It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is lethal force justified in any situation?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
This subject has been touched on in many different threads but I wanted a thread for JUST this question.

Should you be allowed to use lethal force if assaulted or robbed? How about if you just wake up top a burglar?

I say you are justified to use whatever force you feel necessary, if you are assaulted without having to worry if the intruder intended to kill you or just rape or rob you.

Once the criminal has crossed the line to trying take your possessions or hurt you or your family he has lost the right to legal recourse. In other words if you are involved in a criminal activity against another person that person automatically gets the benefit of the doubt. It is reasonable to believe that the assailant is intending to harm you so you should be allowed to use WHATEVER force YOU deem necessary

Lets go


[edit on 8-12-2004 by Amuk]




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Tell ya what..if someone is going to rob me, they better have a gun or knife and use it...and they better eat their wheaties....cause I will fight back with whatever is around as an equalizer! I will fight back if possible, even with a gun or knife....chances are your going to be killed anyway, so you might as well defend yourself. It's like someone jumping in your car and telling you to drive them somewhere....I'd drive them somewhere all right....right into a brick wall or the police station....the person is going to kill you so what have you got to loose?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
If you intend to rob me and harm me or my family you just lost all of your 'rights'. You will find out what the business end of a Ruger P89DC feels like. Yes, I carry it always and would have no problem using it to defend my family, my property or myself. There would also be no shoot to wound. I would do my best to make sure it was fatal.

There is no question, I would use it.

What should I do? Wait until a judge gets there to say its ok to shoot? Nope, won't happen.



[edit on 12/8/2004 by just_a_pilot]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
This is in the wrong forum I have asked the thread mods to move it to slugfest


Come on people where are the Bleeding heart liberals? Is no one concerned in the rights of a man to rob, rape and kill without the fear of being shot?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
This is in the wrong forum I have asked the thread mods to move it to slugfest


Come on people where are the Bleeding heart liberals?

Lookin' to stir the post there uh!? LOL



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

Lookin' to stir the post there uh!? LOL


Its a shameless bid for points


I know they are people out there that disagree with the basic idea of self protection who think it is better to let them do as they wished instead of stopping them I just want to hear from them



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I don't believe "deadly" force is ever necessary. But, I'm actually willing to admit that reactionary violence is sometimes necessary to protect self and property. No one can fault a person for chasing a purse snatcher or taking a bat to someone invading his/her home.

At the same time we must realize the ills in our society that cause someone to snatch a purse or rob a home. Here in Indy, we had a woman shot in the stomach by a over zealous Walmart security guard for stealing pampers for her child. Totally unnecessary and outright evil. Deadly force in these cases take away a person's chance for redemption, which as a Christian, I believe everyone is entitled to.

I would give up my purse without thinking, "Here cousin take it. You must need it more than I do." I'd cancel my cards and hit the dmv to get a new drivers license cause it's just not worth it.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
An over zelous securtity guard is not the same thing as someone trying to take my life, my families life or my property.

No PC bull shi here. Im going to kill you if you try to hurt any part of my life.

Here cousin take it??? No, I worked for it and I am not going to give it over because "you need it more than I".



[edit on 12/8/2004 by just_a_pilot]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I dont know, I would think twice about shooting an intruder.....blood is hard to clean off the ceiling, after all.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
I dont know, I would think twice about shooting an intruder.....blood is hard to clean off the ceiling, after all.


Not as hard as it is to erase an attack or bury a family member hurt or worse killed because someone wanted to hurt or take what is mine.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:14 AM
link   
If someone attemps to rob me or harm me in a phsical way they can kiss there rights away.
If someone trys to take my wallet how do I know they wont rape me? You should be able to use any force necessary to defend yourself. If the guy at the other end dies thats to bad he/she wont hurt anyone else.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot

Originally posted by cavscout
I dont know, I would think twice about shooting an intruder.....blood is hard to clean off the ceiling, after all.


Not as hard as it is to erase an attack or bury a family member hurt or worse killed because someone wanted to hurt or take what is mine.


I know man, I was being a smart ass. Just something we used to joke about around the house when I was a kid; "would you use a semi-auto shotgun or a pistol to shoot a bad guy in the house, Dad?" a pre-teen cavscout once asked. "The pistol," replied cavsout's Dad, "cause there is less blood to clean off the ceiling afterward."

[edit on 9-12-2004 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I have a question for you Amuk. What about your current rights to defend and protect yourself - even with lethal force if you feel your life is threatened - is it that are you're unhappy with?


[edit on 9-12-2004 by Durden]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Hey Durden, why didnt you answer his question before asking your own? Kind of rude there, huh?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Hey Durden, why didnt you answer his question before asking your own? Kind of rude there, huh?

That was rude? Gimme a break.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
See, your laughing at me! RUDE! OK, your right. Im just tired, sorry. Care to tell us how you feel about the issue though?

[edit on 9-12-2004 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   
What I want to do, before I blurt out an uninformed comment, is make sure I know where Amuk is coming from here.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
I have a question for you Amuk. What about your current rights to defend and protect yourself - even with lethal force if you feel your life is threathened - is it that are you're unhappy with?


I guess I am kinda dense I dont understand the question. Explain the question and I will answer. Do you understand mine?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
I guess I am kinda dense I dont understand the question. Explain the question and I will answer. Do you understand mine?

Well it seems like most people would agree that you should have the right to protect yourself with lethal force in situations where you feel your life is in danger, as do I. This is also a right you do have.

So what is it that you'd like to add to that right? Or is the point of this thread to merely say you're happy with your current rights?

Maybe I don't understand your initial question?


[edit on 9-12-2004 by Durden]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
So what is it that you'd like to add to that right? Or is the point of this thread to merely say you're happy with your current rights?


I am just asking people how far they think this right should go. To protecting your property? Should the person have to try to kill you BEFORE you shoot? Just basically what the limits should be.

What if you just catch someone in your home? How about if they were in your kids room? Should you be held responsible if the person is unarmed?

I say if someone breaks into your home or assaults or attempts to rob you it is reasonable to think they mean you harm. I think the victim should ALWAYS be given the benefit of the doubt.

If you don't want your ass blown off don't attack people or try to steal there property. If you do attempt it don't blame the victim if you wind up dead.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join