Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

Introspective Question #2 – The Use of Lethal Force

madmacmo

madmacmo

0
LPF Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
287
Points
63
Under what circumstance would you justify using lethal force?

  1. To stop a fleeing burglar with valuable possessions of yours
  2. To stop (unlawful) eminent use of lethal force against a stranger
  3. To stop the imminent invasion of your home
  4. To stop the imminent use of lethal force against the closest members of your family
  5. To stop an enemy combatant under direct order to do so within the military
  6. Never

I do not wish this to be a continuation of the Gun Discussion thread where I do not want the focus to be on either the lethal instrument of choice nor about legal systems, but rather I would like to hear others beliefs, convictions, and consideration of consequences if choosing to use lethal force or not within the circumstances listed above.

If I could borrow a well worded quote from TheDukeAnumber1 . . .
TheDukeAnumber1 said:
I have my own beliefs, but I am simply asking this question because I am curious to see what some of the LPF communities response is, nothing more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
 





For me, i'd go with:
To stop a fleeing burglar with valuable possessions of yours *Potential Lethal force*
To stop (unlawful) eminent use of lethal force against a stranger
To stop the imminent invasion of your home
To stop the imminent use of lethal force against the closest members of your family
To stop an enemy combatant under direct order to do so within the military

I am the type of person that doesn't believe if you kill somebody who killed unlawfully you are dropping to their level. And the whole reason an "enemy" is an enemy in war is the fact that they want to kill you.
 
Last edited:
2-5 for me. Although in situations 1 and 3, non-lethal attempts (shooting at the legs, etc.) should be tried first.
 
2-5.

In case 1, lethal force should be threatened. However, I would greatly hesitate on firing on the thief because the law is not on your side if you shoot a fleeing suspect (i.e. shooting a person in the back is not self-defense). In addition, simply injuring the person -- regardless of your good intentions -- can be far worse than killing the person; it opens you up to civil legal action in addition to criminal prosecution. At least if you kill the fleeing suspect, you'd be the only witness (ideally) to describe the circumstances and maybe be able to argue being threatened or something else. Either way, it's probably not in your best interest to fire on a fleeing thief; the property is probably worth less than the potential for prison time.

In case 3, if there is the safe option to only threaten violence and avoid killing the person, then I would exercise that option. Otherwise, it would be the use lethal force -- not injurious force.

In both cases, by attempting to merely injure the enemy you're: 1) potentially enabling the enemy to continue to inflict harm on you, 2) distracting yourself with attempting precise aiming which could lead to you missing the target, the enemy harming you, or the enemy or yourself harming others (missed shots, etc.), 3) civil liability if the enemy survives and wants to sue you.

In all cases, when you fire a weapon on a person it should be with the intent to kill the person. The golden rule of firearms: don't fire on anything you don't intend on destroying.
 
I will choose 2-5 also.

In case 1, The temptation would be there, but as said previously, the law would not be on your side.

I also believe that if you choose to use lethal force, be sure it is lethal. Because, as also previously stated, a non lethal outcome could leave you open to other forms of liability; one of which could be retribution on you or your family.
 
madmacmo said:
Under what circumstance would you justify using lethal force?

  1. To stop a fleeing burglar with valuable possessions of yours
  2. To stop (unlawful) eminent use of lethal force against a stranger
  3. To stop the imminent invasion of your home
  4. To stop the imminent use of lethal force against the closest members of your family
  5. To stop an enemy combatant under direct order to do so within the military
  6. Never

I do not wish this to be a continuation of the Gun Discussion thread where I do not want the focus to be on either the lethal instrument of choice nor about legal systems, but rather I would like to hear others beliefs, convictions, and consideration of consequences if choosing to use lethal force or not within the circumstances listed above.

If I could borrow a well worded quote from TheDukeAnumber1 . . .
Click to expand...


0) No, I wouldn't risk a violent confrontation over material possessions.

1) Depends on the situation. I'd want to be 100% sure I fully knew what was going on and that there was no other option.

2) I would try to get myself/family out first. I don't see any point in risking a violent confrontation of material possessions. If the intruders were threatening to any of us and we could not escape easily then yes.

