Carrying a weapon for self-defence: is it acceptible?

[elder999]

WCL, is there not an issue that the force being threatened must be proportional to the crime? Like if you dropped a chocolate bar wrapper on the pavement (where it is illegal) and someone pointed a knife at you and told you to await the police, even if you believed that they were going to stab you (despite their words) it would (/should) be illegal to attempt a disarm?

To take it full circle, is pointing a gun at an unarmed burglar proportional? Clearly some people think it is.

I'm not, I'll repeat, telepathic-I don't have any way of knowing that he's "unarmed." He's in my house-it is, by most legal standards,proportional.

How, by the way, did we get from "carrying" to in my home?(To take it full circle)

 

[kickcatcher]

1) They're in my house, and in spite of my superior mental capabilities, I'm not telepathic. I'm not shooting them for not putting down the T.V., but for breaking into my house and not complying-sufficient reason for shooting them-I'll deal with the moral angst later, but I'll be alive, which is really all the justification that is needed, moral threshold be damned-you will note, however, that I said my first two loads are birdshot, and not likely to kill them, just turn them into uncomfortable hamburger....

2) No, they are not morally justified in defending themselves; they broke into my house.

Going back to what "self-defence" is, most people think it's the use of JUSTIFIABLE force/action to defend yourself - if they are standing there with your TV in their arms, many people would consider that it's rational to presume that they "invaded" your house for purposes other than to do you physical harm. And is standing there frozen with fear looking down the barrel of a gun the same as intent to do you harm? -Without a RATIONAL reason for believing that they intend to do you (/others) imminent physical harm, how can you be justified to use physical force in self-defence?

We then have to ask is lethal force reasonable when faced with a non-lethal threat. Is throwing a TV at you the likely actions of someone trying to do you lethal harm? -probably not. It would be the actions of someone trying to distract you whilst they escape.

 

[elder999]

Going back to what "self-defence" is, most people think it's the use of JUSTIFIABLE force/action to defend yourself - if they are standing there with your TV in their arms, many people would consider that it's rational to presume that they "invaded" your house for purposes other than to do you physical harm. And is standing there frozen with fear looking down the barrel of a gun the same as intent to do you harm? -Without a RATIONAL reason for believing that they intend to do you (/others) imminent physical harm, how can you be justified to use physical force in self-defence?

We then have to ask is lethal force reasonable when faced with a non-lethal threat. Is throwing a TV at you the likely actions of someone trying to do you lethal harm? -probably not. It would be the actions of someone trying to distract you whilst they escape.

Pointing the weapon at them is certainly justified. Throwing the T.V.-50,000 volt capacitive charge, large weight, in my home is a threat of deadly force, as is the fact of their being there, and, in the example you offered, there being more than one of them.

The only RATIONAL reason I need for believing that they mean to do me harm is that they are in my house. For the purposes of this discussion (to come full circle, again) what happens in my home has nothing to do with your original question, and should probably be avoided-I am on solid legal and moral grounds in this case: the fact of their being in my house constitutes a threat of lethal force- and it doesn't matter how you feel-it's not your country, and it's not your house. I certainly haven't advocated your acting as I've said I would-hell, let them have your T.V., and/or your wife, and/or your ****.

On the other hand, if I were walking in, say, London, carrying my cane, and two ****-holes demanded my wallet under a threat of violence, and I smote them heartily with my cane, would I be "morally justified?" makes a much more interesting and debatable question that mirrors your original question as an example in a much better fashion than the whole burglary scenario....

 

[Seig]

Can you reference this? If true, that's a disconcerting turn of events.

I don't have it in front of me, but the US Supreme court has ruled and upheld with case law that law enforcement agencies are under no obligation to protect individuals. That's the reason why places like Florida have done away with mandatory "retreat" laws.

 

[Grenadier]

Well, in Brazil the police does have this obligation. I thought the same applied in the US: can you provide some reference for that statement of yours?

http://crl.nmsu.edu/~eli/rtkba/police.html

The police are only obligated to protect society, and not the individuals as a whole.

 

[Andrew Green]

Of course in a litigous society people would be suing the police everytime someone littered on there lawn for failing to protect them from crime...

Anyways, "To serve and protect", that's the role of the police up here.

