If somebody's trying to kill you, it's obviously okay to try to kill them before they kill you.  If they try to rape you, it's probably also acceptable.  However, what if they're trying to rob you, and there's no reason for you to believe they plan to kill you if necessary to complete their crime? Is it just or fair to try to kill an unarmed robber, for instance?

If somebody's trying to kill you, it's obviously okay to try to kill them before they kill you.  If they try to rape you, it's probably also acceptable.  However, what if they're trying to rob you, and there's no reason for you to believe they plan to kill you if necessary to complete their crime? Is it just or fair to try to kill an unarmed robber, for instance?



You can never know if that person has a weapon on them or not.  You have to act based on the assumption that they do.  So, if I'm walking to my car and I'm mugged and attacked, I will use deadly force to protect myself if I need to.  Most criminals don't want to leave witnesses, so if all they were planning on doing was robbing you, but you put up a fight, they may kill you anyway to keep you from ratting them out.

And if someone is trying to rape you, it is absolutely acceptable to find something and beat them over the head with it if it will keep them from completing the act.  I will kill without thought to protect myself and my friends and family.

You can never know if that person has a weapon on them or not.  You have to act based on the assumption that they do.  So, if I'm walking to my car and I'm mugged and attacked, I will use deadly force to protect myself if I need to.  Most criminals don't want to leave witnesses, so if all they were planning on doing was robbing you, but you put up a fight, they may kill you anyway to keep you from ratting them out.

And if someone is trying to rape you, it is absolutely acceptable to find something and beat them over the head with it if it will keep them from completing the act.  I will kill without thought to protect myself and my friends and family.


I agree with this.  I don't think mugging someone makes you worthy of death, so I do think it is tragic to some level if they're killed in self defence, but I don't think the victim who's defending themselves should be punished, since they could have very well been killed as far as they knew.

I agree with this.  I don't think mugging someone makes you worthy of death, so I do think it is tragic to some level if they're killed in self defence, but I don't think the victim who's defending themselves should be punished, since they could have very well been killed as far as they knew.



Sure it's tragic, but this person was robbing you.  For all you knew, they could have had more planned.  In a me vs. them situation, the answer is always me.  I will get you before you get me. 

Does that make me sound horrible?  Probably, but I don't care if it does.  I don't want to be a victim, so I will do everything in my power to prevent that. 

Better him than you!

My take on violence is never, ever attack another person or provoke another person to attack you. If you can possibly avoid a physical confrontation, avoid it. Even if that may mean putting your John Wayne pride in your pocket and skeedadling. I would rather beat it out of there than have to justify my violent actions to the cops and the courts. Sometimes a cop or a judge will blame YOU for a fight you didn't start, especially if your assailant ended up on the business end of your left hook.

That said, if you absolutely cannot avoid a fight, let your actions be swift and merciless. Put the other SOB down and make sure he can't get back up.

If some thug is invading your home or hurting your loved ones, the same goes. Get him! If he dies, it's better than you or your loved one ending up in the morgue.

If the law decides to send me to prison for protecting my life or the the lives of my loved ones, it is injustice, but at least the scumbag is dead and not the innocents.

But like I say, 99 time out 100 when violence occurs, either party could have stopped it. And don't go to bars where outlaw bikers hang out! Even then, violence is most always avoidable. I've been in some pretty rough joints and I've never had a problem. The guys that hang out there are caught up in their own racket. If you just sit there drinking your beer and minding your business, nobody hassles you. If somebody makes a nasty remark, just ignore him. If it looks like more trouble, just leave.

I'm not exactly a pacifist, I just believe your life and limb are more valuable than proving your worth to scumbags who get off on violence.

However, what if they're trying to rob you, and there's no reason for you to believe they plan to kill you if necessary to complete their crime? Is it just or fair to try to kill an unarmed robber, for instance?

If you ever have to use lethal force to defend yourself, a loved one, *or* your property, you *will* be coming up on charges. The judge ain't gonna be judging you on what's just or fair, he's gonna be judging you on what's legal.

So... Justice?  Fairness?  *retch*.  Don't do what's just or fair.  Read the self-defense laws of your country or state, and do what's *legal*.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If you've got an ethical problem (either way, remember, both the armed robber and the civilian's rights vary from state to state!) with your country or state's laws, find a way move to somewhere where the laws are more to your ethical tastes.

But on the grounds that you spent hours working to earn the money that you used to purchase your property - hours which you can never get back once deprived of your property - I believe that property rights *are* human rights.

I'll accept "Insurance'll take care of it?" only in the case of someone who doesn't own shares in the insurance company, and only on the grounds that as long you don't own shares in your insurance company, you're under no moral obligation to defend the shareholders' property rights. This only applies to policyholders who, if an insurance adjuster were to magically teleport onsite and blow the bad guy away, would have no ethical problem with it, of course :)

Let's just say that I would very much like to live in Texas someday, and that I have no plans to move to the United Kingdom in the forseeable future.

