stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I decided to start a new thread about this so that I could ask this question without changing the subject of another thread
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
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
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
Last edited: