What are your opinions on deadly force?

[homefires]

I have a problem with Deadly Force! I will without hesitations, Kill anyone that pose a intimate life and death threat to my self or my family! When it comes down to Do or Die, I think I would choose Do! I would not be taking time to look over the Ramifications of the Laws! Normal self preservation instincts would take over.

In the event of ISHTF, I would protect my assets if threatened with same!

[Wildalaska]

I would not be taking time to look over the Ramifications of the Laws!

Then you shouldnt own a gun.

WildatallAlaska TM

[pax]

I would not be taking time to look over the Ramifications of the Laws!

WildAlaska is right: someone who cannot be bothered to understand how the law applies to them and their firearm should not own a gun and certainly should not keep one loaded for self defense.

Normal self preservation instincts would take over.

Not necessarily.

Let me tell you the story of Dan McKown, a very brave man who was at the Tacoma Mall awhile back when he heard a disturbance. McKown was a legal concealed carry permit holder, and he had his handgun with him at the time.

The disturbance was caused by an angry teenage boy with a rifle. The boy was shooting people and had already killed at least one person. McKown crouched behind cover when he first became aware of danger. He soon spotted the boy with the rifle. He drew his gun and had the boy in his sights. And then ...

He had second thoughts.

The boy was just a boy. McKown did not know if it was legal to shoot a minor in Washington state. He did not know if it would be legal to shoot without first warning the attacker. And he also did not want to get arrested for brandishing if he confronted the youth with a gun in his own hands. He did not know that Washington law specifically does allow the display of a weapon in such circumstances.

So because he did not know the law about the legal use of deadly force, he put his own gun back into its holster. And then this brave man stood up, with his hands empty, and confronted the attacker.

And the attacker gunned him down on the spot.

Mercifully, he lived. He is crippled for life, but he lived.

And that, my friends, is why you want to study the laws that govern deadly force where you live. You want to know about the law before you get into any kind of confrontation. You do not need to be having second thoughts or erroneous beliefs when your life is in deadly danger.

pax

[BillCA]

Well said, Pax!

- I don't want to kill anyone.
- I don't want to maim anyone.
- I hope I never have to make the decision to shoot while tired.
- I hope I never have to decide to shoot as the lesser of two evils.

This does not mean I am not willing to shoot someone who is a threat to me, my family, friends or guests in my home.

If there is an unauthorized intruder in the house, I think it wise to consider him a potential threat until such time as proved otherwise. This may, or may not, require the cops to sort it out. Meanwhile, my house, my rules, my commands.

On the street, I'd rather leave the area than be forced to draw, if practical.

On the street, if drawing stops the threat, I want him to leave the area or get prone on the ground until the cops arrive.

If and/or when that moment comes where there is nothing else to do but defend myself;
Please Lord, let me be fast, let me be accurate and let me be just.

[PT111]

Unfortunately too many people get most of their training from cop shows or westerns. I have known too many people that have pulled a gun trying to scare an attacker with no intention of actually using it. When you pull your gun be sure that you are ready to use it. If it defuses the situation that is what you want but don't count on it. Be sure that you have made the correct decision before drawing and don't reholster until it is completely over.

[David Armstrong]

The day that I let it worry me about whether it is legal and if I will get sued when I take another human lfe is the day that I no longer have a reason to exist.

I would not be taking time to look over the Ramifications of the Laws!

Not to be contentious, but I'd suggest anyone who does not worry about whether their shoot is legal or not, or who does not worry about the afttermath of the shooting (at least in the CCW world), or who does not consider the legal ramifications of shooting, is missing some very important components of the issue.

[PT111]

I understand your thought and agree to a point but my feeling is that the decision to take a life must be of such importance that whether or not it is legal should not matter. If someone breaks into your house at 3:00 a.m. with a gun and threatens you and your family are you really going to be concerned about whether or not your state supports the castle doctrine? Legal ramifications do come into play but as much as we want them to be they are not cut and dried and will only be decided after the act is peerformed. When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.

[pax]

When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.

