Kill vs. Murder vs. "Rights"

[zincwarrior]

He's right.

[ClydeFrog]

To me, killing in self defense or in the defense of another person or group of people(armed robbery, arson, WMD type terrorism, etc) is not murder.
It's not a ethical issue or moral problem if you can justify your acts or reasons to a jury of your peers(or IAW a review board or formal investigation if you are in armed professions).
In some states & juristdictions(like mine), which says you must provide the Div of Licensing with the LE report of a use-of-force incident(deadly force) within 5/five days of the event(G or armed security officer).
A concealed carry license or firearms permit is not a "license to kill".
You, as a armed citizen, are not sanctioned to use lethal force or allowed to be exempt from any state law or statue re: firearms or deadly force.
If you want to discuss the moral or ethical issues related to murder or killing(lethal force), Id suggest reading LTC Dave Grossman's non-fiction books: On Killing & On Combat.
Grossman, a retired US Army officer & PhD, researched killing, PTSD/stress, skill training(conditioning), and other factors related to death.
The US 2A as well as state-local gun laws allow citizens to bear arms or carry weapons for protection. These are lawful and you won't be convicted of criminal charges if you are prudent & understand your legal rights.

[BigD_in_FL]

It isn't a "Right to Kill", it is the right to prevent from being killed

[jrobin3360]

If there was a "right to kill" in the world, I'd venture to say that the population would be cut by half.
I'm not a lawyer but I do know my rights as a citizen.
I have the right to keep & bear arms, which I do, on my person, every day.
I have a right to be secure of my life, property & papers.
I have the right NOT to be killed or gravely injured by another person.
I have the right to defend my life, property & papers.
If I have to defend that, and in that defense, deadly force is used & my attacker is killed, then I know that I will have to face the consequences of my actions. I'm willing to accept that.
That being said, I do not wish to take another human life. To do so would be the most repugnant thing I could ever do.

[ClydeFrog]

In my state & in many other juristdictions, you can use lethal force to defend yourself and/or others but you can't use lethal force to protect your property.
For example, if you wake up and hear strange noises, go down to your living room & see a crook holding your HDTV you can't shoot him. If you yell; "GET OUT!" & they flee, you can't open up & shoot them down as they run.

Id review the incident in OK City of the small business owner & USAF veteran who shot 2 young stick-up men.
The shop owner/pharmacist was convicted for shooting the robbers partly due to the fact that he used excessive force(shooting the wounded subject repeatedly).
He's now in prison because he didnt follow OK state laws, re: guns/lethal force.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Clyde Frog

Id review the incident in OK City of the small business owner & USAF veteran who shot 2 young stick-up men.
The shop owner/pharmacist was convicted for shooting the robbers partly due to the fact that he used excessive force(shooting the wounded subject repeatedly).
He's now in prison because he didnt follow OK state laws, re: guns/lethal force.

Bad example, IMHO.

First, that was a daytime robbery of a business, not a home invasion falling under traditional castle doctrine, which looks very favorably on a person's right to defend his home. Most states (I think) seem to pretty much agree that anyone found inside your house without your permission is automatically considered to be a threat and thus is fair game for deadly force, irrespective of whether he's holding your television or a Gatling gun.

Second, the pharmacist was convicted because he emptied a second firearm into a wounded (perhaps critically or even fatally) robber long after the threat had ended. If you recall, the pharmacist shot one robber, then chased the second robber out the door and for some distance. Only then did the pharmacist re-enter the store, look at the first robber lying on the floor (off camera because he fell where a counter blocked the camera view, so we don't know if he was moving or not), calmly walked past him to his work area, switched guns, then walked back and emptied the second gun into the already wounded robber.

And then he lied about it in his statements to the police. Not a good example at all.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Aquila Blanca: Most states (I think) seem to pretty much agree that anyone found inside your house without your permission is automatically considered to be a threat and thus is fair game for deadly force, irrespective of whether he's holding your television or a Gatling gun.

Not this again. Read this.

Relevant excerpts:

The basic principle is that someone who is in his or own house is given certain presumptions regarding the justification of the use of force against an unlawful intruder that would not apply somewhere else.

As in the case of the duty to retreat and the right to not retreat (to "stand your ground"), castle doctrine provisions are variously defined in state codes and in appellate court rulings (legal precedent). One should never rely on a layman's reading of the code, or on any one statute taken out of context.

Provisions vary from one jurisdiction to another. In general, however, "castle doctrine" laws and rulings do the following:

They provide a resident or his or her guest with a presumption that an unlawful entry by an intruder gives the occupant reason to believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; that belief is one of the fundamental requirements of a defense of justification for the use of deadly force;

they establish clearly that, once the conditions for justification have been met, there is no duty to retreat within or from the domicile in the event of an attack by an unlawful intruder.

Castle doctrine laws DO NOT provide a resident with a carte blanche right to employ deadly force simply because someone has entered a domicile unlawfully. The aforementioned presumption is rebuttable: if the intruder does not pose a serious threat or has ceased to do so, the use of deadly force is not justified. Essentially, what the castle doctrine really does is reduce the burden on the defender to provide evidence supporting a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary.

It must be emphasized that castle doctrine protection is not automatic. The defender will have to establish that he or she knew, or had reason to believe, that the thresholds for castle doctrine justification (for example, the fact of a forcible and unlawful entry) had been met. The physical evidence may clearly support that, or it may not.

[biggfoot44]

I had to read the first post several times , and still couldn't get the gist of where the debate was.

It really IS about the words , and words do have specific meanings.

There IS a right to self defense , and to certain extent defense of others ( not going into details at this time).

In many jurisdictions citizens can lawfully carry firearms, for among various reasons , to assist in self defense.

In such situations at times potentially lethal force is justified. This would be a firearm, but could also be other potentially lethal options.

When using force in self defense , the goal is to cause the threat to you to cease. If that occurs w/o injury to assailent, fine. If the attack continues , but assailent dies next week in the hospital from complications it didn't acomplish your imeadate goal. The decision making by the defender is as to the type of force used, the ultimate health disposition of the attacker is an indirect byproduct not imeadately known or controled by the defender.

Self Defense is a Positive Defense. The defendent acknowledeges that they did particular action delibertly, and that it was justified. This would be if resulted in a death, or various assult charges, or whatever.

Anytime a human being dies as result of actions of another human being, it is Homicide.

Homicide could be justified or excusable.

IT could be a form of Manslaughter ( at least two flavors , some states have additional flavors by statute ).

It could be a form of Murder ( at least two , some states also have 3rd degree Homicide by statute.