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 killing in self defense necessary?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Nope self defense is completely un-needed. Why would anyone think about defending themselves. The world is perfect there is no need for this kind of talk.




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 

I share your view up to a point.
The killing of another human would be for me the very last option in a defense situation, and one taken very seriously.
However as far as neutralizing the threat goes, I would look at it like this: If the contest is a mortal one, then if you are going to strike your opponent, strike to kill. If somebody tries to take your life, then a kick in the balls(or whatever) might dissuade him for about ten minutes, and yeah, you can use that time to run away, but if he's not a complete idiot then you won't get a chance to kick his balls again.
I do believe it is your absolute fundamental right to defend your life with lethal force, question is: how do you know when your attacker has murderous intentions?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


You dont know until they kill you. Many killers then use the defense that they really didn't intend to kill.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOMALY502
 


I guess I'm looking at it from a 'survival' point of view, like some kind of post apocalypse scenario. If you had food and somebody just wanted to steal it from you, they could just be driven by hunger and have no intention of killing you, what would you do? Kill em? It could be argued that them taking your food is almost the same as trying to kill you. Thing is it wouldn't take a lot of s**t to hit the fan for this kind of situation to arise. A guy I know is stockpiling since last year, we've talked about it a few times and he has shown me where his stash is, I've said repeatedly to him not to tell anybody about this coz if some emergency does occur then he better arm himself or people will just show up and take his food.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


As you can see this is not a simple black and white issue, there are many different things to take into account. In a survival situation how much are you willing to give up, are you gonna cower in the corner or stand up for your things. How many assailants, how are they armed, etc. You can never know someone elses intentions, all you can do is look at there actions.
If someone kicks in your door and says dont do anything or we will kill you, maybe they will or wont. On the other hand if someone kicks in the door and immediately attacks you thats a pretty good sign the you either need to fight back or be killed.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOMALY502
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


You dont know until they kill you. Many killers then use the defense that they really didn't intend to kill.


In that case though killing them sounds an awful-lot like the concept of pre-emptive war.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
My point is though, I sometimes get the notion that people, and especially Americans, just love the idea of killin' so long as it's a bad guy. Like people are always saying "It's wrong to hurt innocent people" which is really implying that hurting bad people is actually a good thing and not just something that's sadly inevitable sometimes.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   


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.
...
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?
reply to post by m1991
 


I look at this way, if someone dies because they are harming or threatening bodily harm to another, that's something they had to accept before entering into the act. One can't go out and expect to do harm to others and then not meet resistance every bit as extreme, if not more so, than displayed.

None of this makes it pleasant or desirable. Life is to be savored and treasured, not squandered through pointless acts of violence. But... I can't lie. I would not hesitate to bring lethal force to bear, if needed, against anyone who threatened my friends or family.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ultraman2011
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 


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



Yes...He had a temper all right....tables turning over...and a whip......the money changers.....I think Jesus would defend himself.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Just curious with those of you that have answered here...who has ever served and been in war or had to defend themself from an armed person, that is shooting at you?

You do what you have to, and live..or die, with your decision...until you do it or are faced with it, you all are just talking out your asses....



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOMALY502
 


In my view the operative phrase "somebody kicks in your door" I don't care if there's a reason I don't care to wait for anything to be said There will be no warning shots. Kick in my door means war.
Actually, I like to set the limit of my indulgence at the locked gate 20 yards ouyt from the front door, but in the daytime you have to give the benefit of the doubt to LEOs in uniform and all marked "official government" vehicles.

ganjoa



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Like my Grandfather use to say. Son, you may be younger, healthier, and meaner, but I'm old, tired, out of shape and overweight, so if we get into a fight, it's going to be to the death. But think about it, you have more to lose than I do, I'm old and have lived, but you have a whole life ahead of you to lose.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

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


I don't think Jesus would have to do much at all. This dude had a posse with him at all times. Some of these dudes were pretty badass according to scripture. He didnt go down until he said it was time...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
and the story of the off duty cop who was accosted by a 14 year old kid with a knife, cop had his gun but didnt want to shoot 14 yr old kid so cop took him on unarmed,and disarmed and held kid till uniformed cops arrive,BUT off duty cop suffered a stab wound to stomach and had several feet of lower intestine removed and now eats this oatmeal type goo 3 time a day for the rest of his life,some days cop wishes he had shot kid ,some days not.after SHTF proper medical care is NOT going to be avalible ,and anything more than a minor flesh wound WILL likely be FATAL. stockup on GLOVES people GLOVES!!!!! even minor cuts and such can cause a infection and lead to death,more likely in very young or old folks.People dont really shoot to kill except for head shots,people and the cops shoot to incapacitate and shoot center of mass in torso,but you cant execpt one shot to incapacitate so you shoot bad guy till he drops and the mutiple hits are what kills him.also the cops have a 21 foot rule anyone witha weapon at 21 feet or close and the cops draw and aim gun, a person at 21 feet can run and stab cop before cop can draw and fire gun.
edit on 28-8-2011 by madokie because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by madokie because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by madokie because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2011 by madokie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by obummerdeception

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


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


Well no, actually you have 4.

Just thinking.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
To answer the queston, YES!
I've got one for you, is killing a baby necessary?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by m1991
My point is though, I sometimes get the notion that people, and especially Americans, just love the idea of killin' so long as it's a bad guy. Like people are always saying "It's wrong to hurt innocent people" which is really implying that hurting bad people is actually a good thing and not just something that's sadly inevitable sometimes.


It is pretty simple 1991. Your " notion " Americans just love the idea of ' killin' Is sophomoric at best. Where does this notion come from ? I carry a gun and although I've never had to shot someone the presence of said weapon was sufficient to stop a break in at my home, Stop an armed man ( Knife )
from doing whatever he and his associate had in mind. His partner said " He has a gun ! " Stopped a strong armed robbery, four of them vs me. Same scenario. "He's got a gun ! "
Your 'notion' of Americans would of had me blasting away yelling YEEHAW bagged me another one. " It's wrong to hurt innocent people " < Correct, that would be me, mine an other innocent folks ! Hurting bad people ( subjective and vague ) is actually a good thing " Correct again ! If said 'bad people' present with sever bodily harm or a threat to life. Stopping the threat is the correct term. NOT " I meant to kill him' OR, I didn't mean to kill him." The prosecution loves those words. Here is some advice, If a criminal has a weapon pointed at you ( by default, it is a safe bet he ain't selling Girl scoot cookies ) attempt to kick him in his junk. That way, there will be one less ( I assume UK person ) that will no longer be around to complain about blood thirsty Americans and their weapons. But, do not dare to take the moral high ground, by pointing fingers at people who chose the enormous responsibility of being armed with the most effective method at their disposal.
.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I am a very patient, nonviolent person. That being said, if anyone at all messed with my family, I would do whatever it takes to ensure the risk is eliminated. If that means murder, so be it.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Is killing in self defense necessary?


Only when you're a police officer, as everyone knows. Even where the self defense part is imaginary, it seems.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by 200457
 


I'm not sure that I'd call it 'murder'.

Murder, to me, would need some amount of premeditation. Planning to kill someone is not the same as being prepared for the possibility of having to kill someone.

It seems likely that someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night would not necessarily be someone that you know or had any prior intention to kill.

Still, to answer the OP, if you have the firearm or other implement to stop a potentially life-threatening threat to you or your family, you just keep shooting until there is no longer a threat (attacker flees or is lying motionless).


It would be preferable that nobody had to die, but then, it would have been better that the invader not have chosen to break in.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join