Introspective Question #2 – The Use of Lethal Force

[BShanahan14rulz]

4.

If I didn't care about law, I'd almost agree to #2, but I can't be sure that someone has intent to kill until they start shooting at someone or actually start stabbing someone. However, I'm not about to go to jail for the rest of my life for being a good Samaritan, so, better them than me.

#3, I would know my house, and therefore, if they can get in, they are dead. If they can't get in, they can have fun playing in the yard for half an hour while the cops show up.

#5, well, I wouldn't be in that position. But if I were, it's between me killing them, and them or my boss killing me, I would choose to kill them.

This question reminds me of this scene from FMJ (warning, language!)
Full Metal Jacket- Get Some - YouTube

 

[hakzaw1]

2 -thru 5-

I would consider a shot in the foot for #1 if they failed to stop and hit the ground-

the guy with the dogs is a murderer--

I was chased by four pit breeds once- if ATM I had a gun there is no doubt I would have used it AFTER being bitten if the dog(s) did not release- but not if the let me go- the way they behave is the fault of the owner(s) and not the dogs- all I had was a carboard box to keep them back- and they chased me around the dumpster a few times-

one dog -
less of a problem but four was three too many and I was very worried for a time-
I could see that one was the most aggressive- and two were not acting aggressive (yet) their barking aroused some other dogs and the two least aggressive when to see what they were doing- so at that time I made my way to my house-- The people moved out a few days later- -- have no ill will towards the dogs just their owners--

I did file a phone report with the sherriff -
just in case there was another attack- but declined a personal visit-

when they moved in I asked if i could walk the two dogs that were supposed to be staying there. but the owners saw no use in that- too bad- they may still be living there had they allowed me to bond with their (two)dogs.--

IMO we cannot truly say what we would do-until we are forced- we can only say what we THINK we would do..not the same--

hk

 

[Flaminpyro]

for me it would be

1 shoot em in the leg
2 no problem
3 no problem
4 no problem
5 no problem

 

[NKO29]

2 -thru 5-

I would consider a shot in the foot for #1 if they failed to stop and hit the ground-

the guy with the dogs is a murderer--

I was chased by four pit breeds once- if ATM I had a gun there is no doubt I would have used it AFTER being bitten if the dog(s) did not release- but not if the let me go- the way they behave is the fault of the owner(s) and not the dogs- all I had was a carboard box to keep them back- and they chased me around the dumpster a few times-

one dog -
less of a problem but four was three too many and I was very worried for a time-
I could see that one was the most aggressive- and two were not acting aggressive (yet) their barking aroused some other dogs and the two least aggressive when to see what they were doing- so at that time I made my way to my house-- The people moved out a few days later- -- have no ill will towards the dogs just their owners--

I did file a phone report with the sherriff -
just in case there was another attack- but declined a personal visit-

when they moved in I asked if i could walk the two dogs that were supposed to be staying there. but the owners saw no use in that- too bad- they may still be living there had they allowed me to bond with their (two)dogs.--

IMO we cannot truly say what we would do-until we are forced- we can only say what we THINK we would do..not the same--

hk

My dad works in the NSW Police Force... Just 3 days ago, he had to get a Pitbull off another dog. He hit it multiple times with a baton (very hard) and it didnt even react. Finally he tried OC spray (capsicum spray) and it immediately let go.

I think it's safe to say if a dog is coming at you in an obviously aggressive way you have the right to defend yourself. Hitting these animals won't help, killing it is the best way to ensure your safety.

 

[Flaminpyro]

I have been in this situation before, the neighbors dog came over and attacked my dog and I hit it several times squarely on the back of the head with a stout PVC pipe and the dog acted like I wasn't even there he kept right on doing what he was doing, finally he got off my dog and went home.

This just goes to show you sticks don't work so get a gun...

My dad works in the NSW Police Force... Just 3 days ago, he had to get a Pitbull off another dog. He hit it multiple times with a baton (very hard) and it didnt even react. Finally he tried OC spray (capsicum spray) and it immediately let go.