I understand what you're saying, and to a large extent I agree. Again though, that is why you have to study the issues beforehand. You obviously cannot be sorting through your own moral paradigms at the moment of truth. Your mind cannot be cluttered with frantic confusion about whether you're in the right or not and would be legally clear to defend yourself. You have to know clear down in your bones that you are free to act. Only then will you act with the immediate decisiveness that is most apt to ensure your physical survival.

Knowing where you stand means knowing in your guts that you're free to act. Not knowing where you stand leads to a cluttered mind, self-doubts, and confusion. None of these things are good. You have to keep your mind uncluttered enough to focus on the crucial problem of survival. And that means you have to know where you stand.

pax

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by pax

sorting through your own moral paradigms

Fair enough. Acting responsibly always begins with a moral center.

The problem with taking life is that you will be judged by others in the community. My community is comprised of some truly leftist socialists.

Additionally, I don't think any "good guy" is prepared for the crushing cascade of PTSD.

Ask anyone who has spent a few months in a deep black hole, ramping up on meds and fighting for sanity with a cognitive guy. And I never dealt with anything as serious as PTSD.

[PT111]

I think that we all are really saying the same thing. The intruder in your house at 3 am is much different than the case that you brought up about the shooting at the mall. Mr. McKown was in an almost unwinnable situation in that if he had shot the teenager we know what the outcry would have been no matter what the legalities were. Here in SC we not only have the Castle Doctrine but also the Alter Ego principal. If you choose to invoke it then you may be legally correct but also you must be prepared to be morally correct for yourself. A six year old boy ran out in front of my Aunt's car and there was nothing she could do but hit him. She wasn't charged and the boy's parents understood and comforted her. However if affected her greatly. I remember back in the sixth grade the teacher telling that the role of the legislature was to make the laws, the executive branch to enforce the lasws and the judicial branch the interpret the laws. I thought why do they need interpreting? Now I somewhat understand what she meant but still don't know if I agree with it.

[ZeroJunk]

I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer,but I can't imagine a state that has a concealed carry permit would not allow you to keep yourself from being shot and paralyzed.It's a contradiction.

[Justme]

I am a socialist, and a leftist(of sorts). There are plenty of libertarian oriented leftists who understand self defense just fine, and there are plenty of right wing fundamentalists who do not. You really should get to know your "peers" a bit better. It's important to know what your fellow citizens actually think about certain acts rather than just painting them with a broad brush.

Anti gun people do enough painting with a broad brush for everyone. Nobody wants their political or economic view of the world used to dismiss everything they say on any subject. The older I get the more I believe that most people want the same thing for their families and their communities, they just have different views on how to get there.

[David Armstrong]

I understand your thought and agree to a point but my feeling is that the decision to take a life must be of such importance that whether or not it is legal should not matter.

And I would take the other position, that taking a life is of such importance that whether one's action is legal or not should be near paramount in your thoughts.

If someone breaks into your house at 3:00 a.m. with a gun and threatens you and your family are you really going to be concerned about whether or not your state supports the castle doctrine?

No, because that is irrelevant. I know it is irrelevant because I am aware of the legal considerations present in such a case.

When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.

And determining how to make that choice is based as much on legal issues as anything else. Is force authorized in this type of situation? How much force can I use to ensure outcome "A", and so on. My $.02.

[BillCA]

With regards to the legal question;

When choosing to fire you must make the decision based on your physical protection rather than your legal protection.

The exigent circumstances in which you find yourself dictate what kinds of actions are open to you. For example, finding the thug halfway through a window dictates different actions than finding them in the hallway. Knowing what the law says and having considered various scenarios beforehand allows you to act with knowledge that you won't be dragged into a legal quagmire later.

Mr. McKown was in an almost unwinnable situation in that if he had shot the teenager we know what the outcry would have been no matter what the legalities were.

I disagree. Anytime you have an active shooter in a public place who is obviously shooting (at) innocents their age is of less importance than saving multiple lives. I'd say many of us might have doubts about shooting a teenager, just before dropping the hammer. But I think each of us can see that the action becomes a necessity in order to preserve life.

