When Do You Kill And Why?

[Iceweasel]

You have the legal right to stop anyone trying to take another's life. Shooting to maim is TV stupid, even a heart shot won't always stop a person immediately.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Use your best legal, moral or ethical argument. I will set the scene...

Islamic State is running roughshod in your area. You round a corner and see one sword raised high about to behead a kneeling man/woman/child.

You ARE armed. Your firearm is out. Do you shoot before the downward swing or after? Do you stop the murder before it happens or after the confirmed kill?

Legally in most jurisdictions, and ethically in any event, it is much more justifiable to kill in order to prevent a crime, than to avenge a crime after it has been committed.

Shoot the scumbag before he commits a murder, and you've prevented the crime and saved a life.

Shoot the scumbag after he commits his murder, and it's just revenge and vigilantism.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Before.

Prevent the crime.

But try for a disabling shot.

No.

If you're justified in shooting, then you're justified in killing. Shooting to disable only works on TV, not in real life. If you're in a situation that calls for discharging a firearm at another human being, you shoot for center of mass.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In that situation I would shoot the sword wielder instantly if the intended victim were a woman or a child. I would actually try and check to make sure it wasn't a defender killing an ISIS attacker if it were man on man.

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

 

[DarkFury]

Use your best legal, moral or ethical argument. I will set the scene...

Islamic State is running roughshod in your area. You round a corner and see one sword raised high about to behead a kneeling man/woman/child.

You ARE armed. Your firearm is out. Do you shoot before the downward swing or after? Do you stop the murder before it happens or after the confirmed kill?

Legally in most jurisdictions,and ethically in any event, it is much more justifiable to kill in order to prevent a crime, than to avenge a crime after it has been committed.

Shoot the scumbag before he commits a murder, and you've prevented the crime and saved a life.

Shoot the scumbag after he commits his murder, and it's just revenge and vigilantism.

That one is a tough call. If he turns toward you your life IS in danger. AND you just saw him kill another. That MAYBE a legit shoot.

 

[westwall]

In that situation I would shoot the sword wielder instantly if the intended victim were a woman or a child. I would actually try and check to make sure it wasn't a defender killing an ISIS attacker if it were man on man.

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

 

[MaryL]

I don't own a gun, I once ran over a cat twenty years ago, I feel so guilty about that.

 

[Auld Phart]

In that situation I would shoot the sword wielder instantly if the intended victim were a woman or a child. I would actually try and check to make sure it wasn't a defender killing an ISIS attacker if it were man on man.

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

Maybe the best idea is to shoot both of them?

(also leaves no witnesses to out you)

 

[westwall]

In that situation I would shoot the sword wielder instantly if the intended victim were a woman or a child. I would actually try and check to make sure it wasn't a defender killing an ISIS attacker if it were man on man.

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

Maybe the best idea is to shoot both of them?

(also leaves no witnesses to out you)

That isn't ethical so is a non starter. If unable to identify who the bad guy is I demand the sword wielder not strike. If he continues I shoot the sword wielder and hope to hell I made the correct choice.

 

[Auld Phart]

In that situation I would shoot the sword wielder instantly if the intended victim were a woman or a child. I would actually try and check to make sure it wasn't a defender killing an ISIS attacker if it were man on man.

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

Maybe the best idea is to shoot both of them?

(also leaves no witnesses to out you)

That isn't ethical so is a non starter. If unable to identify who the bad guy is I demand the sword wielder not strike. If he continues I shoot the sword wielder and hope to hell I made the correct choice.

Didn't think anyone would go for it, but I couldn't find a tongue in cheek emoticon.

 

[DarkFury]

In that situation I would shoot the sword wielder instantly if the intended victim were a woman or a child. I would actually try and check to make sure it wasn't a defender killing an ISIS attacker if it were man on man.

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

Maybe the best idea is to shoot both of them?

(also leaves no witnesses to out you)

That isn't ethical so is a non starter. If unable to identify who the bad guy is I demand the sword wielder not strike. If he continues I shoot the sword wielder and hope to hell I made the correct choice.

We ask cops to make that choice every day. It's not one a person really wants but someone has to.

 

[westwall]

In that situation I would shoot the sword wielder instantly if the intended victim were a woman or a child. I would actually try and check to make sure it wasn't a defender killing an ISIS attacker if it were man on man.

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

Maybe the best idea is to shoot both of them?