I think it's safe to say if a dog is coming at you in an obviously aggressive way you have the right to defend yourself. Hitting these animals won't help, killing it is the best way to ensure your safety.

 

[SerpantSlayer]

Id have no problem with any of them

 

[Lazerbeak]

To defend the life of myself or my loved ones, yes. If someone chooses to attack with lethal intent, they made the call.

As for "enemy combatants" it is a term that has become more and more vague as time goes on IMO.

~ LB

 

[Javalin]

The term enemy combatants is pretty well defined in the military. It's the media that ruins the term. It's like "terrorist" now anyone and their grandma can be a terrorist.

 

[Lazerbeak]

Kind of my point.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: REPORT: Some Troops Asked If They Would Shoot U.S. Citizens If Ordered

I want to preface this article with an analogy. Owning a fire extinguisher doesn't mean that you plan on your house burning. It simply means that you are prepared in case you have a house fire. In the same way, the question "would you shoot American citizens?" that some troops are supposedly being asked doesn't mean that the Department of Defense is planning to attack American citizens. Furthermore, the question likely has nothing to do with the American people as a whole. It's most likely in reference to U.S. citizens who allegedly have ties to Islamic terrorism. Still, it's a hell of a question, and it goes to show how badly our constitutional rights have been eroded in the name of the War on Terror.

On to the question itself: I have a good friend in-the-know with the military who told me that some troops are being asked if they would shoot American citizens if ordered. If the troops reply that they would not, they are immediately honorably discharged on other grounds, says my friend. This supports Internet rumors about the existence of such of question. I trust my friend, and now I, too, believe that the question is being posed within our military.

I have heard stories of soldiers in the middle east firing on mosques and killing civilians as a rite of passage. My intent is not to turn this into a "conspiracy" or anti-government debate. I also support our troops though I may not always believe in the politics behind their actions. However, I believe the term "enemy combatant" is becoming something far more inclusive and far reaching than we may like.

~ LB

 

[TheDukeAnumber1]

IMO, lethal force is justified when a life is endangered. That's bout it.

 

[Razako]

I have no problem with 2-5. While I detest thieves I still find it morally wrong to shoot them in the back as they run away with your stuff.

 

[Javalin]

I have no problem with 2-5. While I detest thieves I still find it morally wrong to shoot them in the back as they run away with your stuff.

You know as much as I can't stand them either. My house was broken into 3 times in the last 6 months. You know what they stole? My toilet paper, my mattress, one of my bikes... the broken one, and an RC car. The most expensive thing they took was the damn remote control car.

They left the money, the 2 BB guns, the .22 revolver, the $2000 computer.

Best I can come up with is they needed the toilet paper and mattress more than I did... or they were high and looking for a fix. Either way I would hate to shoot someone over a damned toy car.

 

[Lazerbeak]

I am contemplating a high power full auto airsoft with the heaviest metal bb's they have, with a laser sight. Technically non-lethal :thinking: Metal pellets hitting your face at 480fps will probably make an intruder think twice? Just things I think about.

~ LB

 

[Javalin]

I am contemplating a high power full auto airsoft with the heaviest metal bb's they have, with a laser sight. Technically non-lethal :thinking: Metal pellets hitting your face at 480fps will probably make an intruder think twice? Just things I think about.

~ LB

I have a CO2 600FPS Walther replica. I don't answer the door without it anymore. But thieves want a quick and easy target. They only hit my house when I was gone. I've been gone for a very long time now though. Maybe I can catch the bastards red handed when I get back.

This is no joke I had 6 months of Cottonelle! that's like $100 worth of toilet paper! I got it on sale ... yep now I sound crazy. I litterally Laughed out loud and had to show that to my girlfriend. Thanks

 

[Bionic-Badger]

However, I believe the term "enemy combatant" is becoming something far more inclusive and far reaching than we may like.

Yeah, while there are some non-state actors that earn the designation, I don't like it being extended as a convenient catch-all for people that governments don't want to grant rights.