The older I get the more I believe that most people want the same thing for their families and their communities, they just have different views on how to get there.

Therein lies the problem. When those "different views" are not only impractical but border on fantasyland you can find it impossible to convey the degree of danger. I talked you a young woman who, in a small bedroom, pointed a rifle at a semi-naked man coming through the window with a knife. He first said she didn't "want to shoot" him and he'd give her "pleasure". When she refused his comments changed to "B--ches like you won't shoot", then went on to graphically describe what he thought she needed. She touched off a .22 round into the wall next to him and he fled. However, most of her friends were (her words) shocked, disgusted, revolted or mad that she'd used a gun instead of talking him out of it. And this was in light of the fact the same man raped and nearly killed another young woman three blocks away the same night.

[MyXD40]

deadly force is perfectly fine when protecting the lives of others or yourself.

like Pax story about that guy, Theres no way I'd 2nd guess myself, in that kind of situation, no matter how young the person is, or even how old. They have a gun, and could take the life of someone just as young or younger if wanted.

Deadly force should only be used when no other options are possible. Now you can shoot someone in the shoulder, or leg without killing them (hopfuly) if you don't feel you need to kill the person in order to stop the threat.

I have no problem using deadly force. Now I'm not going to kill a guy who is beating an animal, but if they have something that could kill someone and are withn reach to kill a person, by all means do what you gotta do.

Some of you wouldnt shoot someone if someone elses life was in a threat..I can tell you one thing, if I was in a corner and some guy had a knife to me..I'd hope you'd shoot him!

[jephthai]

And I would take the other position, that taking a life is of such importance that whether one's action is legal or not should be near paramount in your thoughts.

I agree with both sides. But that's normal, I guess, for complicated moral/ethical questions.

What is right is not always what is legal. Same with being moral.

If it was illegal to defend myself, I would still defend myself. Better than being dead. If the law requires me to be a submissive victim, I will break it.

Maybe PT111 is speaking in absolute terms, whereas others speak "assuming that the law lets you defend yourself"?

-Jephthai-

[Avenger11]

First and foremost are the laws that govern your state, or country. Study, learn and obey them! Then there are lawyers, psuedo internet lawyers or wannabes that feel they have an educated superiority to interpret the laws for the rest of us.
Train, know the laws and follow your instincts.

[PT111]

If it was illegal to defend myself, I would still defend myself. Better than being dead. If the law requires me to be a submissive victim, I will break it.

You have very much hit on my thoughts with that. When SC recently passed the Castle Doctrine and remove the Duty to Retreat it really did not mean much to my thoughts on how I would defend myself from an intruder. Maybe I now have the legal right to shoot him once he breaks down my front door at 3 am but I am still going to make sure it it not my daughter who forgot her keys. I do not want to give the impression that the laws and knowledge of them is not important but determine all the possible outcomes of the legalities of a situation before it happens. If we could there would never be a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.

As for the teenage in the mall it does not matter if it is a 10 year old or a 30 year old you must make a decision on their actions. There is no law that I know of stating that a person must be a certain age for you to be able to defend yourself against them, only the public outcry over the fact that you killed a 10 year old. We see and hear that all the time. That is what I mean by an unwinable situation. Same with them breaking onto your house.

But I do disagree with trying to wound instead of kill. There is too much margin for error like trying to fire a warning shot. That only works in the movies.

[Yellowfin]

For me the standard is to shoot to incapacitate and end the threat. Whether the criminal(s) is(are) alive the next day or not is between him(them) and the emergency room doctor afterwards.

[jephthai]

Maybe I now have the legal right to shoot him once he breaks down my front door at 3 am but I am still going to make sure it it not my daughter who forgot her keys. I do not want to give the impression that the laws and knowledge of them is not important but determine all the possible outcomes of the legalities of a situation before it happens.

That's what I thought when I saw in your posts, and I think you were misinterpreted. When you made reference to the castle doctrine, etc., I figured you've studied the law.

