irfner
Campaign Veteran
imported post
It is the thief who decides the value of his own live by the property he steels.
It is the thief who decides the value of his own live by the property he steels.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Lethal Force When Not Used in Strict Self-Defense
- Thread starter imperialism2024
- Start date
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Fallguy wrote:
+1
I have no such moral qualms about ending a thief's career.
Fallguy wrote:
+1
I have no such moral qualms about ending a thief's career.
Heartless_Conservative
Regular Member
imported post
irfner wrote:
irfner wrote:
Other than minor spelling issues, thats a pretty good summation ofthe whole thing.
Liko81
Founder's Club Member
imported post
In short, I do not think that deadly force is justifiable for anything short of a personal defense scenario. The importance of property is always second to the importance of life.
Let me clarify; if someone, without harming you in any way, takes your stuff and gets away, deadly force would not have been morally permissible to prevent it. Same with a purse-snatcher; they grab, run, and never were a danger to you personally. Using deadly force against such people is immoral and illegal even if not to do so results in your losing property.
The line is crossed when, for whatever end, your life and safetyare personally threatened. This MAKES it about personal defense, even if the situation did not initially threaten anyone's life or safety. A burglar, confronted by you, has the option to fight it out. The moment that decision is made you are no longer defending your house; you are defending yourself. Between the confrontation and making the decision, you can use the THREAT of deadly force, but if the burglar tries to escape or surrenders there is nolonger a reason to shoot.
The argument can be expanded to include situations in which neither you nor anyone around you is threatened by a hostile action, but if the assailant succeeds the net result would undoubtedly harm someone, even if you don't know who. For instance, an escaping violent criminal, if allowed to get away, will undoubtedly cause harm to someone else either in furtherance of their efforts to get away or simply when they resume the criminal activitiesthey werelocked up for. It can therefore be justifiable to shoot to kill when the prisoner is encountered even if the prisoner poses no personal threat to you or anyone in the immediate area; they will inevitably pose a threat to someone else.
This can, in those broader terms, come back to property. You own dangerous property: firearms first and foremost. Someone breaks in and cracks your gun safe, but you hear and confront him. The burglar cannot use the weapons he's trying to steal because they're unloaded and breech locked, so he tries to flee with what he has. You now are faced with a moral dilemma. If the burglar escapes, he willdefeat the breech lock and will eitheruse the weapons himself in the commission of furthercrimes, or will fence them to people who will use them. This is practically inevitable. If, however, you shoot him and he dies, you were never in any danger and theshootingwould not bejustified as necessary to protect your own safety. The question, on which there is book and case law going both ways, is whether the shooting is justifiable based on the inevitable harm to others had you not stopped the burglar. Many jurisdictions say no, because nothing is inevitable. The burglar could be caughtthat nightand all weapons seized and eventually returned. The burglar mayditchthe guns as being more trouble than they're worth to offload. Other jurisdictions say that shooting in such a case, though it can neverbe legally required, is justifiable as the consequences of inaction are easily foreseen and the burglar, by stealing and inevitably fencing the weapons, poses a danger to otherpersons unknown.
Morally,shooting a gun thief isequivalent to a train coming down a track and five people are tied to it. You stand at a switch; if you flip it, the train will change tracks and kill just one. The net difference is four lives. By many consequentialist theories, the morally required action is to flip the switch and kill the one person. But, that assumes you know, without a doubt, that five people will die if you do not act. It's highly probable that you AT LEAST break even, just like it is highly probable that if the gun in his hands were loaded he'd use it on you and someone wouldn't get out of that room alive. However, the weapon in his handsposes no IMMEDIATE threat to anyone except as a club, so your justification for shooting him is largely based on you claiming to know the future.
In short, I do not think that deadly force is justifiable for anything short of a personal defense scenario. The importance of property is always second to the importance of life.
Let me clarify; if someone, without harming you in any way, takes your stuff and gets away, deadly force would not have been morally permissible to prevent it. Same with a purse-snatcher; they grab, run, and never were a danger to you personally. Using deadly force against such people is immoral and illegal even if not to do so results in your losing property.
The line is crossed when, for whatever end, your life and safetyare personally threatened. This MAKES it about personal defense, even if the situation did not initially threaten anyone's life or safety. A burglar, confronted by you, has the option to fight it out. The moment that decision is made you are no longer defending your house; you are defending yourself. Between the confrontation and making the decision, you can use the THREAT of deadly force, but if the burglar tries to escape or surrenders there is nolonger a reason to shoot.
