How Much Violence Justifies Use of Lethal Force in Self Defense?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by JimBowie1958, Jun 19, 2012.

?

Which violence justifies use of deadly force?

Poll closed Jun 26, 2012.
  1. touching the victim

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. slapping them

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  3. punching them

    4 vote(s)
    33.3%
  4. holding them helpless and beating them without stopping

    7 vote(s)
    58.3%
  5. threatening them with a deadly weapon

    9 vote(s)
    75.0%
  6. attempting to kill them with a deadly weapon

    7 vote(s)
    58.3%
  7. there is no justification for using deadly force

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,475
    Hypothetical case: a woman is leaving her 'boyfriend' and he wants her to stay and talk more. He does not know that she is armed with a gun, and he tries to manhandle her.

    How bad does his 'manhandling' have to get before she is justified in shooting him dead?

    I ask this because I have seen a wide range of attitudes toward what is considered threatening. For example I have seen people arrested for 'kidnapping' when they merely took a person gently by the arm and asked them to stay. Another case a guy was arrested for using harsh language under 'verbal assault' laws. Another time a man was arrested for assault when he pushed his exiting wife on the shoulder.

    But I have read of some counter examples where a woman was charged with murder when the boyfriend slapped her hard and another where he woke the girl and was standing at the foot of her bed holding a bayonette and had broken into the house in the middle of the night and had told friends he would kill her.

    Somehow, it seems as if the definition of what constitutes threatening violence depends on if the woman defends herself or not. If she doesnt then the guy can be arrested for brathing out the wrong side of his nose, but if she does defend herself then she basically has to prove her innosence in an inversion of the presumption of guilt.

    But, nah, it cant possibly be that our justice system wants women to be weak and at the mercy of violent boyfriends, right? So I thought I would ask the folks here, many of whom seem fairly knowledgable about the law.

    Personally, I feel that the attacker has to be doing something that might cause a loss of life. IF a guy about my size or less punches me in the face and then we have a fist fight, that is not lethal and deadly force not justifiable. But if he is much taller and more fit than I am or he is with a group of guys and he/they have threatened my life then I think deadly force is justified.

    At any rate, that is when I am calm and sitting behind a computer keyboard. I dont know what I might actually do if I were to actually be in such a situation. If a dude sucker punched me so hard I could barely collect my thoughts and he persisted in hitting me and I had no practical chance to defend myself from his blows, then I would probably shoot him and take my chances with the justus system.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  2. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    Man vs. woman is kind of a different story. Men are much more powerful then women..that's just biology. And part of the theory behind the SYG laws was to empower women against abusive men. Of course that was just lip service. Because when it actually happened..

    Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News

    She didn't actually kill anyone. And this is in the same state that almost let a man go for killing someone under the very same statute.
     
  3. JimBowie1958
    Offline

    JimBowie1958 Old Fogey

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39,343
    Thanks Received:
    5,506
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Ratings:
    +21,475
    The law should be blind to gender, but unfortunately in this leftwing ideological nnutball society we live in today, that is not even an ideal goal any more.

    Difference in height and weight and strength are legitimate factors, but gender is not, IMO, not if we are trying to h ave a gender neutral legal system.

    That is outrageous bullshit. That woman had every right to fire a warning shot if you look at it with common sense.

    OF course Angela Corey prosecuted that case as well as GZ. Apparently Corey thinks any use of violence or threat of violence is prosecutable. In her mind one is only legal if one is a victim, or so it seems to me.
     
  4. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    :clap2:

    100% agreed.
     
  5. GodSaveAmerica
    Offline

    GodSaveAmerica Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    127
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Post-conservative America
    Ratings:
    +19
    It really is dependent on a host of cirucumstantial factors, every threatening situation is unique, so it boils down to exercising one's personal judgment to do the right thing in the moment.
     
  6. tjvh
    Offline

    tjvh Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,893
    Thanks Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +916
    And it's "common sense" if that "warning shot" strikes the neighbor's house and kills their poor little innocent child? 100% disagree. In self defense... You don't fire a gun to "warn", you fire one to "kill".
     
  7. signelect
    Offline

    signelect BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Thanks Received:
    216
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +216
    When you violate my space the rights you have are the rights I choose to let you have, whether it is hitting me or breaking into my house. Your mistake was picking a fight with someone you don't know, in my case be very careful. I agree with a lot of you, if you want to warn someone blow a whistle, when you use a gun it is to end the disscussion.
     
  8. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    To a point where a reasonable person in the position of the woman would be justified in believing that the force being used against her was in fact deadly. It is an objective standard, not subjective. To put it another way, someone in the woman's position would have to feel that she was about to lose her life and, in order to save it, she had to shoot the attacker dead. Once again, an objective standard, not subjective.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  9. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Shoot them dead, then double tap to the head. Then argue about rights.
     
  10. Ernie S.
    Offline

    Ernie S. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Messages:
    33,668
    Thanks Received:
    7,718
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Ratings:
    +12,439
    We don't worry about that shit in Alabama.

     

Share This Page