Self Defense

[ELITEofWarman8]

Why do you all think about the right to defend yourself? How far or little should you be able to go to be able to do that?

 

[hjmick]

If the answer to your question is not obvious to you, I fear for your safety...

 

[whitehall]

How far or little should you be able to defend your life and family? You gotta be kidding. Weren't you the guy who asked the firearms forum what was the difference between a 16ga and a 12 ga shotgun?

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

Just trying to spark a debate.

 

[editec]

Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?

 

[George Costanza]

Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?

There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Why do you all think about the right to defend yourself? How far or little should you be able to go to be able to do that?

All the way. Particularly in my own home. If someone breaks into my home I should be able to kill them. Just the fact that they broke into my home gives me the right to kill them. I can only assume their intent is to hurt me.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?

There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.

I disagree, George. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I don't have the time or ability to determine if it's a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. For my own safety, and since they have forced their way into my sanctuary, I must assume it's a deadly attack. I'm a small woman, hesitation could get me killed.

I see what you're saying, but if some little old lady shoots someone who broke into her house in the middle of the night, and it turns out the intruder didn't have a gun...it shouldn't matter. They wouldn't have needed a gun to seriously hurt or kill the old lady. She has a right to equalize the situation. If they don't want to get killed they should quit breaking into people's houses.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Now, outside of your house, the question becomes a little trickier. : ) I carry bear spray when I walk my dogs. If some guy wants to mess with me, and the two Dobermans don't scare him off, I figure the bear spray will do the trick until I can get away/get help.

But he deserves to be shot dead.

 

[George Costanza]

Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?

There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.

I disagree, George. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I don't have the time or ability to determine if it's a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. For my own safety, and since they have forced their way into my sanctuary, I must assume it's a deadly attack. I'm a small woman, hesitation could get me killed.

I see what you're saying, but if some little old lady shoots someone who broke into her house in the middle of the night, and it turns out the intruder didn't have a gun...it shouldn't matter. They wouldn't have needed a gun to seriously hurt or kill the old lady. She has a right to equalize the situation. If they don't want to get killed they should quit breaking into people's houses.

No - if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you have every right to shoot to kill. No argument there.

If someone comes up to your table in a restaurant, calls you a nasty name and throws a drink in your face, you do have a right to act in self defense, but that would not include hauling a gun out and shooting them, at least not until they escalate things with some type of deadly force against you.

Here's another one for you - suppose two guys get into a fight. A starts the fight. B merely defends himself, at first. But, as the fight progresses, B gets the better of A (the guy who started it). Now A is lying on the ground, knocked unconscious. B continues to kick him while he is on the ground. That would be a no-no. Self defense does not extend to a point where the opponent is no longer able to defend himself.

 

[George Costanza]

Now, outside of your house, the question becomes a little trickier. : ) I carry bear spray when I walk my dogs. If some guy wants to mess with me, and the two Dobermans don't scare him off, I figure the bear spray will do the trick until I can get away/get help.

But he deserves to be shot dead.

In passing, I would certainly hope that not EVERY guy who might want to mess with you, deserves to be shot dead. Just sayin'

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Now, outside of your house, the question becomes a little trickier. : ) I carry bear spray when I walk my dogs. If some guy wants to mess with me, and the two Dobermans don't scare him off, I figure the bear spray will do the trick until I can get away/get help.

But he deserves to be shot dead.

In passing, I would certainly hope that not EVERY guy who might want to mess with you, deserves to be shot dead. Just sayin'

LOL. Well, George, there's messin' and then there's messin'! Hopefully, I'm able to tell the difference and respond accordingly.

 

[Moonglow]

Just trying to spark a debate.

Try flint.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.

I disagree, George. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I don't have the time or ability to determine if it's a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. For my own safety, and since they have forced their way into my sanctuary, I must assume it's a deadly attack. I'm a small woman, hesitation could get me killed.

I see what you're saying, but if some little old lady shoots someone who broke into her house in the middle of the night, and it turns out the intruder didn't have a gun...it shouldn't matter. They wouldn't have needed a gun to seriously hurt or kill the old lady. She has a right to equalize the situation. If they don't want to get killed they should quit breaking into people's houses.

