Would you defend a 3rd party friend if they were a pacifist and did not want you to?

I decided to start a new thread about this so that I could ask this question without changing the subject of another thread

marshaul said:

Well, I am a pacifist and I carry a firearm. Pacifism doesn't have to imply a belief that violence or war cannot be justly carried out in self-defense.

I tell folks that pacifism is meaningless, a trendy affect of hippies and the like, without the teeth to defend peace.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.



+1

Click to expand...

I know a "pacifist." A real-deal one. Not a hippie. She was very sure that she would not use lethal force to defend herself. I do not believe her decision has/had anything to do with ability or nerve. Obviously I had to ask - how would she feel about me using lethal force to defend her? She was unsure. It was an interesting conversation, really got me thinking. I did conclude that I would indeed use lethal force to defend her life - just as I would anyone else - despite her feelings on the subject.

Not trying to invalidate what you said at all, just saying, there are some people out there that I think could pretty accurately be characterized as "pacifists" that would actually not use lethal force, even to defend themselves.

That raises an interesting question to me that I'd like to ask everyone here. How would YOU feel about defending a 3rd party, a friend, if you knew that they would not use lethal force to defend themselves, and would not want you to? I am not talking about a random stranger, though you can certainly answer that question too if you like, but I am asking as if it were a friend of yours.

Also, what legal implications would this have in your state? In Texas, it is phrased, seems to me, such that you can defend a 3rd party if you reasonably believe you'd be justified in using that force in their position, and you believe it to be immediately necessary to protect them; it does not speak to whether or not they would defend themselves, or whether or not they want to be defended.

You can read here the section titled DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.33

The entire argument is bogus.

The beliefs of a pacifist are valid - for them. The beliefs of a non-pacifist that the life/well-being of even a pacifist are worth defending from the threat of death or serious bodily injury are valid - for the person so beieving.

The conflict between the beliefs of the pacifist and an intervenor (go look it up) only gets to be sticky when it is the government intervening. But there are caveats even to that. For example, the government cannot force someone who has expressly identified themself as a Seventh Day Adventist or Christian Scientist to receive a blood transfusion when that person has objected on religious grounds. Even if failing to give te blood transfusion is 100% guaranteed to result in the death of the Seventh Day Adventist ot Christian Scientist. But unless that Seventh Day Adventist/Christian Scientist carries some recognizable indication that government agents (a police officer, for example) can recognize/understand even at a distance that government intervenor cannot be held liable for violating the First Amendment rights of said Seventh Day Adventist/Chriatian Scientist when they shoot/kill someone whose actions/behavior are a recognizable threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Cutting through the bureaucratic-ese - at the bottom line your personal beliefs can not and should not have absolute control over the exercise of my beliefs. What should be the controlling factor is my respect for your beliefs. That's where things get sticky - do I live for the rest of your life with you being displeased with me because I failed to honor those beliefs you have taken pains to inform me of, or do I live with some notion of guilt due to being responsible to some degree for your death?

Now we get to the first level of legalities - does the law "allow/permit" me to intervene even if I am fully aware of your personal beliefs? Generally speaking the answer will be "Yes".

The second level of legalities runs generally along this line - have I committed a tort you could seek compensation for if I intervened when I knew of your personal beliefs? Beng unable to find any case law for guidance I can only guess. My guess is "No" based on the concept that you cannot force me to adhere to your beliefs. (And besides, if you were a true pacifist you could not hold the notion that you could force your beliefs on another.)

Now I can get to the OP's question: " How would feel about defending a 3rd party, a friend, if you knew that they would not use lethal force to defend themselves, and would not want you to?"

Frienship carries with it some level of respect for the beliefs (no matter how irrational) of the friend. Yet it does not, IMHO, impose an absolute duty to adhere to that belief system. Addressing the possible irrationality of my friend's beliefs - how far out do they extend beyond themself? How much does adherence to those beliefs, and forcing me to adhere to those beliefs, impact on society? As a quick example - suppose my pacifist friend has a minor child. Will their death impose a financial burden on society to be involved in raising that child to adulthood? Should society be required, as but one example, to pay Social Security survivor benefits (which would not be paid if the parent were not dead)? What emotional impact will the parent's death have on the development of that minor child? Will it become a criminal for lack of parental guidance, or because of the bitterness expressed by the surviving parent at being forced to raise the child alone? Will placement in foster care create a delinquient/behavior problem that grows up to be a used car salesman or - worse - a telemarketer? Or will the death of the parent be the motivating force behind the surviving child discovering the cure for the common cold and an end to embarassing dandruff?

