Should We Do What They Tell Us?

[Darth F.Takeda]

You know, it is just posts like this that make everybody that lives in the country or rural area look like a bunch of uneducated hillbillies; we are not damn it! That may have been an acceptable attitude in 1807, maybe even 1857, but you know, this is 2007 now. The whole <spitting a stream of brown tobacco juice through missing front teeth> "Wa, ba-God, I'd jus shoot the Sum-btch show up my place, dat'd teach em!"<spits on boots again> is, or should be, a long-gone way of thinking. Protect your family and yourself sure; blow somebodies brains out over a TV or anything that can be replaced at Wally World or K-Farts? Darn, hope I get too sit on the jury to put that psycho away from society for a LONG time.

I wasn't going to post a reply, but it just grated on me the more I thought about it. I am a long, long way from being a tree-loving, criminal hugging, type of person, but thank you God, I have at least evolved out of the Neanderthal stage.

Never chewd tabacco in my life.
I have lived in rural NY, West Va and rural Va, along with an urban South Florida and Northern Va.

Now where did I say **** about killing a guy running out of the house with a TV, keep jumping at straws.

You post pics of your kids on the internet and you question my judgement on home defense?

So smart guy, you going to ask someone in your house at 2am why he is there before getting the drop on him? Hope he does not drop low and put a round or 2 in your belly.

I hope you dont live throught the screaming of your wife and kids.
(I really hope nothing bad like this ever happens to anyone, but it does.)

It's because of those very real possabilities that I would probably shoot him outright, if found in my home after dark.

I would not kill over a TV, but I might have my wife hold the rifle while I run out and get whats mine back

 

[bydand]

I like the "coffee shop whine" phrase. I am about as redneck as you can get, cannot stand the whole "give them a chance" mentality and never once said I wouldn't defend myself or my family, and that does include pulling the trigger (you can take you pick of which one of my weapons I should use, there is a rather good selection to chose from.) Martial Artist? yes - Judge, jury and executioner? No.

Part of the Martial Arts is knowing when to act, and the level of response that is warranted, not just full bore right out of the gate, if that isn't what is called for. Jeeze, it looks like another JA to add to ignore.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

Actually the Coffee shop whine was a response to Kacey, not you Hawse.=)

Ignore me all you want, but you know that manytimes, there is no time to play force levels, pull the trigger or dont is about all there is.

 

[Kacey]

Actually the Coffee shop whine was a response to Kacey, not you Hawse.=)

Ignore me all you want, but you know that manytimes, there is no time to play force levels, pull the trigger or dont is about all there is.

I don't drink coffee; so - no coffee shop whine here and I notice that you still haven't answered my question, about how you got from disobeying authority to advocating murder... call it whatever you like, justify it to yourself however you like; I do notice, however, that you have backed down somewhat from your previous statement (bolded):

Originally Posted by Darth F.Takeda
How about this?

Those who feel they dont have the right to kill an intruder, then dont, see if he takes your TV, or peice out of your wife or child.

The rest of us can make our own choice as to whether to shoot him in the back of the head, cleave him with a Kukri, or beat him down with a bat.

We will all just have to live (maybe not in the first case) with our decisions.
Rual America rocks because if you do have to kill an intruder, you can bury him in the woods and noone has to know a thing=)
(Lime, more than 6 feet deep, throw some rocks over the carcass.)

I would not kill over a TV, but I might have my wife hold the rifle while I run out and get whats mine back

Or maybe you can't see the inherent contradiction in these posts... or you've chosen to ignore it, the same way you've advocated ignoring law enforcement.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

There is no contradiction, I said if you dont want to use deadly force then dont, as it's a free country untill Hilary takes over. If you feel it is warrented and the best tacticle decision, then kill the badstard.

I have not backed down from anything, you just want me to agree with your approach to life and combative siutuations.

Not going to happen, you place value on scumbags lives, I dont. I have lived amongst to many of them to value their lives IF they make the step to harm me and mine.

I am not advocating murder, again you are using emotional symantics. Murder is planing and carrying out someones death.
I am advocating killing an intruder that you feel is out to harm you, I have already said I am not advoacting shooting a kid ruinning with a TV, someone in my house @2am is up to no good, probably harm to me and mine, killing him is the right thing to do, no one used to question this, liberalisim and lawyers getting scumbags off and helping to sue people, made it an issue, it used to be a giving.

Good night, argument over for now on my end.

 

[jks9199]

Bump... highlighting threads on use of force.

 

[Cruentus]

I just don't understand why one wouldn't use deadly force on a home intruder who displays the intention of causing harm. I don't just feel that it is a right, I kind of feel that if your capable, that it is a responsibility.

Just my random thoughts...

 

[tellner]

I just don't understand why one wouldn't use deadly force on a home intruder who displays the intention of causing harm. I don't just feel that it is a right, I kind of feel that if your capable, that it is a responsibility.

If he has the intention but not the ability I wouldn't.
If he runs or shows utter surrender when confronted I wouldn't.
If he is made incapable of hurting innocents without being injured or killed I wouldn't.
If I honestly thought some measure other than deadly force would do I wouldn't.

"Can" and "should" are two very different things. So are "I could probably get away with it" and "I don't have any other realistic choice."

You never have a responsibility to kill someone in normal civilian life. You may be justified. You may be required to by circumstances or your job. But it is still the "choice of evils". I'd rather not kill anyone. If I have to I hope that I do it efficiently and with as few repercussions as possible. It's not your job to kill people whom you think are threats or criminals. That's the job of the State. You have the right to protect yourself and to use extreme measures if you think it is necessary and nothing else will work.

Only a brute or a fool looks for opportunities to do so or kills when less lethal measures suffice.

 

[Cruentus]

Well of course "ability, opportunity, and intent" as well as having no other viable choice are all factors that need to be present to justify reasonable use of deadly force. Splitting hairs on wording aside, my point is that if it is justified, then why NOT do it? It seems that one has a duty to use deadly force if someone is in the home and it is justifiable, especially if there are other inhabitants (wife, child, etc.) in the home as well.

 

[Cruentus]

You never have a responsibility to kill someone in normal civilian life.

Sorry, but I disagree. If a capable civilian is the only line of defense available at the time to stop a deadly threat, and deadly force is the only reasonable way of doing so, then I think that the responsibility does fall in the hands of that civilian.

And of course, when I say that responsibility, I am not saying "you have the responsibility to kill someone" as you worded it; I am saying "you have the responsibility to stop the threat with deadly force if that is the only reasonable option." This may seem like splitting hairs as well, but there is a big difference...

C.

 

[tellner]

Cruentus, look at what I actually wrote.

I said that deadly force may be the only correct option. If so, take it. If he's not capable of hurting you intent or not or surrenders or flees or your honest assessment of the situation says lesser means suffice then don't drop the hammer. In other words, don't kill anyone you don't have to.

If you're saying that you would kill someone who fits one of those criteria and further that you have some sort of responsibility to do so, you've crossed a very important line from self defense to something a lot uglier.

Suppose it went to trial and you said "He was running away. I wasn't in danger any longer, but I shot him anyway."

Or "No, I didn't think he could hurt me. But I had a responsibility to kill him."

Or "I drew on him and told him to drop whatever he was holding. He did it. He raised his hands, turned around, got onto his knees and lay on the ground when I instructed him to. Then I put one in the back of his head because I thought it was my duty to zip him."

Do you see any difference between those and legitimate self defense?