No - if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you have every right to shoot to kill. No argument there.

If someone comes up to your table in a restaurant, calls you a nasty name and throws a drink in your face, you do have a right to act in self defense, but that would not include hauling a gun out and shooting them, at least not until they escalate things with some type of deadly force against you.

Here's another one for you - suppose two guys get into a fight. A starts the fight. B merely defends himself, at first. But, as the fight progresses, B gets the better of A (the guy who started it). Now A is lying on the ground, knocked unconscious. B continues to kick him while he is on the ground. That would be a no-no. Self defense does not extend to a point where the opponent is no longer able to defend himself.

Yes, I do see your point. But I look at it from a small woman's perspective, and sometimes ensuring survival requires a little overkill.

FOR EXAMPLE...Have you not seen the scary movies where B has gotten the better of A, and A is lying on the ground so B lets his defenses down. And BAM!!!! A revives and grabs B by the ankle!

I once had a karate instructor who told us small women that if a man attacked us we should kill him. He said we weren't big enough, or strong enough, or good enough to "take it easy" on someone. We wouldn't be able to protect ourselves if the guy ever got ahold of us (such as grabbing our ankle!). So we have to give it our all, which is probably going to incapacitate him permanently. We don't have the strength to be gentle, so to speak! Another reason you don't want them surviving, is you don't want them coming back after you...for revenge. I'm still speaking as a woman.

I know, it sounds creepy. But guys attacking small women is creepier, don't you think? : ) Just don't do it boys, and you'll be safe.

At the same time, I can see why, in your example, the man who gets the upper hand shouldn't just beat the other guy to death.

So, it's a conundrum!

 

[legaleagle_45]

Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?

There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.

You are correct that the right answer is that it depends, but you are not totally correct upon the remainder of your observations... some clarifications

You can use deadly force against a non deadly attack. One is privileged to use deadly force to repel an attack that could cause great bodily harm. The classic example is the use of deaply force to repel a rapist.

The test is both subjective AND objective. The person must be in actual fear of death or great bodily harm, AND such belief must be reasonable under the circumstances.

Thus a person who actually believes he is threatened by death or great bodily harm from a midget holding a feather may have better luck employing the insanity defense rather than going the self defense route.

 

[legaleagle_45]

I disagree, George. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I don't have the time or ability to determine if it's a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. For my own safety, and since they have forced their way into my sanctuary, I must assume it's a deadly attack. I'm a small woman, hesitation could get me killed.

In most states if someone has broken into your home, a rebuttable presumption arises that you are in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury and would be able to invoke self defense. This is the essence of the castle doctorine. ... and it does not matter if it is a little old lady or Chuck Norris who is the homeowner.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you all think about the right to defend yourself? How far or little should you be able to go to be able to do that?

Anyone who argues there is no such right is just plain silly.

You have the right to do what you need to do to protect yourself from the threat facing you, the specifics of which depend on the threat.

You very certainly have the right to kill someone, should that be the only way to prevent that somenoe from killing you or causing you great bodily harm..

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

The obvious problem that might arise is that no one believes you were actually defending yourself. Then you are accused of murder. And convicted of murder. As we have seen happen recently.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The obvious problem that might arise is that no one believes you were actually defending yourself. Then you are accused of murder. And convicted of murder. As we have seen happen recently.

The good thing about the truth is that it almost always sets you free.
Better to take that chance than to be dead.

 

[PratchettFan]

The obvious problem that might arise is that no one believes you were actually defending yourself. Then you are accused of murder. And convicted of murder. As we have seen happen recently.

I know of one case that happened. Two men came in to rob a pharmacy. The owner came out shooting. He shot one of the men, the other ran out the door. The owner followed him and then returned to store. He walked over the one man lying on the floor, went back to his office to reload, came back out and shot the man on the floor at point blank range. He claimed it was self defense. The jury called it murder.

If the threat is real, you have the right to self defense. Once the threat is gone, it is no longer self defense.