One should definitely know the law, and try as best as possible to understand it. But decisions based on legal environment happen before the event. When the event occurs, one should not be playing out legal decision trees in one's head.

So, know in advance if you need to retreat -- but if you don't or can't, don't die to validate a bullet point in the law (pun unintended)!

When I was stricken with cancer, I started to get comfortable with thinking "dark" thoughts. I kind of had to -- what if I do die, what should wife and baby do -- it's non-treatable, should I try experimental treatments if the surgery doesn't work, and so forth.

In this case, I guess if I do my best, going in with what knowledge of the law I can, and at a moment of urgency and extreme danger I make a choice that keeps myself and my family alive, and it's determined non-justifiable... well... at least myself and my family are alive.

Like my Dad always said... do what you can, and don't do what you can't.

-Jephthai-

[TRiCoN45]

I don't want to shoot anyone.
I don't want to kill anyone.
I don't want to deal with it physiologically.

If I'm forced to I will shoot.
If I'm forced to I will kill.
There will be no "if" to my moral stance on it because I know I am sound if I was forced to.

*forced=having no other choice and/or route to resolve and/or defuse immanent threats that are put upon me and/or significants without my and/or significant's consent.(lets face it, some people are sick these days and get their jollies on when physicly abused)

For the guy that defined the 10 yrs old, I comend you for your efforts, but a very dull move on your part in confronting a distrait armed person while unarmed (might as well have been)

For the lady that shot the warning shot then regreted not talking it out instead......lady, I'm suprised you're still alive being so naive. The guy was where he needed not be while in possession of a deadly weapon assaulting you and obviously ill-minded with plans in which you did not consent. And you would have rather talked it out?! If it was so easy for him to understand he should not do such things do you think he would have been there in the first place for you to talk to? Happy for you it wasn't you that became his victim, unfortunatly someone had to before you realized your ignorance.

....wait a sec....you said "and this was in light of" so she knew about him and his victim prior to her encounter?

If so HOLY MOLY what is wrong with her? It physically and mentaly pains me when I see things as such on the news about females being victims of sexual assault (my brain physically hurts-one of the reasons why I dont follow those news stories) Hope you will always be around someone alittle more "real-world-ready" than yourself at all times.

Kinda got off the main point there....but it needed addressing IMO

[BillCA]

Tricon45 - I think you need to re-read that paragraph. She did not regret taking the (misaimed) shot. Her intent was to perforate him and she missed through fear while using her boyfriend's rifle. The man did successfully rape another woman later that same night and hurt the victim seriously. It was her circle of friends who thought she should have been more passive and talked him out of it (even though they realized what he'd done later). In fact, one "friend" of hers said if she had only "had an open dialouge" with him, the other woman wouldn't have been raped. I guess some people are simply to wedded to their own fantasyland to see reality.

Theres no way I'd 2nd guess myself, in that kind of situation, no matter how young the person is, or even how old. They have a gun, and could take the life of someone just as young or younger if wanted.

MyXD40 - I know what you're trying to say... but I think all of us would think twice about shooting a pre-teen if we recognized them as such. I'm sure many of us, if nothing else, would be shocked at the youth of the shooter. In such a case, we'd be shooting to save lives and possibly trying to aim low to stop him, hoping his determination is thwarted by the pain of his injury.

[joshua]

A youth even at the tender age of 10 who is armed with a firearmed should have not been treated any different. If a car being driven wreclessly through the streets is there any difference in threat if the driver is a male/female or young and old? josh

[sw_florida]

is needed to answer deadly force. I don't mind if lefties answer deadly force with a cup of tea...

[easyG]

If it was illegal to defend myself, I would still defend myself. Better than being dead. If the law requires me to be a submissive victim, I will break it.

+1

I don't want to shoot another person.
I don't want to kill another person.

But I refuse to submit to criminals who intend to harm me or my family.
And I refuse to sit by, doing nothing, and watch, as criminals harm other innocent people.
And I refuse to sit by, doing nothing, as criminals take that which I have worked so hard to have.
And I refuse to run away or hide while criminals invade my home.