Honest 2nd Amendment question

reply to post by BubbaJoe

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.

Then you know, I would guess. A person that is armed -- with firearms, skills or other tools -- utilizes in most cases a measured response, unless the situation dictates otherwise. There aren't hard and fast rules to survival, other than a melding of instinct and training. There ARE hard and fast rules as to the legality of various actions. Human beings are potentially dangerous creatures, yeah?

BubbaJoe

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.

My moral answer is: Don't threaten my life, or the lives of those I care about. I WILL kill you first, and I will kill you as efficiently and effectively as I can ... without warning.

You are right to ask this question ... as everyone should themselves. If you are not mentally prepared to do what you must, you will hesitate, and that momentary pause might cause you regret for the rest of your life. Your answer to your question can only be found within yourself.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Out here.

argentus
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

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.

Then you know, I would guess. A person that is armed -- with firearms, skills or other tools -- utilizes in most cases a measured response, unless the situation dictates otherwise. There aren't hard and fast rules to survival, other than a melding of instinct and training. There ARE hard and fast rules as to the legality of various actions. Human beings are potentially dangerous creatures, yeah?

I would whole heartedly agree that responsible people act with a measured response, unless the situation dictates otherwise. Instinct and training are wonderful things in the hands of people that can handle them. Unfortunately, I do not believe the rules are as hard and fast as pertained to legality. And yeah human beings are sometimes not very nice individuals.

Snarl

BubbaJoe

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.

My moral answer is: Don't threaten my life, or the lives of those I care about. I WILL kill you first, and I will kill you as efficiently and effectively as I can ... without warning.

You are right to ask this question ... as everyone should themselves. If you are not mentally prepared to do what you must, you will hesitate, and that momentary pause might cause you regret for the rest of your life. Your answer to your question can only be found within yourself.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Out here.

This is probably one of the most honest answers to a question I have seen on ATS for a very long time.

BubbaJoe

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?

Define "armed"...does it matter if they are such? They should only utilize those "arms" if there is a perceivable threat upon their own life and/or property.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


When you are overpowered and your life is in danger. Period. It CAN happen with someone who is not armed to overpower someone who either is or who could be.... if it is immediate danger to your life, unarmed or not... it does become justifiable.

In this state, if you cannot flee an unarmed attacker, the use of deadly force may be legal. If you are in your house or home (which could be your hotel room, your RV, your tent, etc.) you do not have to flee (unless you want to) to use deadly force. If you know the attacker is unarmed, you may verbally tell him or her you are armed and not to come any closer. Hopefully you have witnesses when you use deadly force to stop the attack, on the other hand, dead men tell no tales. Never, under any circumstances, fire a "warning" shot. If you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

Now-a-days, you cannot tell if your attacker is armed or not, nor can they tell if you are armed until the weapon is brandished. If you are threatened and the perp has an obvious weapon, you probably have the right to shoot. In this state, the laws are written for concealed carry permit holders to only shoot if immediately threatened, so you may flee (to safer area, to call 911, to protect friends and/or family).

If your state has concealed carry permits for their citizens, and you qualify, take the courses and the laws of your state will be explained in detail. Some states have classes and tests and pistol qualifying. Some just have classes and tests.

Remember - when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

If you are small or weak or old; and the attacker is large or strong or young. "God did not make all men equal, Sam Colt did!"

It is not only your or others lives you can defend. It is also grievous bodily injury. So if someone threatens to break your arm, you can shoot them. In some places you can also shoot to defend property.

There are several situations that I can think of that would be morally acceptable to take the life of an unarmed person.

I'll begin by using myself as an example. I'm a 6'2" and 260lb male; If I knock someone who is 5'1" and 150lbs to the ground, get on top of them, and beat them with my fists to the point where they're bleeding out and can no longer move, then someone would be completely justified in coming up and taking my life.

If I drag someone into an alley and proceed to rape them, in KY, someone is justified to take my life.

Let's say I walk up to someone of equal size and begin to confront him and his family. This person would tell me to go away, in not so many words, and attempt to remove his family from the situation. If I continue to harass the family, I'm now a perceived threat to the safety of him and his family. He has no idea whether I'm going to rob them, attack them, kill them, kidnap them, etc. He could use non-deadly physical force to stop me, or he could call the police and continue an attempt to escape the situation. It could be said he legitimately fears for the life and safety of his family at this point.

Here we enter the gray area; What level of force is deemed necessary to stop me from causing harm to his family?

For me, the gray area ends when the confrontation gets physical. I will not hesitate to stop someone who is physically aggressive towards me or my family. If that means incapacitating someone, or taking their life, so be it; Whether they're armed or not. A physical altercation, in my mind, represents a legitimate threat to the safety and lives of myself and my family.

For someone my size, it's a little more difficult to claim that I was in fear of my life from an unarmed, 5'0", man that's yelling and screaming in my face and begins to push me. However, if the roles were reversed, he could very easily claim that he was in fear for his life.

I guess my point is, that the 'what if' scenarios are endless. In the end, taking a life is a moral decision everyone has to make for themselves. Everyone has to decide at what point their gray area ends, and something becomes a clear threat to their lives, or the lives of their loved ones. Common sense has to play a part as well. You can't really justify shooting someone in the back while they're walking away and claim that you were in fear for your life.

In the end, if you kill, you'd better make sure whatever you did it for was worth your own life and freedom.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


Ask the cops.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


I'd imagine its what they're doing will affect those around them in a life or death manner, the person might not be armed but is about to drop a bag of some poison into the water supply for example possibly killing 1000's or any number of similar things

reply to post by Nephalim


Ask and yea shall receive.. LOL

Okay

From a "Cops" point of view

While states do differ on some of the technicality, the basic premise is this..

Any time a person feels they are in a life threatening situation in which a "Reasonable Person" would conclude their life is in danger, deadly force may be used...

The key to the whole thing is "Reasonable Person would conclude"

I'm a 5'11" 285 pound weight lifter.. If I were to approach a 4'11" 85 pound woman telling her I was going to kill her, she would have every right to pull a gun and kill me.. It would not matter if I was armed or not..

Conversely, if that same woman approached me unarmed, saying she was going to kill me and I shot her, I'm probably going to prison..

I hope that helps... I've taught Constitutional Law to academy students for a number of years... I think that is pretty much what will hold up in most any state

Semper

sorry Ill take that one back, I don't mean to jerk. :/

I'll stick with "last resort" but someone might go look up due process

I don't think your question has to do with the 2nd Amendment but self defense laws or more precisely Stand Your Ground Laws (SYG) based on the two cases you mentioned.

Kali74
I don't think your question has to do with the 2nd Amendment but self defense laws or more precisely Stand Your Ground Laws (SYG) based on the two cases you mentioned.

Only reason I bring it up is because the man is military, and I commented about police. Both are either state or federal actors, officials, agents or officers of the US Government.

Americans are not. O.o
Id prefer Im not shot by anyone tyvm. heh