Use of deadly force

[Surtr]

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

My criteria is simple: Home invasion (especially if children are present), deadly force being used or attempted against you or another in your immediate vicinity, sexual assault (especially of a minor) either being attempted or in progress, and hostile military invasion or terrorist activity. I'm sure there's more, but those are the basics.

 

[Leo]

Generally speaking, you can't shoot someone JUST for simple trespass. There MIGHT be a state in the union that allows that, but I doubt it. Generally speaking they have to be doing something rather more than just cutting across your lawn to be shootable.

Most states do not allow deadly force in situations where there is no threat other than to property... but many are very permissive with what is considered a threat to persons. Typically breaking into a home, or attempting to, is considered adequate evidence of hostile intent in many states, if the residence is currently occupied. I consider this a reasonable assumption, given that (with residents inside) the odds of conflict between intruder and residents is extremely high... and given the consequences can be severe if you wrongly assume he just wants your telly and it turns out he wants something more personal, I have no problem with shooting any intruder into an occupied home.

You only have to clean up after ONE case where home intruders decided to have some "fun".... things like raping little children to death in front of their parents, that sort of "fun".... to start taking this **** VERY VERY seriously.

Thank you - that is much as I suspected.

 

[joko104]

Here is the issue. If you draw a weapon to protect yourself, it is on the assumption you are willing to use it. Otherwise, it is an empty threat and just as likely to get you injured/murdered. It is the threat of being shot/killed which should stop a criminal from attempting to hurt you. If they see a weapon, and continue to approach you, you have to assume their intent is not to simply shake your hand and thank you for showing them the error of their ways. Their is no such thing as shooting to wound. That is Hollywood fiction unless you happen to have the luxury of sniping a stationary target.

I don't agree. I can see situations where "shooting to wound" would be sufficient and even could be tactically superior. Of the latter, Russian snipers generally would shoot to wound - specifically the pelvic bone. German snipers shot to kill. The reason for the Russians if taking out the pelvic bone made that soldier no longer combat capable, plus an opportunity to pick off rescuers, plus all the manpower needed to transport the wounded soldier and care for him.

As for shooting to wound otherwise, that would be only in specific situations and by someone who is a particularly skillful shot.

The problem/challenge for self defense reliant solely on a firearm has to do with those grey areas of danger in public. A woman is alone in a parking lot loading her car. She sees a man rapidly approaching her. When he sees she sees him, he says "Excuse me" as he continues to approach rapidly. Is he a danger? What is his intentions? A beggar? Someone handing out religious tracts? Is going to ask for a jump because his car battery is dead ? On drugs? Can she really tell by the expression on his face and dress? Serial rapists and killers often seem very normal, middle aged, trustable and personable. If she says "STOP! DON'T COME CLOSER!" and he says "But I only want to ask you..." while continuing rapidly towards her is she justified in shooting to kill? Or even shooting at all?

 

[joko104]

My view is that a person should be able to use deadly force to prevent a substantial lose of property if that the only way to stop the lose - and to prevent lose of property stolen via robbery/mugging - for example someone robs a person at knife point of her purse or his wallet. I think the person should be able to shoot that person - in the back if that is what it takes - rather than the robber run off with her purse or his wallet. However, I recognize that view is contrary to law and therefore would not do so for the repercussions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

My view is that a person should be able to use deadly force to prevent a substantial lose of property if that the only way to stop the lose - and to prevent lose of property stolen via robbery/mugging - for example someone robs a person at knife point of her purse or his wallet. I think the person should be able to shoot that person - in the back if that is what it takes - rather than the robber run off with her purse or his wallet.

The problem with that, naturally, is that shooting someone in the back (or simply crushing their skull with a baseball bat) and then placing your wallet/purse in their hand is not that tricky to accomplish before a "witness" shows up.

 

[Morrigi]

I believe that a person reasonably perceived as attempting, threatening, or committing an act intended to inflict harm on your person, property, or that of others is an acceptable target if there is no other option that would pose minimal risk to yourself or that of other potential victims. If he's stolen something of significant value, assaulted someone, etc. he is a massive dick and should be shot to remove him from society and the gene pool regardless of what he's doing.

This would apply to home invasions, robbery, mugging, and any other situation where a reasonable person would be in fear of their life, the life of another, bodily harm to either, damage or theft of any property of value, etc. That said, other options should be used if available and practical.

 

[SMTA]

The problem with that, naturally, is that shooting someone in the back (or simply crushing their skull with a baseball bat) and then placing your wallet/purse in their hand is not that tricky to accomplish before a "witness" shows up.

'Throwdown wallet' eh?

 

[chuck71]

I don't agree. I can see situations where "shooting to wound" would be sufficient and even could be tactically superior. Of the latter, Russian snipers generally would shoot to wound - specifically the pelvic bone. German snipers shot to kill. The reason for the Russians if taking out the pelvic bone made that soldier no longer combat capable, plus an opportunity to pick off rescuers, plus all the manpower needed to transport the wounded soldier and care for him.

