Is lethal force justified in any situation?

What about the person who robs a store, hands in pocket and "says" they have a gun? Do I shoot them? You bet I do.

What if I see someone raping a woman with a knife to her throat? Do I shoot him? You bet I do.

If someone breaks into my house at night when I am asleep and they wake me up while they are rooting around downstairs do I shoot him/her? Damn straight. I don't care if they would have run out the door. Shoot them and drag them back inside if they get out. Leave them outside if my shot was not an instant kill but they left a nice blood pattern on the wall and drips outside.

I have a ccw permit and my gun goes where I go. In a bar? noo obviously not. If someone has a gun and goes out and gets it and comes back in and shoots, it becomes premeditated murder. If I know I might drink a few I make sure Im not the driver ( one dui and I wasn't even driving, walking out of a restraunt ) and the gun stays home. I have never been flustered enough to use it, but if I was drinking I would want to make sure I cool down and the ride home will most probably do that.

Do I rig a gun up to the door of my house at my farm in Missouri so if someone breaks in the door the double barrel 10 guage goes off?

Only if I want to kill someone and go to jail for it.

I am not so sure that the death penalty deters anything. And they better know for certain that the person sentence to die did the crime. Should a mass murder die? Yep. Should someone who kills my child die? Im really not sure how I would react. But I do know I feel right now like I would rather have that person sit in jail for the rest of their life ( solitary I think ) with NO tv, NO good food, pbj's every day with one fruit and water ( wouldn't want them to get scurvy.....at least to badly ), no weights and no going outside. I personaly would want a weekly letter so I know how the rat bastard who killed me child is thinking about it every day. Let em rot there. The Sheriff in Phoenix has it right. Let em sleep in tents and do hard labour. Make them farm their own damn food and make their own clothes. Make them live in tents, if its good enough for soldiers in Iraq its darn well good for them.


[edit on 12/11/2004 by just_a_pilot]

Originally posted by Amuk

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.

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.

No EVERY kill should NOT be brought to court. THATS a waste. Because if the police do not have anything to charge the shooter with then there is no crime. The attorney general makes the determination and that should be enough. Why should I have to worry about going to court if I came home and someone was raping my wife and I shot the SOB? No no no. No way EVERY time a shooter should go to court.

Same thing with a robber in my house. I don't care if he raises his hands. If I decide to shoot him it will be a shot to kill. So nope, the police get there and I say he threatened me and voila no crime on my part. Poor bastard got killed IN MY HOUSE. No way to prove he wasnt going to kill me or hurt me.

Well what if you are a 38th degree black belt and pop the snot out of a guy trying to take your wallet and your blow kills the person?

I don't know anything about karate so I don't know if there is a 38th degree???????????




[edit on 12/11/2004 by just_a_pilot]

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
[ The attorney general makes the determination and that should be enough. Why should I have to worry about going to court if I came home and someone was raping my wife and I shot the SOB? No no no. No way EVERY time a shooter should go to court.

That is my point exactly why should the burden of proof lay with the person who was attacked? It should be looked at as self-deffence unless they have PROOF otherwise.

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
[ The attorney general makes the determination and that should be enough. Why should I have to worry about going to court if I came home and someone was raping my wife and I shot the SOB? No no no. No way EVERY time a shooter should go to court.

That is my point exactly why should the burden of proof lay with the person who was attacked? It should be looked at as self-deffence unless they have PROOF otherwise.

I think I am with you here. I think its just your wording. IF someone is in my house without my consent and I shoot them I should not have to go to court, PERIOD. If they have a warrant for me for some reason and come storming in well IM NOT going to start a gunfight. But I don't care if its a cop walking into my house. IF its dark and you are prowling around, you will get shot. Plain and simple. Oh, it wont be a 9mm. It will be a Remington 870 Express Home Defense super mag with a 3 1/2 12 guage super mag shell. You won't walk out.

Originally posted by Amuk
How do you PROVE the person was going to kill you?

you don't have to prove. The defendant's job is not to prove they didn't do it, but to create reasonable doubt. If there is an doubt in the jurors minds that the defendant might have been killed had he or she not killed first, then the defendant is found not guilty. However, if there was no reasonable chance that the defendant was likely to be killed or hurt had they not pulled the trigger, and therefore no reasonable doubt, then the defendant should be found guilty of manslaughter or something lesser than murder.

Yep and thats easier to do if the bad guy is dead. So if for some reason they take me to court for using my weapon in self defense, like I have said I wont shoot to wound but to kill so any prosecution would only be speculation by the AG.