Purpose of Self-Defense

HughScot · July 18, 2016, 10:29 AM

Let's remember that the only time anyone should shoot at someone is if in fear of bodily harm including death. In my opinion anything you use to defend yourself and your family in those circumstances, in your own house, should be okay. I'll take life over death.

James K · July 18, 2016, 07:29 PM

And the point is? In use of a firearm in self-defense, most firearms will be okay, but if there is a question, the shooter does not get to decide. The law and the court will determine if the shooting is justifiable and the weapon appropriate.

Jim

samsmix · July 21, 2016, 12:40 AM

Was there someone who was advocating doing otherwise?

Pond, James Pond · July 21, 2016, 02:18 AM

I'm confused as to the point of the OP.

There's no question, scenario or position to discuss.

There is just a statement which, by all accounts, preaches to the converted: anyone who has bought a gun for the potential purpose of SD should be well aware of that precondition to the use of lethal force....

Mozella · July 21, 2016, 04:37 AM

In Alabama there are plenty of times you can use deadly force when you're not in fear of your life. To cite one example, part of the Alabama code regarding deadly force reads:

"(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility,...................."

So, in theory, you could shoot someone cutting the lock of a nuclear power facility, but you had better be darned sure it isn't the night watchman who just forget his keys. And you had better be sure it is "federally licensed" as opposed to a DIY nuclear power facility built by the guy down the street.

The code goes on to discuss the defense of others including examples of forced oral sex, so if your neighbor's girlfriend doesn't like giving your neighbor the particular kind of sexual pleasure he prefers and he forces her to do so at your back yard pool party, then Alabama says "open fire".

Of course, that might not be the end of the story, but you get the point. Fear of your life is not the only instance when you can use deadly force. However, it may not be worth the effort.

Me? If someone is killing you with a baseball bat in the Walmart parking lot because of a dispute over the handicapped parking place, the best you're gonna' get from me is a phone call to 911. I will NOT shoot the guy with the bat even if the Alabama law says it might be OK.

old bear · July 21, 2016, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Me? If someone is killing you with a baseball bat in the Walmart parking lot because of a dispute over the handicapped parking place, the best you're gonna' get from me is a phone call to 911. I will NOT shoot the guy with the bat even if the Alabama law says it might be OK.

Have we as a society become that cold and Uncaring? I hope to God not. There are few times I'd become involved in a third party fight. But I will not watch someone be murdered.

Lohman446 · July 21, 2016, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Have we as a society become that cold and Uncaring? I hope to God not. There are few times I'd become involved in a third party fight. But I will not watch someone be murdered.

I advocate that every adult should carry a firearm or in some means be prepared for his or her own defense. For those who chose not to do this and depend on the police... I understand the vast majority of our officers will do the best they possibly can but you are still depending on the best they possibly can and the resources we have given those officers is limited.

There is a good portion of the population that espouses hatred towards me for carrying a firearm (at least in theory, I doubt they know I carry a firearm). There is also a good portion that think any repercussions from using that firearm are fair game.

Nah.. You worry about you and yours I will worry about me and mine. Our collective welfare will be worried about by those appointed to do so.

The pass: I will defend those who are unable to defend themselves (children for instances). Beyond that I have not been asked by society to intervene for others.

Skans · July 21, 2016, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Let's remember that the only time anyone should shoot at someone is if in fear of bodily harm including death.

So, if someone has broken into my house but declares "hey man, I'm only gona take your TV 'n stuff" I should just say "ok, just don't hurt me or I'll shoot"???

**OldMarksman** · July 21, 2016, 08:20 AM

Quote:

In Alabama there are plenty of times you can use deadly force when you're not in fear of your life. To cite one example, part of the Alabama code regarding deadly force reads:

"(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility,...................."

Not so fast.

Let's make that life or serious bodily harm--that's part of the definition of unlawful deadly physical force.

If someone has unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered on those places, it is presumed that the occupants (and in the case of the nuclear facility, anyone for miles around) would reasonably believe that serious danger of harm exists.

Forcible sexual assault falls into the category of serious bodily harm.

Grizz12 · July 21, 2016, 08:36 AM

You covered "Life", what about "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness", can they be defended with deadly force?

