Is lethal force justified in any situation?

Well then I would say this is an issue that should be dealt with on a case by case basis; much like it's done today. As long as it can be considered the victim felt that his/her life was threatened, I think the victim should be given the benefit of the doubt. However if this is not the case, but rather a case of vengeful killing, then no.

One should be able to use lethal force when ever they feel that they are in mortal danger. However the problem becomes what if you are paranoid and always believe that you are in mortal danger? Should the milk man get it for knocking at your door?

Let me tell you a little story.

About nine months ago, we had a manager take over my apartment complex who had a history of letting the place go to hell in such a short period of time that it was mind-boggling. This time was no different and we had several real trouble makers living in my building complex (this is a huge complex composed of several smaller complexes).

A couple moved in above me who were running a day care center, which I'm sure was a front for a drug business or at the very least was a service for a gang or something. What was alarming was that these people partied all night and had kids running around all day with minimal supervision. They were out of compliance with apartment regulations and in violation of the law, but the apartment manager took four months to get them evicted.

In that time, I was unable to sleep on a regular schedule, because of the nearly twenty-four hour noise. I went to them privately to request some cooperation and they told me to move. I went to the management and they told me to wait. They were doing what they could. The stress was so much that I had to quit my job.

They and their friends, both residents and non-residents, threatened me with physical harm, including death, and they slashed all four of my tires. The apartment complex offered to let me move to another sub-complex, but I refused. I had been here for over five years and I was not going to be forced out of my apartment by thugs.

I had to call the police several times to report the threats, the slashed tires and whatnot, but one afternoon after another threat I called and asked officers to come to my apartment.

When they arrived, I told them of the incident, the history and the fact that I was forced to go about armed at all times. I got a lecture about legal carry. I told them that I was aware of the laws and that I complied with all laws because I carried openly. When they said that scared some people, I replied, "Too bad."

So then, I realized that I was going to have to lay it on the line for them, in no uncertain terms. I said that these were young men and that I am not so young anymore. I told them that they had threatened my property and that they had made good on that threat by slashing my tires. I told them that they had threatend me with physical harm, including death, and that I had no intention of even breaking a sweat with these scumbags. I told them that I am highly proficient with a firearm and if they got within twenty feet of me and demonstrated anything even remotely threatening, I would shoot to kill. I told them that I don't bother anyone and I don't make threats and that I knew that my calling them would not change the situation, but if something went down, I wanted there to be a public record of my problems.

When I finished speaking they both just stood there looking at me without saying a word with their mouths open and then one broke the silence by saying that they would have a talk with the offenders.

From that day forward, I saw very little of those miscreants until they each moved out. In that situation, I did not care about legal justification. After what I had been through in trying to act civilly with savages, I determined that I was not going to take it anymore and I would pay whatever the consequences were.

There are plenty of circumstances that justify lethal force.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
. After what I had been through in trying to act civilly with savages, I determined that I was not going to take it anymore and I would pay whatever the consequences were.

This was part of the point of my post, why should someone have to be bullied and harassed on a daily basis? I am not supporting coming to work and killing everybody, just that everyone has a right to their person, property and dignity.

When I was growing up in the backwoods here EVERYONE was armed. You also knew that if you attacked someone, tried to steal their property, mess with someones wife, etc; you might be shot by the offended party. Stuff like that were considered "crimes of passion" and were rarely prosecuted.

The result was a polite honest community of people that minded their own bussiness.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by Amuk]

Amuk: do you really believe folk were polite and honest because if they weren't they'd be killed....hmmm....maybe they were all polite and honest folk because the community they grew up in bred polite honest folk-- arms or no arms.

I grew up around some hungry folk and when you hungry you'll do just about anything. And if anyone pulled on them they'd better be prepared to lose their life for a wallet or a t.v. The fact is money and things can be replaced but life or the lives of your loved ones cannot. Its just not worth it. I work hard for my money--the guy with the gun is working hard for his. I'm always gonna be able to make money if its the Lord's will. I don't see the point in ending someones life for paper if I did I'd be on the other side of the trigger.

sorry im here late, work.

force should, by common sense, be distributed to fit the crime. i dont support killing a man because he tried to steal your bike. however, there are a lot of stupid cases around where, although you should not kill a person for trying to mug you, the odds are they have a concealed weapon, in which case its too late when they pull it.

you need to use common sense. the laws are such that you can use deadly force only in cases if your life is immediate threat, or for major felonies, like arson. (burn down my house, ill blow your head off!) be smart about, thats really what i feel.

what i do think needs to be done is something about danger to others. if a robber tells you to do something or else hell shoot your kid, you cant kill him, as the danger is not at you. nobody would try you, but its a stupid set of laws. you need to have the ability to proteect yourself and those you love.

It would be interesting if people laid out their beliefs in a precise stance.

Shoot to kill if any property is being stolen?
In this case, you will kill a child if he takes your candy.

Shoot to kill if your property is worth > 50,000?
In this case, you will kill the guy stealing your high-end car.

Shoot to kill if your property is worth > 100,000?
In this case you will kill the guy bringing a torch to your dwelling.

In all irony, in the latter two cases, we put a price on one's life. The robber must ask themself, "Is my life worth the chance at destroying or gaining $X amount of money." In the first example, while the most harsh, we see that money is not an issue, and thus, we kill the robber based on principle instead of value. They must ask themselves, "Is my life worth the chance to steal or destroy?"

With respect to events that do not have a relation to personal property (say family members), we indirectly assign values in relation to other people.

Shoot to kill if anyone is in danger, in any quantity.
In this case, you will kill the child that is riding his bike too quickly towards your daughter.

Shoot to kill if you are in danger.
In this case, you equate the life of the attacker with at least the value of yours.

Shoot to kill if 2 or more family members are in danger.
In this case, you equate the life of the attacker with at least the value of two family members.

Again, as with last time, the first case is the one that holds the most principle. You are not adding the value of lives, but rather using the value of people in danger. The bad part about this is, however, that you are also obligated to protect evil men from danger (good bye death penalty!).

-Radardog

great post radar. lucky we humans have built in judgment (usually).

thats how we can differentiate between our house and our candy. thats how we calculate who is important to us, and by how much.

The bad part about this is, however, that you are also obligated to protect evil men from danger

the bad part about that is that you just shot someone who rode their bike at you!

the bad part about that is that you just shot someone who rode their bike at you!

Who needs bikers anyway?

Originally posted by radardogWho needs bikers anyway?

poor coppers?

Originally posted by xpert11
If someone trys to take my wallet how do I know they wont rape me?

exactly. how do you know if after robbing you, they will rape you, kill you, rape and kill your family, your neighbours, your dog, crap in your fridge, burn your house down and kill your president?

come on people. A little common sense, please. You can't just adopt the 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality unless you have reason to believe that you will be killed unless you kill first. EVERY kill in self defence should be brought before a court. If the defendant is found to have used lethal force when not necessary, the defendant should be prosecuted.

come on people. A little common sense, please. You can't just adopt the 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality unless you have reason to believe that you will be killed unless you kill first. EVERY kill in self defence should be brought before a court.

Heres the problem I see with that argument if someone is threatening or causing you phscial harm its hardly tattooed on there forehead that they will only rob & bash you not kill you. As for the 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality thats a little off the mark I wouldnt attack someone because they look like a person who might harm me.
For example if someone trys to hold up a petrol station its pretty obvious that there not a friendly customer. As stated above it is impossible to tell what the crime will do.
Motto of the story you commit the crime you risk your life.

Originally posted by General Zapata
come on people. A little common sense, please. You can't just adopt the 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality unless you have reason to believe that you will be killed unless you kill first. EVERY kill in self defence should be brought before a court. If the defendant is found to have used lethal force when not necessary, the defendant should be prosecuted.

So a woman being raped should have to worry about being tried for murder if she could not PROVE he was going to kill her?

Screw that. The burden should ALWAYS be on the attacker, if they hadn't assaulted someone they wouldn't be dead. Why so much concern over the life of a rapist and not the victim?

Again I will ask you how do they PROVE he WASNT going to kill them? Have him fill out a questionaire or sign a contract before he beats the hell out of them and rapes them?

That a real smart idea

Originally posted by xpert11
As for the 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality thats a little off the mark I wouldnt attack someone because they look like a person who might harm me.

I dont think ANYONE is saying to shoot someone if you THINK they might attack you. I am talking about intruders in your home or someone trying to attack/rob/rape/kill you

I dont think ANYONE is saying to shoot someone if you THINK they might attack you. I am talking about intruders in your home or someone trying to attack/rob/rape/kill you

I was refering to General Zapata comment
not yours.

Originally posted by Amuk
So a woman being raped should have to worry about being tried for murder if she could not PROVE he was going to kill her?

I don't think I was implying that, I just meant that it could easily be taken too far, and people could start getting jumpy and kill someone unecessarily. Take for example, a bar fist fight. Now, if its just a fist fight, its not gonna cause death for anyone. However, if someone pulls a gun and shoots the other guy, an unecessary death has occured through unreasonable use of force, and the kiler should pay. I'm just saying that we should exercise a little common sense before we break open the floodgates for anyone owning a gun who has a passing disagreement with someone.

A quick quote regarding this topic:

Justify Murder?

Is there such a thing?

I say there is. The world is not sanctuary where everything is love and flowers. No Shangri-La with fluffy bunnies and white clouds like pillows. This is the world, the real world - violent and uncertain. You cannot murder vermin.

People seek to to visit death and destruction on others, so is it wrong to rid the world of them? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life. When a mad dog kills a child, you kill the dog. But when a man commits the blackest sin, why must we rationalize and sermonize? And when someone does something about it, what is heard?

"Did you have to kill them?"
"Was there a need for such violence?"

It is a question of balance. If a man throws food on the fire, who will have pity on him when he runs around shouting "I'm starving"? So it is with the killer who deals in violence and death, theft and pillage. They deserve no pity.

My blog

I couldn't agree more ZZ.

As much as some cant admit it some people just don't deserve to draw another breath. I have been a soldier, biker, bounty hunter and prisoner myself and I have met some people that would skin you alive and laugh at your screams.

I shared a cell with a man that had chopped up an old couple and had them in the trunk of his car when pulled over. You want to know why he did it? He owed them 20$ at their gas station and they weren't going to give them any more credit.

Another had wheeled the crippled owner of a jewelry stores wheel chair into a back room and shot him and his daughter both in the head and proceeded to rob the store.

Another had robbed a quickie mart and kidnapped, raped and cut the throat of the teller.

Another had forced a womans son to have oral sex with her while he had anal sex with the boy and filmed the events so he could watch them over and over. It was my pleasure to chase this one down when he skipped bond. To bad he chose to resist and was in pretty bad shape when we brought him in. I got paid any way.

The list could go on forever. And NOT ONE of them was in the least sorry for what they had done. These are the type of people that some are affraid might get hurt if people protect themselves. Screw them.

As much as the bleeding hearts cant admit it some people are a waste of human life that live to hurt and kill and NOTHING you do will not change them. Trying to reason with them would be like trying to reason with a hungry tiger. They do not even live in the same world as we do. They don't have feelings or compassion for there fellow men and dont deserve to have another chance to rob, rape or kill.

you are completely ignoring my post, or just reading it very wrongly. I agree with you, some people don't deserve the protections of the legislation that I propose should be passed and upheld. But what about those that do? What about the drunk but otherwise decent guy who was shot when a bar fight got out of hand? What about the son that was shot by his father when he lost his keys and had to break into his own house at 2 in the morning? These things happen all the time, and it is our job as a society to make sure that we don't provide the situation where they are likely to happen more and more.

Originally posted by General Zapata
. EVERY kill in self defense should be brought before a court. If the defendant is found to have used lethal force when not necessary, the defendant should be prosecuted.

These are your words.

How do you PROVE the person was going to kill you?

What I am saying is the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt EVERY time, unless they can PROVE the assailant was NOT going to kill you AND you knew it.

In the case of the son shooting the father tragic accidents happen and in the case of the bar fight if BOTH were wanting to fight then they both knew what to expect and if one tried to back down and did not want to fight, why should a man receive a beating just because he was there and the other man felt like beating someone? How does he know the other man isnt going to kill him?

How about rape? After all the man PROBABLY isn't going to kill the woman just scar her for life and maybe leave her with a rape baby or a case of AIDS. According to your words she should go to prison for Murder.

Edited because I make a mistake on my post.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by Amuk]