Then again, let us suppose the pacifist parent were, in addition, psychologically "messed up" (a precise clinical term) such that had they lived their child would become another Barak Obama?

We could play this game until one of us (it would be you, because I can keep this up all day) ran screaming from the room and still never get to a decision that would serve as an answer to fit all occassions and situations.

I like to think that I know myself well enough to come up with an answer that will work for me. I'm not going to share it with anybody because it ought to be meaningless to anybody except myself.

stay safe.

How would I feel about it? Just fine. As I said, pacifism is meaningless without the teeth and willingness to defend peace. Why should I respect that to the extent of acting on it myself? There's an element of self-interest in preventing someone from successfully carrying out an attack on another - who's to say they won't do it to me?

That's an entirely different question from whether I'd do it in the first place. That would depend - I certainly wouldn't if I thought the person might lie to see me convicted in an effort to assuage their guilt. If the person was a genuine friend who wouldn't do that, then I wouldn't hesitate.

I wouldn't expect their thanks, either.

skidmark said:

The beliefs of a pacifist are valid - for them. The beliefs of a non-pacifist that the life/well-being of even a pacifist are worth defending from the threat of death or serious bodily injury are valid - for the person so beieving...
Cutting through the bureaucratic-ese - at the bottom line your personal beliefs can not and should not have absolute control over the exercise of my beliefs. What should be the controlling factor is my respect for your beliefs. That's where things get sticky - do I live for the rest of your life with you being displeased with me because I failed to honor those beliefs you have taken pains to inform me of, or do I live with some notion of guilt due to being responsible to some degree for your death?

Click to expand...

We get into the argument of where my rights end, and yours begin. You have no desire to reasonably defend yourself, but I do, and as a sheepdog, I am trained, ready and willing to protect you: should I, considering you practically set up the fire, condiments and open fire spit for the wolf to roast you on? (sorry, Freudian slip; I'm a bit hungry).

skidmark said:

My guess is "No" based on the concept that you cannot force me to adhere to your beliefs. (And besides, if you were a true pacifist you could not hold the notion that you could force your beliefs on another.)....

Frienship carries with it some level of respect for the beliefs (no matter how irrational) of the friend. Yet it does not, IMHO, impose an absolute duty to adhere to that belief system. Addressing the possible irrationality of my friend's beliefs - how far out do they extend beyond themself?...

Click to expand...

If they are a FRIEND, I am sure you are familiar with the term "tough love"? Too bad for my friend, but they're a rare commodity (friends, I mean) in this day and age and I'm not willing to give them up to a criminal that easily.
Is the question ONLY about a friend, or were you curious about a complete stranger? Because I would deal differently with other people. For instance, classmates or neighbors that constantly say that guns "are only for the weak" and that situational awareness is "living in fear all the time". They have implicitly given up before the wolf arrives, and as selfish as it seems, they are of little emotional value to me (not friends).

skidmark said:

How much does adherence to those beliefs, and forcing me to adhere to those beliefs, impact on society?

Then again, let us suppose the pacifist parent were, in addition, psychologically "messed up" (a precise clinical term) such that had they lived their child would become another Barak Obama?

Click to expand...

We get into a "Minority Report" situation here; Skidmark, you're starting to get me into a whole time-paradox mentality here
What if the person I defend will spawn the next Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Minh, Mao, Obama, or Bieber? :cuss:
On the other hand, what if they will give life to the next Da Vinci or Edison?
Or the next Bohr, Curie, or (Stephen) Hawking?
DANGER...RISK...OF....BRAIN.....OVERLOAD.....:shocker:

skidmark said:

I like to think that I know myself well enough to come up with an answer that will work for me. I'm not going to share it with anybody because it ought to be meaningless to anybody except myself.

Click to expand...

And that, may well be the BEST answer you will get. Not the clearest, but best and all-encompassing. (for the desired effect, please imagine "all-encompassing" said by the Dalai Lama)

On the other hand, you could read this article that deals with the topic at hand, and still not get the concise answer that Skidmark provided

https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/10/03/pacifism-a-naive-and-dangerous-approach-to-life/#kant

Rusty Young Man said:

SNIP as a sheepdog, I am trained, ready and willing to protect you

Click to expand...

I've never been a big fan of this sheepdog mindset. I don't consider myself a guardian or protector of others.

Call me a well-armed lamb.* If another lamb needs protecting, and isn't at fault for bringing on the difficulty, I might jump in and defend them, too.



*Borrowed from Ben Franklin's distinction between democracy and freedom: democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Citizen said:

I've never been a big fan of this sheepdog mindset. I don't consider myself a guardian or protector of others.