 

[kickcatcher]

Pointing the weapon at them is certainly justified. Throwing the T.V.-50,000 volt capacitive charge, large weight, in my home is a threat of deadly force, as is the fact of their being there, and, in the example you offered, there being more than one of them.

Being in your home = threat of deadly force?!!!???!! are you serious? Being two of them = a threat of deadly force??!!!??? throwing a TV = deadly force????? wow, just wow.

You may (or may not, I don't know) be legally justified in shooting them in such circumstances but in my view you are not morally justified. Obviously our moral thresholds are somewhat different.

By removing the prerequisit of rationality in a person's entitelment to use force in self-defence, you are basically saying that concept of reasonable force is wrong. Most people would probably disagree.

On the other hand, if I were walking in, say, London, carrying my cane, and two ****-holes demanded my wallet under a threat of violence, and I smote them heartily with my cane, would I be "morally justified?" makes a much more interesting and debatable question that mirrors your original question as an example in a much better fashion than the whole burglary scenario....

If you believed there to be an imminent physical threat to your person, which would be quite reasonable in your scenario, then you could defend yourself using reasonable force. Whether beating them up with a blunt object is reasonable or not is largely down to how you go about it – i.e. chasing them in order to administer the beating is obviously not an act of self-defence.

But the original question was not about people's right to defend themselves, it was about the morals of carrying weapons in circumstances where you are not permitted to by law, either because of the nature of the weapon or the purpose for which you are carrying it.

It is illegal to carry a weapon in London. Provided you have a genuine medical reason for carrying it, then yes you may be able to get away with it - but if it had been modified in a manner to betrayed its purpose, then you'd be in trouble.

 

[elder999]

Being in your home = threat of deadly force?!!!???!! are you serious? Being two of them = a threat of deadly force??!!!??? throwing a TV = deadly force????? wow, just wow.

You may (or may not, I don't know) be legally justified in shooting them in such circumstances but in my view you are not morally justified. Obviously our moral thresholds are somewhat different.

By removing the prerequisit of rationality in a person's entitelment to use force in self-defence, you are basically saying that concept of reasonable force is wrong. Most people would probably disagree.

Yes, "being in my home=threat of iminent deadly force."

I don't know how it is where you are, but I'm, for the last time, not a mind reader, and :

• More than 50% of all felony murders occur during a burglary or robbery.
• Justice Department statistics state that approximately 60% of all rapes and 30% of all aggravated assaults occur during break

I'd say that viewing someone in your home that way is prudent and reasonable, and the way I've defined how I would respond is also prudent and reasonable. If there's a lesson here, it's don't break into my house-at least, not when anyone is at home. I don't see how I'm removing any prerequisite of rationality-again, I'm not advocating that everyone respond as I said I would, I am saying what I would do, and yes, our moral thresholds are different, though I have to point out that at heart, I'm a Quaker-essentially a pacifist-I just recognize that the world doesn't work that way, at least, not for me-would that it did.....

If you believed there to be an imminent physical threat to your person, which would be quite reasonable in your scenario, then you could defend yourself using reasonable force. Whether beating them up with a blunt object is reasonable or not is largely down to how you go about it – i.e. chasing them in order to administer the beating is obviously not an act of self-defence.

But the original question was not about people's right to defend themselves, it was about the morals of carrying weapons in circumstances where you are not permitted to by law, either because of the nature of the weapon or the purpose for which you are carrying it.

It is illegal to carry a weapon in London. Provided you have a genuine medical reason for carrying it, then yes you may be able to get away with it - but if it had been modified in a manner to betrayed its purpose, then you'd be in trouble.

It's just a cane, albeit a quite heavy one-it hasn't been modified at all. I had knee surgery last year. Of course, it's still a weapon, and concealed by virtue of my (sometime) limp......most of the time I run quite well without it-doesn't really matter, as I'm sure that in London it's still fashionable for a man of my age to sometimes carry a cane as an accessory.......

 

[kickcatcher]

Yes, "being in my home=threat of iminent deadly force."

I don't know how it is where you are, but I'm, for the last time, not a mind reader, and :

• More than 50% of all felony murders occur during a burglary or robbery.
• Justice Department statistics state that approximately 60% of all rapes and 30% of all aggravated assaults occur during break

I'd say that viewing someone in your home that way is prudent and reasonable, and the way I've defined how I would respond is also prudent and reasonable. If there's a lesson here, it's don't break into my house-at least, not when anyone is at home.

