Honest 2nd Amendment question

I am not a gun guy, but not an anti gun guy either. I am a veteran of the USAF, proficient in firearms, several year of martial arts and boxing training. From discussions on Trayvon Martin and the young lady recently killed in a Detroit suburb. I have a question.

When is it justifiable for an armed individual to shoot an unarmed individual?

Maybe If you mistake him for a Yeti or Sasaquatch, even then thats still not cool. But, they can be scary mofo's I hear.

I'm a gun advocate but shooting an unarmed person is extreme. Very extreme.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


When the unarmed person has your wife or child and is threatening to kill/harm them.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


This is kind of my thought, even without the martial arts training, if I am armed, and they aren't, I am probably in control.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


This doesn't seem like a Second Amendment issue to me.

To your question, though.... and not applied to any case, just in general..... my opinion is that lethal force is justifiable when a person is defending their lives, or the lives of others. Beyond that, for me, there are a myriad of variables that would support or not support legal self defense.

BobM88
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

When the unarmed person has your wife or child and is threatening to kill/harm them.

I will buy this one, and would agree.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

This depends on the state, but many state have castle doctrine of some sort allowing property owners to defend themselves. It is almost universal that a threat to ones safety or those around them is justification enough. In Detroit I think you will see this go down as negligent homicide.

argentus
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

This doesn't seem like a Second Amendment issue to me.

To your question, though.... and not applied to any case, just in general..... my opinion is that lethal force is justifiable when a person is defending their lives, or the lives of others. Beyond that, for me, there are a myriad of variables that would support or not support legal self defense.

You are right, not really a 2nd question, but wasn't sure what to title it. I would agree defending their life, or the lives of others would be justifiable. The question in my mind, if you are armed and your opponent isn't, shouldn't you be able to take control?

From reading ATS there are a lot of responsible gun owners on here, but designating it a 2nd Amend question, I hoped to get there opinions.

ParanoidAmerican
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

This depends on the state, but many state have castle doctrine of some sort allowing property owners to defend themselves. It is almost universal that a threat to ones safety or those around them is justification enough. In Detroit I think you will see this go down as negligent homicide.

Thanks for your input, am not really trying to tie this to a specific case or incident. I am honestly curious what the opinions of the gun owners on ATS are. If you are armed, and the other party isn't, what would make you pull the trigger. For me, if I am the only one with a firearm, unless facing a crowd, I am in control.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


Since your OP was more or less a hypothetical, let me share what I had in mind when I answered the OP above...and I know you agreed with my response, but I felt like elaborating...

I realize it's hyperbole, but...if, say, someone on bath salts were to take my wife or one of my kids, I wouldn't hesitate. I don't think that in certain circumstances having the weapon will still give you total control of the situation. I think in *most* situations you can take control if you are armed and the 'assailant' is not, but there are some where you cannot, and that's what I was thinking when I first responded.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


It seems reasonable to me that in many situations, an armed person could control the situation against another single individual that was not armed. That said, it's probably mostly true when the unarmed person makes their ill intentions known while still out of striking distance. I have read of situations, for example, where LEOs have been attacked during traffic stops or similar events. It happens. We never know exactly how we will respond to a threat until it is present.

Many many years ago, when I legally carried concealed, I knew that I had a higher obligation to exercise restraint than a person who was not armed. That is part of training. It doesn't play much of a part in response to a perceived and valid thread against one's life.


ETA: The end of that first paragraph might be construed to imply that I was a law enforcement officer. I was not.

BobM88
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Since your OP was more or less a hypothetical, let me share what I had in mind when I answered the OP above...and I know you agreed with my response, but I felt like elaborating...

I realize it's hyperbole, but...if, say, someone on bath salts were to take my wife or one of my kids, I wouldn't hesitate. I don't think that in certain circumstances having the weapon will still give you total control of the situation. I think in *most* situations you can take control if you are armed and the 'assailant' is not, but there are some where you cannot, and that's what I was thinking when I first responded.

I would agree with that entirely, as I said in the OP, I am really not pro or anti gun, they are tools. My concern is that there are some that are trigger happy, and even more scary than that, a whole bunch that will stand up and defend them after the fact. I will caveat that to add that some of the trigger happy happen to be LEO's, and that truly does scare me.

BubbaJoe
I am not a gun guy, but not an anti gun guy either. I am a veteran of the USAF, proficient in firearms, several year of martial arts and boxing training. From discussions on Trayvon Martin and the young lady recently killed in a Detroit suburb. I have a question.

