To Kill Or Not To Kill...That Is The Question

[stephen426]

Maybe I am over-simplifying things here. I would only take a life if my life or my loved one's lives were in imminent danger. Failure to act (call it kill, stop, what you will) most likely means my own death or the death of a loved one.

I hate to seem callous, but a bad guy's life means nothing to me in comparison to my own or a loved one's. I did not go seeking trouble, but trouble came seeking me. I will deal with the emotional consequences after the fact, but I WILL act decisively if and when needed.

I mean no offense by this following statement, but is someone has not commited to defend their life with as much force as necessary (possibly taking a life), they should not carry a gun. They can carry non-lethal defense options such as pepper spray and tasers, but they should not carry guns. The reasoning behind this is that they will most likely hesistate in that situation and may have the gun taken away from them. I do not take the loss of human life lightly, even if it a bad guy's, but I do value mine and my loved ones much more.

I'm not sure if this thread is about if I will feel bad afterwards? I'm sure those who have been there and done that can answer that more definitively. As I said, that will be a bridge I will have to cross when and if I get there, and I hope I never will.

[rezmedic54]

I have to stick something in here and it's just something that helped me survive the EMS field for 20 years and not all can do this as I have asked friends still in the field. For me I trained myself to shut off all emotions so I could do my job ( kids still mess your head up ) after doing so almost everyday for that 20 years you find one day you come home from work and have no emotions to turn on they are still there but you can't turn the on to use them.I have been retired now for going on 6 years and to this day they have no come back fully who knows if they ever will it may so cold hearted but it was the only way to survive that job without loosing your own mind in the process. There are some out here that can do that at the drop of a hat and some that can never do it. I myself can as I like like some here have made that decision as to who lives and who dies and the only faces I can remember are those of kids, adults are just another number on a run sheet and thats all. But this is just me. Be Safe Out There Kurt

[springmom]

Much energy expended, but it has gotten nowhere. We are still reading things like:

My own feeling is that once an attacker has justified my use of deadly force, I will probably be in a mental state where I do not like him very much (come on -- he's trying to end my life!!), and will be very unlikely to care whether he lives or dies; and in fact, I may at that point prefer that he does not survive my defensive action.

and

Some here just want the threat ended; some are more indignant at being attacked and aren't so touchy-feely about the attacker, and also don't mind if they have to be the one who takes out humanity's garbage for it.

The act of taking a life in self-defense is not one that has room for preferences or emotional states. You do not shoot the intruder because you are angry with him, you shoot the intruder because he presents a danger to yourself and your family. That there will BE emotion is, in fact, not even a given...some people become extremely non-emotional under extreme stress and only LATER experience the emotional reaction from the events they've survived. To say that we prefer the attacker not survive because we don't want to be bothered with the consequences if he does misses the point altogether that consequences will follow the act of self-defense and that those consequences will include emotional, mental, and spiritual issues that will need to be addressed and dealt with, as well as financial and legal issues.

And to claim our willingness to "take out humanity's garbage" is callous, macho posturing. I'm sorry, but it is. You want to take out humanity's garbage? Get a job in the death chamber of Huntsville...you'll get your chance a couple of hundred times per year. This sort of statement gives me the creeps. I am utterly aware of the fact that carrying a gun requires a willingness to use it, and the corollary that it requires a recognition and acceptance that to do so may well take a human life (not take out humanity's garbage). I carry, I have a handgun on the bedside and a shotgun in the closet for home defense at night. I am willing to use that gun to defend myself or my family or another innocent if I must. I will worry about the consequences later, and I will do what needs to be done at that time. But I will not sit around and gab about how I'm willing to take out humanity's garbage. This is disgusting.

Like Carter, I'm outta here on this thread. This is not worth continuing.