Do you have the statistic for how many burglaries/robberies result in felony murders – that would be a more relevant statistic because unlike the ones you’ve quoted, that one would give us some perspective. As for rapes, I doubt that is accurate since most rapes are committed by people close to the victim and few are reported.

You are presuming that everyone who breaks into your home is intending to kill you or your family – even kids trying to nick the tele. That doesn’t sound rational to me.

It's just a cane, albeit a quite heavy one-it hasn't been modified at all. I had knee surgery last year. Of course, it's still a weapon, and concealed by virtue of my (sometime) limp......most of the time I run quite well without it-doesn't really matter, as I'm sure that in London it's still fashionable for a man of my age to sometimes carry a cane as an accessory.......

We all know it would be an easy weapon to explain away, relative to say, a knife. BUT, in your scenario, you having the cane as a weapon is a criminal offense, irrespective of whether you use it for assault or defence:

Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 states:

"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence..."
Offensive weapons are defined by section 1 (3) of the act as:
"...any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him [or by some other person]."

Therefore, if you think carrying the cane in London is morally excusable, especially given most parts of London’s low violent crime rates, then you think that carrying weapons illegally when there is no real reason to, can be morally excused. That’s your call – at last you’ve answered the original question of the thread.

 

[Cruentus]

The law see's it as reasonable to use deadly force if there is an immenent threat to violence that could cause grave bodily harm or death. I find it interesting that someone would make a moral judgement on a person who would use a firearm if they were facing grave bodily harm or death. I am glad our laws aren't supposed to make moral judgements (remember that there is a difference between ethics and morality).

Now, that said, I will make a moral judgement here as well, philisophically speaking. I would say that it is IMMORAL to not use deadly force on someone who threatens you with deadly force. Not using deadly force when appropriate is putting yourself at risk, all those that rely on you as a valuable human being (your family, freinds, employers, etc.), and any potential future victims. By not using deadly force when appropriate, your allowing these risks to occur only for the sake of the person who made the conscious decision to create that risk in the first place. Not only is it nonsensicle, it is IMMORAL.

What it comes down to is PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY here. This is illustrated correctly in the Supreme Court case that stated that LE is not obligated to protect individuals.

The issue of PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY is one reason why I would hate to move away from this country (the U.S.), despite all of our problems that we do have. The U.S. system seems to factor in personal responsabilty more-so then other systems I have seen.

So, is a doctor RESPONSABLE for your health? No, YOU are responsable for your health. The doctor is just there to help you if you have a problem. In the same sense cops are NOT RESPONSABLE for your self-defense, YOU ARE. They are there to help if there is a problem and someone is breaking the law.

For some reason, no one reasonable is blaming doctors for the obese, lathargic, smokers heart and cholesterol problems. And, gosh darn it, no one seems to think that it is the fire departments responsability to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in homes. So, why again do we think that it is the Officer's responsability to come to our rescue in the midst of an assault?

Too many people, in my opinion, have an entitlement mentality. Too many people believe that it is someone elses responsabilty to take care of them, whether it be health, safety, financial stability, or what have you. The fact is that it doesn't matter where you live or what laws you follow; it is ultimatily YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY to take care of yourself, your family, and your community as much as you are able too.

And personal responsability directly applies to self-defense.

 

[kickcatcher]

I would say that it is IMMORAL to not use deadly force on someone who threatens you with deadly force.

So trying to kill them is the always the only way. If your first defence, say a punch, only stuns them enough for you to escape, you should follow up until they are dead anyway? Cool, Mr Morally enlightened.

 

[elder999]

Do you have the statistic for how many burglaries/robberies result in felony murders – that would be a more relevant statistic because unlike the ones you’ve quoted, that one would give us some perspective. As for rapes, I doubt that is accurate since most rapes are committed by people close to the victim and few are reported.

You are presuming that everyone who breaks into your home is intending to kill you or your family – even kids trying to nick the tele. That doesn’t sound rational to me.

It's quite rational-I can't read minds, statistically it does happen, so how do I know what their intentions are if they're foolish enough to break into my home? Easier and more rational by far to assume the worst, and deal with it there-it's not even about "intention to kill" but about what's reasonable given the scenario-and, remember: bird-shot.