As for shooting to wound otherwise, that would be only in specific situations and by someone who is a particularly skillful shot.

The problem/challenge for self defense reliant solely on a firearm has to do with those grey areas of danger in public. A woman is alone in a parking lot loading her car. She sees a man rapidly approaching her. When he sees she sees him, he says "Excuse me" as he continues to approach rapidly. Is he a danger? What is his intentions? A beggar? Someone handing out religious tracts? Is going to ask for a jump because his car battery is dead ? On drugs? Can she really tell by the expression on his face and dress? Serial rapists and killers often seem very normal, middle aged, trustable and personable. If she says "STOP! DON'T COME CLOSER!" and he says "But I only want to ask you..." while continuing rapidly towards her is she justified in shooting to kill? Or even shooting at all?

:mrgreen: "But I only want to ask you..." 'while continuing rapidly towards her is she justified in shooting to kill? Or even shooting at all?' Uhh! YES!!!!

 

[chuck71]

Over thinking it aren't we. Just because I can doesn't mean I will.

:mrgreen: Glad to read you say that!!

 

[chuck71]

It's like I taught my daughters...when it's 3:00 a.m. and some drug-craved pervert is banging on your door you have to decide if this situation merits pulling out your gun. Once the gun comes out there are no further decisions to be made. You're about to kill someone.

:mrgreen: Or shoot him in the knee cap to stop him.

 

[X Factor]

:mrgreen: Or shoot him in the knee cap to stop him.

I hope you're joking. You don't shoot someone to hobble him, you shoot someone to end him.

 

[chuck71]

Nope, not if you felt that your life was in danger. Now if they were on the other side of a fence or were of a size that a threat was not possible. Then you may have more serious questions coming your way.

:mrgreen: Of course!

 

[chuck71]

If he's on your porch, waste his butt.

:mrgreen: Looking mean, waste his butt. Whoa! You got the gun! You got the upper hand! "Hey man, what the hell are you doing on my porch? Maybe he got lost, his car broke down, etc...etc...

 

[SMTA]

:mrgreen: Or shoot him in the knee cap to stop him.

That kind of accuracy in a stressful situation is a complete pipedream and not feasible at all.

 

[SMTA]

:mrgreen: Looking mean, waste his butt. Whoa! You got the gun! You got the upper hand! "Hey man, what the hell are you doing on my porch? Maybe he got lost, his car broke down, etc...etc...

Simply having a gun does not guarantee the upper hand.

Situational assessment does not require having a long and detailed discussion.

 

[SMTA]

I don't agree. I can see situations where "shooting to wound" would be sufficient and even could be tactically superior. Of the latter, Russian snipers generally would shoot to wound - specifically the pelvic bone. German snipers shot to kill. The reason for the Russians if taking out the pelvic bone made that soldier no longer combat capable, plus an opportunity to pick off rescuers, plus all the manpower needed to transport the wounded soldier and care for him.

As for shooting to wound otherwise, that would be only in specific situations and by someone who is a particularly skillful shot.



The problem/challenge for self defense reliant solely on a firearm has to do with those grey areas of danger in public. A woman is alone in a parking lot loading her car. She sees a man rapidly approaching her. When he sees she sees him, he says "Excuse me" as he continues to approach rapidly. Is he a danger? What is his intentions? A beggar? Someone handing out religious tracts? Is going to ask for a jump because his car battery is dead ? On drugs? Can she really tell by the expression on his face and dress? Serial rapists and killers often seem very normal, middle aged, trustable and personable. If she says "STOP! DON'T COME CLOSER!" and he says "But I only want to ask you..." while continuing rapidly towards her is she justified in shooting to kill? Or even shooting at all?

This is completely incorrect logic.

A self-defense situation is far different than playing around like a Russian sniper.

In any self-defense situation, You shoot to stop the threat, not playing identification with specific body parts.

Cavalier stupidity will get you killed in a self-defense situation if you do not know what you're doing.

Self defense is not a video game, and it is not a game of 'Operation'.

There is zero self defense training in the US that will instruct students to 'shoot to wound'.

That kind of mentality is ignorant, and will get the wrong people killed.

 

[apdst]

:mrgreen: Looking mean, waste his butt. Whoa! You got the gun! You got the upper hand! "Hey man, what the hell are you doing on my porch? Maybe he got lost, his car broke down, etc...etc...

He should make his intentions know instantaniously.

 

[The Baron]

:mrgreen: Or shoot him in the knee cap to stop him.

You don't play sharp-shooter at 3:00 a.m. with a drug-craved pervert who has just waken you up out of a deep-sleep. You aim for center-mass and keep shooting until the idiot stops moving. It's your ass...you don't play games with your ass.

Stupid!

 

[TurtleDude]

I hope you're joking. You don't shoot someone to hobble him, you shoot someone to end him.

nah you shoot someone to stop him from doing something that gives you the reasonable belief he is trying to inflict imminent severe bodily harm upon you