Iceweasel
Diamond Member
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
Before.
Prevent the crime.
But try for a disabling shot.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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)
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.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.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.
That's interesting...We ask cops to make that choice every day. It's not one a person really wants but someone has to.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.
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.
The cat probably had it coming.I don't own a gun, I once ran over a cat twenty years ago, I feel so guilty about that.
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.
Good point and timely mention.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.