When is it justifiable for an armed individual to shoot an unarmed individual?

edit on 11/14/2013 by BubbaJoe because: Changed my question from armed man, to armed individual.

When such an individual feels that their inalienable right to life is threatened. That is what the Court of Law is for....

ETA:
It matters not if the individual is armed; as they have the inherent right to defend themselves to preserve the natural Right to Life.

BubbaJoe

BobM88
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Since your OP was more or less a hypothetical, let me share what I had in mind when I answered the OP above...and I know you agreed with my response, but I felt like elaborating...

I realize it's hyperbole, but...if, say, someone on bath salts were to take my wife or one of my kids, I wouldn't hesitate. I don't think that in certain circumstances having the weapon will still give you total control of the situation. I think in *most* situations you can take control if you are armed and the 'assailant' is not, but there are some where you cannot, and that's what I was thinking when I first responded.

I would agree with that entirely, as I said in the OP, I am really not pro or anti gun, they are tools. My concern is that there are some that are trigger happy, and even more scary than that, a whole bunch that will stand up and defend them after the fact. I will caveat that to add that some of the trigger happy happen to be LEO's, and that truly does scare me.

No argument from me, my friend, I agree with all your points.

2nd

Your answer is: It depends.

In the state of Florida, if someone takes three aggressive steps towards you, you can blow them away. I wouldn't try that, but I've been told the case has already been through the courts. You'd have to look it up.

Specific to the incident in your OP, the answer can clearly be found HERE ... and again, the answer is yes.

An armed society is a polite society. There was nothing going on that met the definition of polite that evening.

argentus
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

It seems reasonable to me that in many situations, an armed person could control the situation against another single individual that was not armed. That said, it's probably mostly true when the unarmed person makes their ill intentions known while still out of striking distance. I have read of situations, for example, where LEOs have been attacked during traffic stops or similar events. It happens. We never know exactly how we will respond to a threat until it is present.

Many many years ago, when I legally carried concealed, I knew that I had a higher obligation to exercise restraint than a person who was not armed. That is part of training. It doesn't play much of a part in response to a perceived and valid thread against one's life.


ETA: The end of that first paragraph might be construed to imply that I was a law enforcement officer. I was not.

edit on 14/11/13 by argentus because: (no reason given)

You said a lot when you said "I knew that I had a higher obligation". When our lives are threatened, we rely on our instincts and training, but you knew that "Higher Obligation", is that something that carries through the mind of most gun owners? I don't have an agenda, just really trying to figure out how people feel. I have years of martial arts training, I too know that "Higher Obligation", the very few fights that I have been in over the years, I could have hurt someone badly.

ownbestenemy

BubbaJoe
I am not a gun guy, but not an anti gun guy either. I am a veteran of the USAF, proficient in firearms, several year of martial arts and boxing training. From discussions on Trayvon Martin and the young lady recently killed in a Detroit suburb. I have a question.

When is it justifiable for an armed individual to shoot an unarmed individual?

edit on 11/14/2013 by BubbaJoe because: Changed my question from armed man, to armed individual.

When such an individual feels that their inalienable right to life is threatened. That is what the Court of Law is for....

ETA:
It matters not if the individual is armed; as they have the inherent right to defend themselves to preserve the natural Right to Life.

edit on 14-11-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

Honestly, if I walk out into my yard and curse you to hell, you feel that you have the right to take my life?

BubbaJoe
Honestly, if I walk out into my yard and curse you to hell, you feel that you have the right to take my life?

Did I ever say I would take a life? I said that one individual has the inherent right to protect their own and that it lies with the arena of the Law to determine if it was justified or not....

Snarl
Your answer is: It depends.

In the state of Florida, if someone takes three aggressive steps towards you, you can blow them away. I wouldn't try that, but I've been told the case has already been through the courts. You'd have to look it up.

Specific to the incident in your OP, the answer can clearly be found HERE ... and again, the answer is yes.

An armed society is a polite society. There was nothing going on that met the definition of polite that evening.

I do understand your points, and I lived in Florida for six years, my question was aimed more toward the human/ethical side. When does an armed individual have the right to take the life of an unarmed individual?

I am not so concerned about the law here, as the ethical/human part of this equation.

ownbestenemy

BubbaJoe
Honestly, if I walk out into my yard and curse you to hell, you feel that you have the right to take my life?

Did I ever say I would take a life? I said that one individual has the inherent right to protect their own and that it lies with the arena of the Law to determine if it was justified or not....

No you didn't, and yes everyone has the right to defend their life and the life of their loved ones. The arena of the law has become very perverse, my point here is, humanly/ethically. When can an armed individual take the life of an unarmed individual?