3) If there was no other way of defusing the situation then yes. In this case making sure it was lethal and not just an injuring blow to avoid further problems.

4) Yes
 
2 and 4.

5 depends, but most likely it falls under number 2 anyway, I wouldn't fight for the military at all unless we were the ones being attacked first.
 
Last edited:
1) To stop a fleeing burglar with valuable possessions of yours
- No, they are fleeing, posing no treat to you or your loved ones. We have law enforcement officers to handle this.

2) To stop (unlawful) eminent use of lethal force against a stranger
- Absolutely, preserving the life of another human would justify deadly force to me

3) To stop the imminent invasion of your home
- Yes, If someone is kicking at my door and I walk around the side of the house they are entering my home without authorization and I don't know their intentions. Should they see me and flee before I can take action then no, we have law enforcement for this

4) To stop the imminent use of lethal force against the closest members of your family
- Yes, see #2

5) To stop an enemy combatant under direct order to do so within the military
- Yes, I don't have a choice.

6) Never
- This is not an option.
 
madmacmo said:
Any decision on your part to take lethal action for 2 thru 5 will most likely by circustance place you in lethal harms-way whereby you could be rationally considered as protecting yourself as well as acting in the defence of others.

eh?
Click to expand...


not really, if my brother was on the ground getting stabbed, and I was, lets pretend a great shot and about 50 feet away, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot the guy. In this circumstance I would not be in harms way at all.

Don't mind me, i'm just being nit-picky.

Michael.
 
chipdouglas said:
not really, if my brother was on the ground getting stabbed, and I was, lets pretend a great shot and about 50 feet away, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot the guy. In this circumstance I would not be in harms way at all.

Don't mind me, i'm just being nit-picky.

Michael.
Click to expand...

Let's say I'm 300yards out and I'm shooting for practice. I see a man beating someone in the distance. when he pulls out a gun... I'm in no way in harms way and I can put a bullet in his ear @ 300yards. I'm taking the shot.

But he did say the weapon of choice was not a factor. Remember baseball bats are considered deadly weapons.
 
What was introspective question #1?

To me, lethal force is a means of absolute last resort. It should only be used if there is imminent threat to life.

Q: To stop a fleeing burglar with valuable possessions of yours

A: No. Nothing I own is worth taking someone's life.

Q: To stop (unlawful) eminent use of lethal force against a stranger

A: If there is no other option, and I am in a position to do so, yes.

Q: To stop the imminent invasion of your home

A: No. Once my home is invaded though, that no turns into a maybe. If someone barges through my door, uninvited, I have no safe place to retreat, and may feel threatened enough to respond with lethal force.

Q: To stop the imminent use of lethal force against the closest members of your family

A: Yes. Again assuming there is no other option, or way to avoid the confrontation.

Q: To stop an enemy combatant under direct order to do so within the military

A: Yes. I don't see this as a likely scenario though, and find whether the attacker is an enemy combatant, or not is irrelevant. If there is deadly force directed at me, of course I would use the same in turn.

Q: Never.

A: Preferably never.
 
Police officer shot dead after pointing stun gun at man's dogs as he attended domestic disturbance call.

A police officer killed while responding to a domestic disturbance in a small eastern Pennsylvania borough had pointed a stun gun at two dogs before being shot, court records reveal.

Freemansburg police officer Robert Lasso had pointed at the attacking dogs when the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and fired the fatal blast on Thursday evening.

In police custody, the alleged gunman, 46-year-old George Hitcho Jr, said he had told Mr Lasso to get off his property and not come on unless he had a warrant, authorities said.

'He tried to kill my dogs and pointed a gun in my face,' Hitcho said, according to the documents. 'I do not care if you a cop or not ...Unbelievable.'
The officer had been responding to a report of a disturbance and ended up at the back of Hitcho's house, authorities said.

Police Chief George Bruneio, who arrived after Mr Lasso requested assistance, instructed him to 'shoot the dogs' and that's when the homeowner pulled out a shotgun and fired, authorities said.
Click to expand...

Would you treat an armed intruder differently if he was wearing a badge?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.





Back
Top