We all know it would be an easy weapon to explain away, relative to say, a knife. BUT, in your scenario, you having the cane as a weapon is a criminal offense, irrespective of whether you use it for assault or defence:



Therefore, if you think carrying the cane in London is morally excusable, especially given most parts of London’s low violent crime rates, then you think that carrying weapons illegally when there is no real reason to, can be morally excused. That’s your call – at last you’ve answered the original question of the thread.

Well, thanks for putting words in my mouth-though I will say that carrying weapons illegally is morally excusable, as I said in the beginning.

The only "real reason" I need to is the possibility[/o]-as I've pointed out, it isn't a weapon until I use it as one, and then the possibility, no matter how low the likelihood was, is no longer just a possibility, but a fact.

What do you mean by "most parts of London?" How do I know which parts of London? How much higher are the rates in "other parts of London?"

 

[Cruentus]

So trying to kill them is the always the only way. If your first defence, say a punch, only stuns them enough for you to escape, you should follow up until they are dead anyway? Cool, Mr Morally enlightened.

I'm sorry, but you are not dealing with the reality of violence here, and you falsifying my arguement.

First off, I never said stomp the incapacitated assailent until he stops breathing. Self-defense stops when the threat stops. I assumed everyone understood that, but my mistake so I'll explain through example. If you "punch" the attacker, as you say in your example, and he stops attacking you, then the threat is over, no need to continue. Same if you shoot the attacker. However, if you shoot the attacker 12 times and he is still trying to attack you, then you'd better reload.

That said, the part that isn't dealing with reality here is the assumption that you would have the time to distinguish between what type of force you are going to use once the fight starts. If you are fighting for your life, that is all you have time to do, and you need to do so with the most force you have available. You can't think that your going to box the guy unarmed, and if your not winning then you can try a blunt weapon, and if your still not winning then you'll cut him, etc. The idea that this is what you will be able to do is far removed from reality.

In "real life," there isn't a ref to dictate where the force continuem will go.

Paul

 

[kickcatcher]

I'm sorry, but you are not dealing with the reality of violence here, and you falsifying my arguement.

First off, I never said stomp the incapacitated assailent until he stops breathing. Self-defense stops when the threat stops. I assumed everyone understood that, but my mistake so I'll explain through example. If you "punch" the attacker, as you say in your example, and he stops attacking you, then the threat is over, no need to continue. Same if you shoot the attacker. However, if you shoot the attacker 12 times and he is still trying to attack you, then you'd better reload.

That said, the part that isn't dealing with reality here is the assumption that you would have the time to distinguish between what type of force you are going to use once the fight starts. If you are fighting for your life, that is all you have time to do, and you need to do so with the most force you have available. You can't think that your going to box the guy unarmed, and if your not winning then you can try a blunt weapon, and if your still not winning then you'll cut him, etc. The idea that this is what you will be able to do is far removed from reality.

You have said that if they are attacking you with lethal force then you should defend with lethal force - then you say that you cannot gauge the force level (lethal or non-lethal) during the 'fight'... which presumably means that you have to always assume the worst (?) … and use lethal force in ALL situations. Clearly that's ridiculous, so I assume that's not what you are trying to say.

Maybe when you say "lethal force" you don't actually mean it at all -lethal force generally means force likely to kill someone, so to deliberately apply it you are trying to kill someone. Generally in self-defence you are attempting to escape – that is the aim. Therefore most people would believe that you should only resort to lethal force in an absolute worst case scenario – most places laws included. Therefore as self-defence students we should really be training to use SUFFICIENT force, which may or may not be lethal (though generally not).

(EDIT: Just to clarify, lethal/deadly force is typically defined in American law as "force LIKELY to result in death or serious injury". I make the assumption that as martial artists we only use that level of force with INTENT since we should know roughly the likely results of our moves. Punching someone in the face in itself is not lethal force. Even choking someone and releasing it as soon as they go unconscious isn't. Shooting or stabbing someone would be. )

In "real life," there isn't a ref to dictate where the force continuem will go.

? Is that a needless jibe a sports martial arts?

 

[MJS]

Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-MJS
-MT Moderator-

 

[Cruentus]

which presumably means that you have to always assume the worst (?) … and use lethal force in ALL situations. Clearly that's ridiculous, so I assume that's not what you are trying to say.

Good assumption; no I am not saying that you have to use lethal force in all situations - that would be ridicules.