Sure it's tragic, but this person was robbing you.  For all you knew, they could have had more planned.  In a me vs. them situation, the answer is always me.  I will get you before you get me. 

Does that make me sound horrible?  Probably, but I don't care if it does.  I don't want to be a victim, so I will do everything in my power to prevent that. 


Nope, doesn't sound horrible to me.  Sounds more like natural order.  ;)

My take on violence is never, ever attack another person or provoke another person to attack you. If you can possibly avoid a physical confrontation, avoid it. Even if that may mean putting your John Wayne pride in your pocket and skeedadling. I would rather beat it out of there than have to justify my violent actions to the cops and the courts. Sometimes a cop or a judge will blame YOU for a fight you didn't start, especially if your assailant ended up on the business end of your left hook.

That said, if you absolutely cannot avoid a fight, let your actions be swift and merciless. Put the other SOB down and make sure he can't get back up.

If some thug is invading your home or hurting your loved ones, the same goes. Get him! If he dies, it's better than you or your loved one ending up in the morgue.

If the law decides to send me to prison for protecting my life or the the lives of my loved ones, it is injustice, but at least the scumbag is dead and not the innocents.

But like I say, 99 time out 100 when violence occurs, either party could have stopped it. And don't go to bars where outlaw bikers hang out! Even then, violence is most always avoidable. I've been in some pretty rough joints and I've never had a problem. The guys that hang out there are caught up in their own racket. If you just sit there drinking your beer and minding your business, nobody hassles you. If somebody makes a nasty remark, just ignore him. If it looks like more trouble, just leave.

I'm not exactly a pacifist, I just believe your life and limb are more valuable than proving your worth to scumbags who get off on violence.

With you 100% on this, Max.  I did karate for a few years, and the ethos was "rather than fight, run away.  The reason you train three nights a week is so you can run away faster than the other guy.. but just in case there's no option..."

I've also got out of a couple of fairly threatening situations by making the other guy laugh: it's hard to pick a fight with someone when you're still chuckling at something they've said

OK, this is a topic I actually understand fairly well.  For 7 years I was a guard (or trained guards) that guarded nukes and other Naval weapons.  This includes missles, mines, ammunition, grenades, and artillary shells.  "Deadly Force" was pounded into us regularly, and even 23 years later, I can recite the definition and authorization of it's use off of the top of my head.

"Deadly Force is a force a person uses, that he knows (or should know) has a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.  It is used only in cases of extreme necessity, as a last resort or when all lesser means have failed."

That sums it up in a nutshell.  In simple words, it is something which can kill somebody, and it is only used when nothing else can be done.  Included in this is also reciprocity.  In other words, if somebody uses a fist, you use a club.  If they use a club, you use a gun.  You do not use a gun if they only have their fists (unless there is no other way to stop them).

And for the Military, there are only 6 justifications for the use of Deadly Force:

1.  In defense of Government property, vital to national security. (nukes, highly classified documents related to nukes or battle plans)
2.  In defense of Government property not vital to national security, but inherantly dangerous to others. (weapons)
3.  Self Defense (self explanitory)
4.  Prevent serious offenses against others (rape, aggrivated assault, murder)
5.  Apprehension and Escape (stopping somebody who violated 1-4)
6.  Lawfull Order (stopping a security breech in progress, execution, etc)

I take these situations very seriously.  And yes, if I felt that the application of Deadly Force was nessicary, I would use it without hesitation.  But I would also explore all other possibilities first.

Would I shoot somebody who was assaulting me?  Yes.  Would I shoot somebody who was assaulting somebody else?  Yes.  Would I shoot somebody who was robbing myself or somebody else?  If there was evidence of a weapon (or if a weapon was implied), I would without hesitation.

Would I shoot somebody who was screaming insults at me or somebody else?  No.  Would I shoot somebody who stopped the assault?  No.  Would I shoot somebody who was trying to leave after killing somebody?  Only if they refused to stop.

I am not some kind of trigger-happy cowboy.  I take firearms very seriously, and they are the "ultimate tool".  I have no use for people who talk big about guns, or how they would use them.  Those kind of people are a bigger danger to me then they are to criminals.

And to give an idea how much I have though about it, think about this.  Before useing Deadly Force, we had to do 3 things:

1.  Yell "Stop" three times
2.  Make sure you have a clear field of fire
3.  Shoot to disable.

However, if the crime involves justification #1 (Nukes, etc), these all go out the window.  If somebody with a nuke tried to hide behind a buss load of nuns and orphans, then that is to bad.  Stopping the nuke is of the ultimate importance, and we would hope that not very many of them were killed in the firefight.

And for those who think that the 9/11 planes should have been shot down, that is the exact same kind of decision thos epilots would have had to make.  However, a Nuke has never been stollen from the US.  For us, it was largely a form of "Mental Gymnastics" comming up with such scenarios.  The future possibility of having to shoot down a loaded civilian airliner is a real possibility.