Call me a well-armed lamb.* If another lamb needs protecting, and isn't at fault for bringing on the difficulty, I might jump in and defend them, too.



*Borrowed from Ben Franklin's distinction between democracy and freedom: democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Click to expand...

+1

If it was an anti-gun person, that I know, then I might not use my guns to end the criminal activities against that individual. I have thought about this for a long time.
I would call the police from my cell phone, if I can remember how to dial 119.

Citizen said:

I've never been a big fan of this sheepdog mindset. I don't consider myself a guardian or protector of others.

Call me a well-armed lamb.* If another lamb needs protecting, and isn't at fault for bringing on the difficulty, I might jump in and defend them, too.

*Borrowed from Ben Franklin's distinction between democracy and freedom: democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Click to expand...

Another vote in favor of doing away with this "sheepdog" sheepdip. If I wanted to be the guardian or protector of others I'd get a business license and operate a private security/personal protection company. The whole "sheepdog" label carries with it the notion of obligation, and I certainly am not obligated to provide protection to anybody except perhaps my immediate family. Some may say there is a moral obligaton - to them I say go get the business license and just do not charge a fee.

As for being a "well-armed lamb" coming to the protection of another lamb in the herd - that is just so contrary to the operating concept of a herd. Animals gather together in herds to take advantage of the reduced odds of being the one selected. One lamb has only the ability to outrun the wolves to keep from being dinner. Two lambs together reduce the individual odds, but one of them is going to be dinner. A whole bunch of them together means the individual odds of being served up are reduced, but again someone is going to be on that dinner plate. Rams protect the ewes so that there is someone available to help pass on the DNA. They generally do not care what happens to the lambs because the lambs can be replaced. Ewes protect the lambs because they have a physical investment in having brought them to term. According to what I have been told/had explained to me by human females, it is a pain going through pregnancy and childbirth and all that teaching survival and social skills stuff just to have to do it over again with nothing to show for the effort. (OK, that is a condensed and edited version of what was actually said.) But ewe #1 has zero interest in what happens to ewe #2's lamb - and especially so if whatever happens to lamb #2 keeps lamb #1 alive.

So what does the sheepdog get for being the sheepdog? They get fed by the shepard. And what does the shepard feed the sheepdog? Historically it was not Alpo.

RYM - the question of where your rights end and mine begins is a red herring. I have no "right" to defend you in opposition to your desire not to be defended. Just as I have no "right" to defend you if you are desparately begging me to defend you. There might be a social obligation, and that obligation might even be codified in the laws regarding, for example, child neglect. You show you are aware of that when you discuss it as a "desire" - to pervert an old saying, it is not a Bill of Desires.

Tough love and friends? If they were a real friend this would have been hashed out a long time ago and the issues of desires and obligations and guilt been resolved to our mutual satisfaction. If I am worthy of being your friend I will respect your beliefs, even when they do not mirrror mine. If our beliefs clash then there is no friendship and the argument is null.

I suppose that social norms would say I should apologize for making your head hurt. But since that was my objective I cannot see why I should apologize for being successful.

stay safe.

A trick question ! I have no such friends. So I cannot answer the question. I refuse to have friends with such characteristics.

davidmcbeth said:

A trick question ! I have no such friends. So I cannot answer the question. I refuse to have friends with such characteristics.

Click to expand...

A trick answer, as it does not address the OP's stated circumstance. "I know a 'pacifist.'" does not mean that the pacifist the OP knows is a friend.

But my thoughts about this are in conflict. Am I upset more about your flights into the realm of immaterialness or am I upset more about your inability to even comprehend the stated scenario?

stay safe.

Personally, I would never operate my firearm to defend or save a non-related person, only a loved one, family member, wife, child. I'm not sure I'd do it to defend a second-cousin. I'm not sure I'd do it to defend myself (i.e. in cold blood), at least as a first option.**

You never know if that person could turn against you, be used by the prosecution to fudge the facts and end up you being convicted (say if a stray round hit some bystander). "I TOLD him/her not to do anything, and he shot (that person) anyway", either out of guilt or misplaced loyalty or out of cowardice (say if threatened by a thug's family).

A loved one you have literally NO CHOICE but to save/defend. Others, including yourself, you do have some choices, though very limited at times.