Lohman446 · July 21, 2016, 08:46 AM

The socially acceptable rules about the minimum requirements to justify deadly force are pretty well established by the laws of your jurisdiction. These laws are subject to change. Living under them is tacit consent to that being the min. justification of deadly force. Other people have higher levels and some will even argue that deadly force should never be used. That is their right. Others have acted on a belief that the min. should be lower and are paying the consequences for those actions as described by those laws.

Luckily for me my moral belief on when an individual should use dead force line up well within the confines of the law.

Glenn E. Meyer · July 21, 2016, 09:24 AM

Dear posters and other staff - I fail to see how the OP Topic is specifically handgun related? If anything it would be a General Topic. However, since it is a rather naive statement, I don't see the need to move it. The general issue has been well discussed before.

Closed.

July 18, 2016, 10:29 AM	#1
HughScot Senior Member Join Date: July 4, 2016 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 166	Purpose of Self-Defense Let's remember that the only time anyone should shoot at someone is if in fear of bodily harm including death. In my opinion anything you use to defend yourself and your family in those circumstances, in your own house, should be okay. I'll take life over death.

July 21, 2016, 12:40 AM	#3
samsmix Senior Member Join Date: June 29, 2006 Location: Montana (Montucky?) Posts: 1,273	Was there someone who was advocating doing otherwise? __________________ You'll probably never NEED a gun. I hope you never do. But IF you do, you will need it worse than anything you've ever needed in your life. IF we're not supposed to eat animals, howcome God made 'em outta meat?

July 21, 2016, 02:18 AM	#4
Pond, James Pond Senior Member Join Date: July 12, 2011 Location: Top of the Baltic stack Posts: 6,079	I'm confused as to the point of the OP. There's no question, scenario or position to discuss. There is just a statement which, by all accounts, preaches to the converted: anyone who has bought a gun for the potential purpose of SD should be well aware of that precondition to the use of lethal force.... __________________ When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.

July 21, 2016, 09:24 AM	#12
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Dear posters and other staff - I fail to see how the OP Topic is specifically handgun related? If anything it would be a General Topic. However, since it is a rather naive statement, I don't see the need to move it. The general issue has been well discussed before. Closed. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

July 18, 2016, 07:29 PM	#2
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	And the point is? In use of a firearm in self-defense, most firearms will be okay, but if there is a question, the shooter does not get to decide. The law and the court will determine if the shooting is justifiable and the weapon appropriate. Jim

July 21, 2016, 04:37 AM	#5
Mozella Member Join Date: April 17, 2015 Posts: 83	In Alabama there are plenty of times you can use deadly force when you're not in fear of your life. To cite one example, part of the Alabama code regarding deadly force reads: "(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility,...................." So, in theory, you could shoot someone cutting the lock of a nuclear power facility, but you had better be darned sure it isn't the night watchman who just forget his keys. And you had better be sure it is "federally licensed" as opposed to a DIY nuclear power facility built by the guy down the street. The code goes on to discuss the defense of others including examples of forced oral sex, so if your neighbor's girlfriend doesn't like giving your neighbor the particular kind of sexual pleasure he prefers and he forces her to do so at your back yard pool party, then Alabama says "open fire". Of course, that might not be the end of the story, but you get the point. Fear of your life is not the only instance when you can use deadly force. However, it may not be worth the effort. Me? If someone is killing you with a baseball bat in the Walmart parking lot because of a dispute over the handicapped parking place, the best you're gonna' get from me is a phone call to 911. I will NOT shoot the guy with the bat even if the Alabama law says it might be OK.

July 21, 2016, 08:36 AM	#10
Grizz12 Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2012 Posts: 527	You covered "Life", what about "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness", can they be defended with deadly force?

July 21, 2016, 08:46 AM	#11
Lohman446 Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2016 Posts: 2,192	The socially acceptable rules about the minimum requirements to justify deadly force are pretty well established by the laws of your jurisdiction. These laws are subject to change. Living under them is tacit consent to that being the min. justification of deadly force. Other people have higher levels and some will even argue that deadly force should never be used. That is their right. Others have acted on a belief that the min. should be lower and are paying the consequences for those actions as described by those laws. Luckily for me my moral belief on when an individual should use dead force line up well within the confines of the law.