Springmom

[pickpocket]

Mods -
I think this one has run its course. There are members who are still reacting to stated opinions emotionally rather than philosophically...and once it is decided that we can't get past that point, the debate is over. Perhaps it was over before it started.
For the sake of all, let's allow this one to die with what validity and dignity it has left.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by pickpocket

There are members who are still reacting to stated opinions emotionally rather than philosophically...and once it is decided that we can't get past that point, the debate is over. Perhaps it was over before it started.

pickpocket,

Is there a reason why emotional opinions are less valid than philosophical ones? Emotions and feelings are what makes us human. We are not simply cold calculating machines that can always do the rational thing. This debate calls for reason and feeling. To deny that one may feel regret over ending another person's life is just denial.

Denial may lead to long term mental problems such as post traumatic stress disorder. Why do people go postal? Because it is the rational thing to do? The mind is a very complex thing and as much as I would like to shut off the emotional part sometimes, it helps me make judgements that may not necesarily be rational. For example, why not disown a child that has turned to alcoholism or drugs. That child a liability rather than an asset. Love for that child is an emotion, not a rational decision. Suicide could be seen as a rational decision if emotions were not considered. Life is bad, you're in a dead end job, your in a failed relationship, etc... Is it rational to continue suffering? Emotions, such as a sense of self worth or a sense of hope balances rationality. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but emotions are where our morals and values lie.

[bennnn]

OK, you got me goin......

I used to be a Hunter, hunted and killed nearly everything breathing and living on the continent of North America, even the tweety birds.....

I'm not an old guy,,,31,,but I've gotta tell you, latley I'll go out of my way to Not kill anything...Sounds strange huh?? Does to me too...Now I even care about the toads I used to chop up with my lawnmower...Gettin so I can't squash a spider for my wife,,,...
For the world:: I LOVE FIREARMS!!!
Mostly, I am addicted to mil-surp rifles,,,(really, is there a support group I can join!!??) I burn alot of powder,, alot,,, but these days I don't kill anything but bud light, in bottles...
Guess you can tell where I'm going with this huh?

I'll shoot the dumbass as many times as I have to, to stop him/(her),.
But Probably not kill, I practice shooting as an art, not that I'm an artist, (coffee) But anywhere in my house,,,or yard...,,,Hey y'all,, Might sound brutal, but I'm gonna aim at bones,,, all you EMT guys know where those are at right?

[pickpocket]

Originally Posted by stephen426

Is there a reason why emotional opinions are less valid than philosophical ones?

They're not less valid, simply less productive in a debate because no amount of logic or reasoning is going to penetrate.
It is precisely the control of emotional response that allows a conversation to progress beyond that in which two 5-year olds might engage.

Originally Posted by stephen426

To deny that one may feel regret over ending another person's life is just denial.

I think you missed the rest of my posts.

Stay sharp -

[bennnn]

To deny that one may feel regret over ending another person's life is just denial.yeah pickpocket,, I agree, that's the same type of language as "quitting is for quitters"....

Back to taking human life; Here's my motto;

I won't do anything I'm not forced to do.

Been saying it for years....

[bacardisteve]

its a touchy subject with a lot of people. on the job i only use the force necessery. that being said if i have to fire my weapon i double tap in the chest. if the perp is still resisting the third shot is for the brain. if you only shoot to wound your attacker can still attack. I have seen first hand what someone on pcp can shakeoff like it didnt happen. true you may have some pshycological after affects of taking a life but just think how you would fell if you only wounded that home intruder and he was able to cause harm to a famimly member.

[Lurper]

To deny that one may feel regret over ending another person's life is just denial.