** in saving yourself, you can always tell yourself to duck or move or seek cover. You can't waste the 'time' to do that for a loved one, caught like a deer in the headlights. Thus the difference in time and options.

skidmark said:

SNIP As for being a "well-armed lamb" coming to the protection of another lamb in the herd - that is just so contrary to the operating concept of a herd. Animals gather together in herds to take advantage of the reduced odds of being the one selected. One lamb has only the ability to outrun the wolves to keep from being dinner. Two lambs together reduce the individual odds, but one of them is going to be dinner. A whole bunch of them together means the individual odds of being served up are reduced, but again someone is going to be on that dinner plate. Rams protect the ewes so that there is someone available to help pass on the DNA. They generally do not care what happens to the lambs because the lambs can be replaced. Ewes protect the lambs because they have a physical investment in having brought them to term. According to what I have been told/had explained to me by human females, it is a pain going through pregnancy and childbirth and all that teaching survival and social skills stuff just to have to do it over again with nothing to show for the effort. (OK, that is a condensed and edited version of what was actually said.) But ewe #1 has zero interest in what happens to ewe #2's lamb - and especially so if whatever happens to lamb #2 keeps lamb #1 alive.

Click to expand...

Oh, boy. Talk about taking the metaphor to the n[SUP]th[/SUP] degree.

I was just referring to "gentle as a lamb", as in minding my own business, being nice to everybody, and neither starting nor looking for trouble.

But, I guess, in a way, you're right. I like hanging out a VCDL meetings and pre-meeting Starbucks coffee gabs because I better my odds with all that firepower should a wolf show up.

Kinda feel sorry for the wolf when he's gotta contend with those kind of lambs.

Violence is any day preferable to impotence. -Mahatma Gandhi

skidmark said:

A trick answer, as it does not address the OP's stated circumstance. "I know a 'pacifist.'" does not mean that the pacifist the OP knows is a friend.

Click to expand...

The title said friend ... given the way things are posted on the interweb, it was a logical conclusion as to a condition of the hypothetical ...

davidmcbeth said:

The title said friend ... given the way things are posted on the interweb, it was a logical conclusion as to a condition of the hypothetical ...

Click to expand...

I included family in the friend list. It's a family member that I would not defend.

I have disowned family members for cause. They all know the conditions/circumstances that would result in them being made a part of my family again. Should an occassion arise that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm I will have no problem remembering why they are still no longer in my life.

I am probably less likely to let arguments about moral obligation sway me than most other folks. On the other hand, I have been accused of stepping up and helping people I don't even know because what happened to them was just plain "not right".

stay safe.

Citizen said:

Oh, boy. Talk about taking the metaphor to the n[SUP]th[/SUP] degree.

I was just referring to "gentle as a lamb", as in minding my own business, being nice to everybody, and neither starting nor looking for trouble.

But, I guess, in a way, you're right. I like hanging out a VCDL meetings and pre-meeting Starbucks coffee gabs because I better my odds with all that firepower should a wolf show up.

Kinda feel sorry for the wolf when he's gotta contend with those kind of lambs.

Click to expand...

I keep reminding you about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilpul One of these days you are going to remember it is one of my favored techniques.

Those are not lambs at the VCDL meetings. More like Cape Buffalo - calm, placid, go about their business when not bothered, but circle up with the kiddies and weaker ones inside and show their horns when threatened, giving the opportunity to make a last-minute reconsideration of dinner shopping plans.

It's never "in a way, [I'm] right". I merely happen to be less wrong than you. It's a curse I must live with.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

So what does the sheepdog get for being the sheepdog? They get fed by the shepard. And what does the shepard feed the sheepdog? Historically it was not Alpo.

Click to expand...

Good point (though we use Purina Dog Chow). That completely slipped past me. For this to work, I guess I'll need to find an herbivorous animal instead.

Citizen said:

I've never been a big fan of this sheepdog mindset. I don't consider myself a guardian or protector of others.

Click to expand...

I know the "sheepdog" analogy is not the most refined (Skidmark pointed out just one such reason for this), but when explaining it to a complete newbie (by age or ignorance) in passing conversation, it helps to illustrate the point of predator, prey, and defense against the predator with animals that have been developed as characters in Disney movies. I once tried using an elephant herd to illustrate, but they couldn't picture it. So I'll stick with the sheep-dog-wolf analogy for the time being.
As to not considering yourself a protector, I'm of the other camp. I grew up trying to help out complete strangers. It's almost second-nature for me. I know some predators work by playing the victim in order to lure in their prey (scam artists, serial killers, muggers, etc), but I still need to make a conscious choice not to help.

skidmark said:

Tough love and friends? If they were a real friend this would have been hashed out a long time ago and the issues of desires and obligations and guilt been resolved to our mutual satisfaction. If I am worthy of being your friend I will respect your beliefs, even when they do not mirrror mine. If our beliefs clash then there is no friendship and the argument is null.

Click to expand...

