Is killing in self defense necessary?

I would say about 75-90% of people would kill another human being in self defense if it came down to it. I think if there was absolutely no choice, like it was either me or my family member/friend or the shooter, I would kill them, but not without a lot of heartache.

Then I think though - when is killing in self defense really necessary? Even if the person has a gun, wouldn't injuring them (ie a kick in the balls) and running do the job just as well? After all even a shot in the head doesn't always work and you might miss.

I don't blame anyone who ends up killing a perpetrator in self defense, unless it's done after the threat has retreated because then it's only revenge, but why not focus on arming ourselves with martial arts and non-lethal weapons? I know Americans love their firearms and the idea of their own personal justice, but firearms aren't foolproof, they can be turned on you.

Personally, I would NEVER defend myself with the intent to kill. I would do what I could, and if that meant killing, sadly, it must be, but I feel like if you defend yourself with the intention of causing death, it's basically revenge, while if you end up killing them without trying to, that's just like an accident.

I find it kind of disturbing how quick people are to shoot first and ask questions later. Surely killing a human being must be almost as difficult as being killed?

If you can not take their legs or arms out,
or shock them, then yes killing in self defense
IS NECESSARY...

You think i'm going to lay down and let some guy rape
my daughter or wife if it came to me having to kill them
or them raping or killing my family..


This question is moronic..

Death is a result of self defense. This reminds me of the ole "shoot the guy in the leg" thing. That is hollywood, people do not fall to the ground and scream when they are shot, and a hit to the leg will not stop a guy from returning fire. Many people who are shot in a situation never know they are hit until after the fact. That is why police and firearm instructors train to shoot center of mass or the head, because it takes a hit to a vital spot to typically disable or incapacitate a person, and even then it is not guaranteed to stop them, especially with handguns.

There are many factors at play, as far as the persons mental state, alcohol or drugs, etc. If a person is determined to kill you, only a headshot would do in some cases. They say that even if your heart is completely destroyed, you still have enough oxygen in your brain to continue voluntary movement for at least 10 seconds or so.


Deebo

IMO it depends on the situation. If it's a drunk bum trying to jump me or something, I would respond with non-lethal methods and then escape. No reason to kill someone when there are other options. Mainly because you can still serve time for self-defense killings if you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that the attacker was intent on killing you.

However, in the case of home-invasion, there is no other option but to fight. One warning shot is all they get. After that, I have no qualms about using lethal force because my life would be in danger and escape is not an option.

Just my $0.02

Do you seriously think that even if a person has a gun kicking them in the nuts is going to help you? If you are attacking someone (trying to kick him) then the perp can shoot YOU and claim self defense. That's even worse than bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The object of defense is to stop the threat--not kill. That means two shots to the thoraic cavity and if that is insufficient, one to the head. Lower the blood pressure and take him out of the action. A firearm is a great equalizer. It can make you, a 100 pound weakling, equal to a 200 pound bruiser quite capable of killing you with his bare hands. You have less than two seconds to make a decision.

This idea of, "Oh, I'll only wing him" will get you or your loved ones killed. If you choose to defend yourself with a firearm you absolutely must have the mindset to use it if necessary. You are not. That's okay--I'm not criticizing that decision. Just don't even think about firearms for self defense.

reply to post by obummerdeception


A guy round my way took it further.....

Hes in court for murdering, chopping up the body, and dumping it in a lake a mile down the road. The story i have heard (from people who know the guy), his daughter was raped, so he asked the guy to come over to his place for a chat.....

I was robbed by 5 dudes and stabbed mutiple times, at no point did i think of killing them. I defended myself the best i could and walked away with my life.....and a few scars Oh yea....and when your losing blood as fast as i was its hard to even stay conscious let alone fight back.

I had no weapons and i was overwhelmed by the number of them. In that situation the only thing going through your mind is how to survive....sometimes violence isnt the answer. If i had tried to stab one of them....i wouldnt be here right now.

If they have a gun, than they have entered my home with the intent to kill....therefore I would have no qualms about shooting to kill. If they have a knife or are just robbing my home without the intent to harm me physically, than I would point but not shoot...most people will respect a firearm pointed at them. If they charge, I am not sure....I wouldn't look to kill but if it happens, better them than those I hold dearest.

If you have a firearm and you are put in a situation where you have to raise that firearm in self defense, you better be willing to pull the trigger...the perp does not hold the same morals as you, if they did they wouldn't be breaking into your home in the first place.

Killing is the only option sometimes. I am not going to go into why I have because I would get crucified by ATS members about my past. But I have been in lots of these kinds of situations and I sleep just fine at night. Yes I have taken alot of lives, but, I am alive as a result and that is all the justification I need.

YES! Drop them and feel bad about it later. I truthfully wouldn't feel bad at all. If you come in MY house at night and I don't know you. Your done, game over, no questions asked.

To quote Rambo "They drew first blood." I think if someone brings an attack and violence against you, you are going to tap into your Reptilian brain and fall back to the "fight or flight mentality." Since the perpetrator caused the situation to arise, you may end up killing the person without a great deal of philosophical thought at the time. It's hard to blame someone under those circumstances for reacting to a situation they did not cause or ask for.

I have never seen a study on this topic, but I would imagine that many people put in this situation were not blessed with the ability to weigh the options in this question...they reacted. I know I wouldn't hesitate if I thought my kids were in danger. In, Canada, we are supposed to be these well balanced philosopher's that try to figure out what is "appropriate" for a reaction. If the guy has a knife, shooting him is a no, no. If the guy is smaller than you, beating him to a pulp in a no, no. It is insanity. The Castle doctrine in the US makes more sense. If you break into my house, don't blame me what happen's to you!

Just curious, what would Jesus do?

reply to post by OMsk3ptic


Based on his temper in the Bazaar, I think he would kick butt!

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
Just curious, what would Jesus do?

The opposite of what most Christians would do.

reply to post by m1991


Lucky you're not a Police officer; they have only seconds to make that decision when confronted with someone holding a knife or firearm.

If someone was holding a serious weapon aiming in my direction or a family member, you bet I'd take him out!

its not necessary unless its necessary for my own survival or a menace to the survival of any other.

it is certainly not impossible.

but always the last resort


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

If you even have time to think about other options, you probably won't have to use deadly force.
In most life or death self-defense situations where an attacker is stopped with deadly force, there really vwasnt time for the defender to think about non leathal options.
They felt their life was in imminent danger, and protected themselves thoroughly with leathal effect.
This approach will probably keep you alive, and out of prison.
It has always worked for me

I think in most cases it would be more humane to kill them than to leave them incapacitated to the point they would die a slow painful death.

Originally posted by calstorm
I think in most cases it would be more humane to kill them than to leave them incapacitated to the point they would die a slow painful death.

Why not just injure them? Like spray something in their eyes to blind them or something? Why does everything have to be solved with guns like on TV?

Realistically I know most people have zero empathy for criminals, but if we really want to be peace lovers, we have to speak out against all violence. We can't pick and choose.

reply to post by m1991


I love the absurdity of the phrase;

"Shoot first and ask questions later."

I prefer, "Dead men tell no tales."

I have always been of the mindset that once I have decided to grab my weapon, there is a strong chance that someone will be dying. And I would prefer that it's not me.

I always shoot center mass in a fast moving situation. I shoot to kill, not maim. That is how I was trained and it's how I react.

But most criminals rarely give you the opportunity to defend yourself these days. It's usually a ambush.

Stay alert, stay alive!

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic
Just curious, what would Jesus do?

Turn the other cheek, but I only have two!!!