(also leaves no witnesses to out you)

That isn't ethical so is a non starter. If unable to identify who the bad guy is I demand the sword wielder not strike. If he continues I shoot the sword wielder and hope to hell I made the correct choice.

We ask cops to make that choice every day. It's not one a person really wants but someone has to.

That is true but the cops are their own worst enemy. The overwhelming majority of them are pitifully poor in their weapons and tactics skills. They resort to deadly force, even when it is not needed, because they are so poorly trained they have no other options.

I have many friends in law enforcement and used to go on ridealongs all the time. One of my groups of friends were an elite group and when they showed up whatever was about to happen simply stopped. The bad guys knew that these guys were well trained so wouldn't draw their weapons unless they needed to. And if they did draw, someone was going to be in a world of hurt.

The level of skill they enjoyed allowed them to enter any situation in a relaxed manner and that relieved the pressure on the bad guys too. But the bad guys knew that if they tried something they were doomed.

 

[David_42]

Beheading in the manner described on the OP is an execution, not a defensive act.

Killing in legitimate self-defense doesn't involve the attacker kneeling on the ground while the defender raises a sword to lop his head off.

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

Maybe the best idea is to shoot both of them?

(also leaves no witnesses to out you)

That isn't ethical so is a non starter. If unable to identify who the bad guy is I demand the sword wielder not strike. If he continues I shoot the sword wielder and hope to hell I made the correct choice.

We ask cops to make that choice every day. It's not one a person really wants but someone has to.

That is true but the cops are their own worst enemy. The overwhelming majority of them are pitifully poor in their weapons and tactics skills. They resort to deadly force, even when it is not needed, because they are so poorly trained they have no other options.

I have many friends in law enforcement and used to go on ridealongs all the time. One of my groups of friends were an elite group and when they showed up whatever was about to happen simply stopped. The bad guys knew that these guys were well trained so wouldn't draw their weapons unless they needed to. And if they did draw, someone was going to be in a world of hurt.

The level of skill they enjoyed allowed them to enter any situation in a relaxed manner and that relieved the pressure on the bad guys too. But the bad guys knew that if they tried something they were doomed.

That's interesting...

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't own a gun, I once ran over a cat twenty years ago, I feel so guilty about that.

The cat probably had it coming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Use your best legal, moral or ethical argument. I will set the scene...

Islamic State is running roughshod in your area. You round a corner and see one sword raised high about to behead a kneeling man/woman/child.

You ARE armed. Your firearm is out. Do you shoot before the downward swing or after? Do you stop the murder before it happens or after the confirmed kill?

Legally in most jurisdictions, and ethically in any event, it is much more justifiable to kill in order to prevent a crime, than to avenge a crime after it has been committed.

Shoot the scumbag before he commits a murder, and you've prevented the crime and saved a life.

Shoot the scumbag after he commits his murder, and it's just revenge and vigilantism.

Shoot the scumbag after he commits his murder, and it's just revenge and vigilantism.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Aim at center mass and keep shooting until the guy face-plants.

 

[Zander]

This is an unfair question. A lot of people (scrawny necked leftists mainly) don't own "scary" guns. They'd call 911 and ask the allah-monkey to wait.

 

[Blackrook]

Why is this even a question? You shoot to kill as soon as you see a threat to the hostage.

 

[MikeK]

On the other hand if the one kneeling were a defeated ISIS fighter who had just raped and murdered the daughter of the man standing over him with the sword, it suddenly isn't quite so clear cut.

Good point and timely mention.

Always be sure before you act. Because after is too late.

 

[Abishai100]

The Killing Joke: Intellect Aquarium

In the Steven Spielberg film "Minority Report" (Tom Cruise), futuristic cops are able to assess the probability of pre-crime incidents and stop criminals before they commit the crimes they intend to commit.

We've heard stories of offbeat cops/detectives enlisting psychics to help them track the behavior of criminals/suspects they are pursuing.

In analyzing the predictability of crime as it relates to traffic-troubles, we can assess our cultural attitudes towards pedestrian self-governance for conspicuous events such as Halloween Eve (the annual festival of ghoulish masquerade) and Devil's Night (the night before Halloween when people commit various pranks to usher in the ghoulish festival), events that signal traffic mischief.

Neighborhoods across America have already begun initiating citizen patrols and monitored curfews. Some even hire special guardsmen or off-duty cops to help them patrol.

Aristotle said that everyone becomes angry, but determining when to become angry and what anger means is the real business of intellectual analysis.




Aristotle