I don't buy that. I have enough friends both as police and military who have killed and feel no regrets or remorse. As I stated earlier, I believe much of that type of response is a product of socialization. If not, then how do you explain the willingness of other cultures to take life without second thought (the Japanese in WWII come to mind). We are socialized through our culture to believe it is wrong to kill. I don't believe it is (under certain circumstances) and know several others who do not. It is wrong however to murder. But to say that someone should or is going to feel remorse because they killed someone who was trying to kill them is not accurate. We are told by the media, religious figures, political figures, celebrities and others how we are supposed to feel, so many people feel that way. However, many people will assess how they feel then state it not vice-versa. This leads to a climate where it is not socially acceptable to voice your true feelings for fear of being ostracized. Most of the guys I have talked to are very pragmatic about it - they were just doing their job. Most have no regets or remorse and to say that they do but just won't admit it is doing them a disservice. It is just as natural to be elated about surviving a confrontation as it is to be remorseful about it. To say otherwise is to ignore reality.

[stephen426]

Hey guys... I mentioned

To deny that one may feel regret over ending another person's life is just denial

in response to pickpocket's emotion vs. philosophy arguement. My point is that this topic cannot just be viewed from an "intellectual" view point only.

[BlueTrain]

I made one post in this thread already but here is another thought or two.

Assuming for a moment that we are speaking of a first time event, I believe that one's reaction to an event, in this case a shooting, is nearly unpredictable. Chances are, any given person is unlikely to have two such events. It is true that the circumstances may make a great difference but they are unpredictable as well. This doesn't really add much to the conversation, really.

I am not referring to one's reactions during the event, however. That can be related directly to any training one may have had beforehand, though only law enforcement personnel are likely to have had such training and they are also more likely to have had previous experiences.

Thought the thread is about shooting, the aftermath of a non-shooting fatality as the result of an accident would probably be pretty much the same, if not worse. Who knows?

As far as WWII Japanese soldiers go, however, I don't believe there was anything about (pre-war) Japanese society that produced soldiers to be especially blood thirsty. They had to be trained to be that way. It is very likely true, however, that previous generations were a little rougher than we think we are today but I am referring to two hundred years ago and before.

[azurefly]

This just occurred to me:


What if, by some magic, it could be known who among the population of humanity has murder and harm against other people in their hearts, and we could magically will them out of existence? Would that be something that would be a benefit to humanity?

Of course, I'm talking about an infallible judgment made by some mystical force, so remove the possibility of being wrong about them from your consideration.

I'm asking if it is right for the good people of the world to wish that the bad people just were not around anymore. And I think, "Yes."

(I guess it sounds like I'm describing a "pre-crime unit" like in that movie, but I am stipulating that in my imagining, it would be infallible.)

So, short of having a magical "who's-going-to-be-a-murderer detector," we are left with a situation in which we have to let the murder attempts happen. And what I am saying is that when someone exposes himself as a would-be murderer, his would-be victim has the right to fight back with force up-to-and-including lethal force: and I am going a step further and saying that it should be hoped for that the force used by the would-be victim ends up being fatal to the would-be murderer. The simple reason is that we should be glad for any opportunity that presents a moral and legal justification for removing a would-be murderer from society's midst.


-azurefly

[azurefly]

There are moral, emotional, and even financial reasons for preferring that the attacker dies after defensive action is taken. Who wants to be sued by the guy? Who wants to be challenged in court, paying thousands of dollars for defense, because he now wants to claim he was just trying to ask for directions? Who wants him to be lurking out there with a vendetta against them or their family, when you already know he's a violent criminal?

Originally Posted by g.e.m.

1. What is the moral reason for preferring that someone dies? I don't get that unless you postulate vengenance as a moral reason.

Vengeance? No. The moral reason is that now that the attacker has exposed himself as a would-be murderer and criminal, there is justification to wish society to be rid of him as permanently as possible. He is a flawed specimen: he wishes to engage in murder (as distinguished, of course, from legal killing in self defense). He is "the dog that needs to be put down" for its own, and the public's, sakes.

So I view it as a moral and a practical matter. We are all that much more protected when someone takes full advantage of the justification of self-defense to eradicate one more threat to people's safety (embodied in a would-be murderer). Would I say, "Kill a guy because you have a feeling he might some day murder or attempt to murder someone"? No. Would I say, "Now that he's actually made the attempt, [i]get rid of him since the law allows you to"? Yes.