Didn't mean to draw away from the issue. I just mentioned this because I may be in the same situation as the OP. In my case, said friends (two) are either "non-violent" or a self-described hippie. Both have no love for guns: the former took some time to come to terms with me carrying a firearm, the latter is afraid of the destructive potential (her words) modern self-defense firearms have, and thinks only training should "allow" someone the right to carry (emphasis added. It's paradoxical, I know). So while not complete hoplophobes, they have chosen not to arm themselves (well, the latter now carries some pepper spray I gave her). Thankfully, neither is against me using my firearm in their defense.

So to answer the OP, if they are a FRIEND (/"loved one"; squares and rectangles), even if they are pacifist (a variety of friend which I don't seem to have), I would more than likely defend them, selfishly. I say selfishly because some friends and loved ones choose not to prepare for the possibility of a violent criminal encounter, and some go as far as poking fun at you for preparing mentally and training with your firearm (I'm sure you guys have heard the jokes ), but you also don't want their unpreparedness to be the reason you lose them, if you can help it.

For non-friends, it all depends on whether or not the person is a complete stranger:
Freedom1Man thinks along the same lines I do. If the person is a KNOWN anti, then I'll just do what Biden and the other anti's preach: buy a shotgun :lol:, and dial 119.:lol:
If the person is a complete stranger, I would have to make a split-second decision about whether or not the Force is strong with them, and if they do not merit my interference, dial 911.

I'll clarify that I make a distinction between "family member" and "loved one" because sometimes we end up with very distasteful people in our biological/adoptive family that just aren't our "loved ones" (just look at the terms: one explains exactly how you feel about them).

skidmark said:

IThose are not lambs at the VCDL meetings. More like Cape Buffalo - calm, placid, go about their business when not bothered, but circle up with the kiddies and weaker ones inside and show their horns when threatened, giving the opportunity to make a last-minute reconsideration of dinner shopping plans.

Click to expand...

At risk of a tangent, I will suggest the possibility of elephants being a better illustrative example, because elephants mirror the qualities pointed out in the Cape Buffalo, but they also never forget.

skidmark said:

I suppose that social norms would say I should apologize for making your head hurt. But since that was my objective I cannot see why I should apologize for being successful.

Click to expand...

If we are to have a meaningful conversation on these forums, then social norms be damned! All we need is mutual respect and not-empty stomachs. So no need to apologize there Skid. The brain is a muscle that needs to be exercised, just like your rights, lest either atrophy.

Rusty Young Man said:

I know the "sheepdog" analogy is not the most refined (Skidmark pointed out just one such reason for this), but when explaining it to a complete newbie (by age or ignorance) in passing conversation, it helps to illustrate the point of predator, prey, and defense against the predator with animals that have been developed as characters in Disney movies. I once tried using an elephant herd to illustrate, but they couldn't picture it. So I'll stick with the sheep-dog-wolf analogy for the time being.

Click to expand...

First of all, the "sheepdog" mindset comes loaded with all sorts of elitist overtones, making it far more than just a simple means of explaining self-defense.

Plus, if your goal is truly just to explain the importance of armed self-defense, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. Folks have already come up with an infinitely better metaphor, without all the elitist baggage:

…(The rattlesnake) has no eye-lids; she may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance. She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders…she is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage... She never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.

-Benjamin Frankin, 1775

Click to expand...

This is, you'll note, the model that most OCers follow: condition yellow, never initiating force, and with armed deterrence clearly visible in advance.

You should be encouraging folks to become their own rattlesnake, not bragging about what a "sheepdog" you are.

marshaul said:

First of all, the "sheepdog" mindset comes loaded with all sorts of elitist overtones, making it far more than just a simple means of explaining self-defense.

Plus, if your goal is truly just to explain the importance armed self-defense, you're trying to reinvent the wheel. Folks have already come up with an infinitely better metaphor, without all the elitist baggage:





This is, you'll note, the model that most OCers follow: condition yellow, never initiating force, and with armed deterrence clearly visible in advance.

You should be encouraging folks to become their own rattlesnake, not bragging about what a "sheepdog" you are.

Click to expand...

They taste like chicken too.

Every unarmed citizen is less likely to defend themselves until it is too late to successfully defend themselves. Pacifists seem to believe that unarmed/non-violent victims are more likely to be unharmed, physically, by violent criminals. Don't know the stats but cops usually tell us to give up the wallet and Timex, not worth losing your life. Well, is my house worth losing my life? I can always get another house. Car? Boat? Wife? I can always get another wife.

So, LE, in my view, is at fault for creating the "pacifists" of today.

If they, your pacifist "friend" gets POd just say you're sorry and tell them that you won't let it happen again.