, but the land owner can take civil proceedings against you for damages. The onus would be on them to prove your actions resulted in their financial loss. The penalties would depend upon the extent of that loss.

The law of Criminal Trespass under the Organised Crime and Police a Act 2005 mainly concerns trespassing on Crown Property. The penalty for that is a fine up to £5000 or six months imprisonment This law was brought about to help with cases such as protesters entering MoD property and causing extensive and deliberate damage.

The use of the sort of deadly force promised by so many posters here in response to simple trespass (unaccompanied by violence or the threat of violence,) would earn you a life sentence in the British courts.

What I am wondering is the precise legal position with regard to simple trespass. Someone walks into your front garden - you shoot him dead (which is the assertion you are making,) what do the police say when they arrive?

 

[Dooble]

Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?

Probably about the time someone introduces your head to the cement. What's that called again? Oh yeah, "woop ass".

 

[Captain Adverse]

No. I was not asking about legally. Just because you can kill someone legally doesn't mean you should. I just find it strange I used to hang out on conservative and gun forums, and the consensus was pretty much what mine currently is now. Sometime in the very recent years it seems the opinion has slipped to fire at will if someone is stealing your lawn chair off your front porch. I am just trying to figure out how I missed this change.

It does not matter if you think you can unless you can legally. The fact that you thought you could won't do much to comfort you when you find yourself spending the next 20 years to life in a prison facility. (Or facing the death penalty.)

 

[mak2]

I dont think my tools are worth someones life.

To stop a crime in progress, basically the same criteria used to support a "citizen's arrest". Consider this scenario: one discovers that a thief (or crew of thieves) is loading their work tools into a truck. Once they thief (or thieves) discover that they are being observed they can simply take off with a partial load and stand little chance of ever being caught. In that situation, I feel that one is justified in saying "stop or I will shoot" and backing up that assertion if they so much as take a single step to take cover or flee.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I dont think my tools are worth someones life.

They are largely what makes my life possible. No tools = no work = no roof over my head and no meal in my belly.

 

[chuck71]

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?

:mrgreen: That's when you let them know you have a gun, and ask them (not politely) what the hell they're doing on your porch?

 

[chuck71]

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.

:mrgreen: Make sure you clean up any blood on the porch and any other evidence that would suggest the shooting didn't take place inside.

 

[chuck71]

Ever been to Florida? On my porch, on my lawn, in my back yard if you threaten me and I feel fear for my life or the life of my family. You are a soon to be ventilated. Hope you said all your good byes before you left home.

:mrgreen: In Florida, if you shot someone 'menacing' in your back yard, would the police arrest you?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

:mrgreen: In Florida, if you shot someone 'menacing' in your back yard, would the police arrest you?

yes 456789

 

[chuck71]

Maybe we should post this for those in Rio Linda

eth·ics [eth-iks]
plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

:mrgreen: You lost me WCH, but I think your saying It's ethically appropriate to use deadly force when your life and your family's are at stake.

 

[chuck71]

You come on my property you get a warning, 10 seconds later you are getting shot. And I mean property, not just house.

:mrgreen: Does South Carolina go along with that?

 

[blackjack50]

Regardless of the law, when is deadly force ethically appropriate?

Good question. Ethically? When your life or the life of a loved one is in danger. Of course the wiggle room occurs when you discuss what YOU are doing and if you face grievous bodily harm.

Would lethal force be on here ethically(warning hard to watch...violent).

http://youtu.be/aMe2-Cf9Cxc

 

[blackjack50]

:mrgreen: In Florida, if you shot someone 'menacing' in your back yard, would the police arrest you?

Depends on what "menacing" is. If they cross that line and you feel threatened...you are justified and likely won't be arrested. Especially if they have the means and motive to carry out violence.

One thing is for certain. If you threaten someone when they are at their home...you deserve no sympathy for getting shot.

 

[chuck71]

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.

:mrgreen: Canada, What do you mean when you say "Since we're not talking about legal rights here" (partial quote)? Do you mean in Canada or in the U.S.A? In the U.S.A "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" implies you can use your gun to defend your life. I realize that gun control laws try to nullify that, but the Framers intended self defense. There's an old saying "I'd rather walk into a courtroom under the power of my own legs and feet and explain to 12 men and women why I used a gun to successfully defend my life, then be carried out of a church under the power of six pallbearers because I didn't have my gun when I needed it to save my life. I too, would be haunted if I killed someone when wounding or scaring would have sufficed.

 

[WCH]

:mrgreen: You lost me WCH, but I think your saying It's ethically appropriate to use deadly force when your life and your family's are at stake.

Actually just laying a foundation but, yes it is.

 

[Goshin]

:mrgreen: Does South Carolina go along with that?

we have SYG and extended Castle Doctrine. Your yard, curtilage and outbuildings are considered "home".


However legally there must be a credible threat to be a clean shoot. Simple trespass isn't necessarily a shootable offense in and of itself.



edited to add: if they break into your house, there is an assumption that this proves criminal intent. It is rare for any SC homeowner to be arrested or charged for shooting an intruder in their house or in their yard...

 

[chuck71]

Actually just laying a foundation but, yes it is.

:mrgreen: Mahatma Ghandi's ethics were such that he stated if he was outside, say at a picnic, and a cobra approached him, he would NOT kill the cobra to save his own life. Those kind of ethics are fine for the Mahatma, but I think I'd be reaching for my gun.

 

[chuck71]

we have SYG and extended Castle Doctrine. Your yard, curtilage and outbuildings are considered "home".


However legally there must be a credible threat to be a clean shoot. Simple trespass isn't necessarily a shootable offense in and of itself.



edited to add: if they break into your house, there is an assumption that this proves criminal intent. It is rare for any SC homeowner to be arrested or charged for shooting an intruder in their house or in their yard...

:mrgreen: Do you have to see a gun in order to determine a credible threat? To digress, I once sent Thomas Sowell an e-mail for his advice on who I should vote for, Bush or Kerry! He replied by referring me to one of his books where he was quoting Ronald Reagan. I have his book 'The Vision of the Annointed'.

 

[Goshin]

:mrgreen: Do you have to see a gun in order to determine a credible threat? To digress, I once sent Thomas Sowell an e-mail for his advice on who I should vote for, Bush or Kerry! He replied by referring me to one of his books where he was quoting Ronald Reagan. I have his book 'The Vision of the Annointed'.

No, you do not. The standards for a "credible threat" are pretty common to most states and well known. There has to be jeopardy behavior or an indication of intent, plus the ability and opportunity to carry out the threat or apparent threat.

A few years ago I knew a fellow who shot a gasoline thief dead in his yard. The guy had a screwdriver in his hand, acted aggressive, moved forward.... bam, one shot, dead on scene. Homeowner not charged nor taken into custody.

 

[chuck71]

They are largely what makes my life possible. No tools = no work = no roof over my head and no meal in my belly.

:mrgreen: Then you're defending your means of livelihood as well as your tools.

 

[chuck71]

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!

:mrgreen: Better to explain to 12 than be carried by six.

 

[chuck71]

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.

:mrgreen: Got to agree again! Man, aint I a waffler? I need to eat at IHOP every day.