-azurefly

[azurefly]

Originally Posted by jcoiii

I'm going to step in with azure here for the sake of intellectual discussion.

The BG comes in, and I shoot him. BG falls to the ground, and for all intents and purposes, is neutralized. I do not fire anymore. Why should I care if he lives or dies? I probably wish he would die simply because I do not wish for people who commit these (and other types of) crimes to live. That's my moral decision.

However, I'm not going to walk over and put one in the guys head either. While part of me might wish that this guy was dead, I'm not going to murder him. In fact, I have some basic first aid training and will probably try and help him. This will not, however, stop me from thinking, in some part of my mind that people like this don't deserve to live.

Thank you, jcoiii -- this is essentially the pith of what I've been trying to articulate. I wouldn't go over and "put one more in him" either. Not sure, personally, what proportion of that decision is based on morals and what portion is based on fearing I'd be then tried for murder. The moral part of me still says, "The guy was trying to kill me, and would have if I had not successfully fought back. He has forfeited his right to life directly to me, the person whose life he tried to end." I'm sure there have been periods in history where the "right thing to do" was to finish the guy off.

So, this brings up the subject of whether you are morally, legally or otherwise obligated to provide or call for lifesaving help. I'm sure many will say YES, you are obligated to call an ambulance.

What do you do if the 911 operator starts telling you to press on his wounds to stanch the bleeding, or do chest compressions, or mouth-to-mouth or what have you?! On the bloody mess of a guy who just tried to kill you!

Thoughts on that?


-azurefly

[azurefly]

Originally Posted by springmom

I am willing to use that gun to defend myself or my family or another innocent if I must. I will worry about the consequences later, and I will do what needs to be done at that time. But I will not sit around and gab about how I'm willing to take out humanity's garbage. This is disgusting.

I'm sorry you feel the need to remove yourself from the discussion.
You and I come from different backgrounds and have very different perspectives.

You've said intelligent, articulate things before, and for that I respect you; I just don't think you should be this judgmental.

I don't see why you feel you should condescend to me and others who feel the way we do, for feeling the way we do. We have our view on it and you have yours.

I am not out on the streets hunting humanity's garbage as some sort of vigilante, which seems to be what you might be thinking. I am not bloodthirsty. I am simply recognizing that there ARE people out there who are "human garbage," who prey on the weak and the meek and anyone they feel they can get over on. Is it impossible to admit that there are people who live, but who don't deserve to because of the choices they make in how to treat their fellow humans?


-azurefly

[rezmedic54]

I have read and heard a lot of thing hear. I read a book by Mas I believe it was The truth about self-defense in there he states that he interviewed a bunch of BG's and they pretty much all had the same thing to say the only reason they where put on earth was to take what ever it was you had by any and all means. Also ever class I have ever taken the instructors had pretty much all made the same point in any confrontation you will be scared somewhere in that mess you have to turn that fear into a controlled anger and when you get your turn to respond you as much force and aggression to bare as you can possibly muster and when you get that turn you don't give it back until the fight is over and you have won or are dead. Be Safe Out There Kurt

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think I'm out of this one also as debating with irrational and thinly disguised
'I wanna shoot 'ems' is a waste of time.

[PythonGuy]

Glenn E. Meyer, the voice of reason here on TFL. I couldn't agree more and these few people who will do anything that will allow them permission to draw their weapons will, if left unchecked, take the guns out of all of our hands.

[Capt. Charlie]

I think we've reached an impasse, folks, and there isn't much more to be gained here. I'm closing this one for that reason, but I want to thank you for keeping this civil.

The subject matter here will always be controversial at best, and while the opinions expressed here were strongly polarized, most of you did a super job at keeping this surprisingly polite.

Good job, TFL'ers!