There is a difference in what is called "pre-incident," "incident," and "post-incident."

So, I'll use an example:

Pre-incident: You hear a noise downstairs that sounds like breaking glass. You decide to grab your firearm and investigate while your wife calls 9-11 in the safe room. You turn on your kitchen light, and not even 15 feet in front of you is a guy with a ski mask and tire iron. You point your weapon and yell "Drop your weapon and back up, or I'll shoot! I have a gun!"

Incident: The guy runs at you swinging. You back up and fire rounds until he falls.

Post incident: Hs is on the ground bleeding. You administer first aid as best as you can now that the threat is over. Then the police arrive.

Notice how short the actual incident is. During the pre-incident, you can make logical decisions, including what kind of force would be appropriate for the situation. During the actual incident, you will no longer be able to logically make those decisions with any reliability. This is why it is unreasonable and not fitting with reality to assume that during the incident you will be able to say to yourself, for example, "I'm grappling with him and he hasn't let go of his tire iron yet, and has hit me in the head. Now that I am losing consiousness, maybe I should try to pull a kitchen knife out of the drawer..." and then perform that action with reliability.

What I am saying is that once the incident is taking place, you can't assume that you can change where you will be on the force continuem, and therefore must make the decision based on the facts available during the pre-incident.

 

[kickcatcher]

Tulisan, your scenario has someone wearing a ski-mask and carrying a weapon attacking you - what about the drunk in the pub who mouths off at you for no apparent reason and takes a swing at you?

This is why I personally believe in having a scalable response - that doesn't mean you have to be psychic, or reactionary, but it reflects the moral (and legal) need to fit your response to the threat.


PS. Safe room? – the cold war stopped in 1990…

 

[Cruentus]

Tulisan, your scenario has someone wearing a ski-mask and carrying a weapon attacking you - what about the drunk in the pub who mouths off at you for no apparent reason and takes a swing at you?

This is why I personally believe in having a scalable response - that doesn't mean you have to be psychic, or reactionary, but it reflects the moral (and legal) need to fit your response to the threat.

The fact that your in a public place means that your somewhat protected from being beaten to death by someone unarmed, first off. You will notice the guy mouthing off, his state, whether he is armed or not, etc. These are all things that you would have determined during the pre-incident; once the incident is occuring your response will be based off decisions you made before hand, and at that point you will only have time for reaction.

I am not saying that you can't scale your response; I am just distinguishing when this actually occurs, and asserting that you can't scale with reliability during the actual incident.

PS. Safe room? – the cold war stopped in 1990…

LOL...I live in mid-michigan, and here the cold war is still going on among other things. Kidding obviously. A safe room is just a place with a phone, a lock on the door, some cover, and an escape route if you can. It is a place that everyone in the home goes to in case of a B & E emergency. Setting this up is no different then planning for a fire emergancy, or a natural disaster like a tornado. it is a very basic concept for home defense that is covered in any NRA approved CPL or CCW permit class.

Paul

 

[kickcatcher]

We have come to some agreement then, there is some common ground, at least in regard to scalable response.

But going back to morals, I still cannot buy that a person should be morally obliged to apply lethal force in circrmstances where they are facing (credible) threat of deadly force - though I'm not saying that they shouldn't - but the aim should still be to escape (assuming avoidance has failed).

We then come across a moral/practical limitation with certain weapons, particularly firearms; these are by their nature lethal force in most contexts. They cannot be used in a scalable fashion unless, perhaps you pistol-whip someone which I wouldn't recommend. If you face the situation that Elder and I discussed earlier where you come downstairs to find two kids with your TV, if you are pointing a gun at them you cannot use the gun with non-lethal force - you could perhaps aim to miss just to give them a scare... but if they attacked you with the TV, even though it is hardly them using lethal force... BANG! -guns are a one-size-fits-all approach and so limited within a scalable response.


PS. NRA, guess I missed that course then....

 

[kickcatcher]

A safe room is just a place with a phone, a lock on the door, some cover, and an escape route if you can. It is a place that everyone in the home goes to in case of a B & E emergency. Setting this up is no different then planning for a fire emergancy, or a natural disaster like a tornado. it is a very basic concept for home defense that is covered in any NRA approved CPL or CCW permit class.

Paul

Paul, if in your scenario you have a safe room, why are you going downstairs into the danger?