The argument can be expanded to include situations in which neither you nor anyone around you is threatened by a hostile action, but if the assailant succeeds the net result would undoubtedly harm someone, even if you don't know who. For instance, an escaping violent criminal, if allowed to get away, will undoubtedly cause harm to someone else either in furtherance of their efforts to get away or simply when they resume the criminal activitiesthey werelocked up for. It can therefore be justifiable to shoot to kill when the prisoner is encountered even if the prisoner poses no personal threat to you or anyone in the immediate area; they will inevitably pose a threat to someone else.
This can, in those broader terms, come back to property. You own dangerous property: firearms first and foremost. Someone breaks in and cracks your gun safe, but you hear and confront him. The burglar cannot use the weapons he's trying to steal because they're unloaded and breech locked, so he tries to flee with what he has. You now are faced with a moral dilemma. If the burglar escapes, he willdefeat the breech lock and will eitheruse the weapons himself in the commission of furthercrimes, or will fence them to people who will use them. This is practically inevitable. If, however, you shoot him and he dies, you were never in any danger and theshootingwould not bejustified as necessary to protect your own safety. The question, on which there is book and case law going both ways, is whether the shooting is justifiable based on the inevitable harm to others had you not stopped the burglar. Many jurisdictions say no, because nothing is inevitable. The burglar could be caughtthat nightand all weapons seized and eventually returned. The burglar mayditchthe guns as being more trouble than they're worth to offload. Other jurisdictions say that shooting in such a case, though it can neverbe legally required, is justifiable as the consequences of inaction are easily foreseen and the burglar, by stealing and inevitably fencing the weapons, poses a danger to otherpersons unknown.
Morally,shooting a gun thief isequivalent to a train coming down a track and five people are tied to it. You stand at a switch; if you flip it, the train will change tracks and kill just one. The net difference is four lives. By many consequentialist theories, the morally required action is to flip the switch and kill the one person. But, that assumes you know, without a doubt, that five people will die if you do not act. It's highly probable that you AT LEAST break even, just like it is highly probable that if the gun in his hands were loaded he'd use it on you and someone wouldn't get out of that room alive. However, the weapon in his handsposes no IMMEDIATE threat to anyone except as a club, so your justification for shooting him is largely based on you claiming to know the future.
uncoolperson
Regular Member
imported post
lethal force can be used anytime you think any consequence of using force is more desirable than the perceived imminent consequences of not.
or atleast that's how i think of it.
(that whole "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" thing)
lethal force can be used anytime you think any consequence of using force is more desirable than the perceived imminent consequences of not.
or atleast that's how i think of it.
(that whole "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" thing)
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
imported post
IOTW. Someone is stealing your car, breaking a window, etc. Do you shoot?
Morally, I would have no qualms with demanding compliance, then firing if the demands weren't met(stop what they were doing, get on the ground, etc)
LEGALLY, OTOH, that's not the case in MOST states.
Is your right to live more important than my right to be secure in my persons and property, when you're illegally taking my stuff? How about the 'right' to detain and bring the 'suspects' to justice? Do I have to suffer the financial loss and indignity of being violated because some guy wants my stuff and I can't legally stop him?
IOTW. Someone is stealing your car, breaking a window, etc. Do you shoot?
Morally, I would have no qualms with demanding compliance, then firing if the demands weren't met(stop what they were doing, get on the ground, etc)
LEGALLY, OTOH, that's not the case in MOST states.
Is your right to live more important than my right to be secure in my persons and property, when you're illegally taking my stuff? How about the 'right' to detain and bring the 'suspects' to justice? Do I have to suffer the financial loss and indignity of being violated because some guy wants my stuff and I can't legally stop him?
LongRider
Regular Member
imported post
RCW 9A.16.020Use of force — When lawful:
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]
------------------------------------------------------
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable. Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050
That is pretty much my take. Attempts to injure me or others in my presence will result in my taking whatever measure is needed to stop the behavior. Attempts to trespass onto my or others property, damage or steal my or others property will result in my taking what ever measures needed to stop that behaviour. If the perp insists upon dying to infringe upon my or others rights and property. Well that is their choice. Personally I am content to have them on their knees peeing their pants, snotting all over themselves begging for forgiveness until LEO arrives. If they prefer they can lay there screaming in horror from broken limbs or from having had large holes ripped through their bodies, while they wait for LEO.
RCW 9A.16.020Use of force — When lawful:
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]
------------------------------------------------------
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable. Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050
That is pretty much my take. Attempts to injure me or others in my presence will result in my taking whatever measure is needed to stop the behavior. Attempts to trespass onto my or others property, damage or steal my or others property will result in my taking what ever measures needed to stop that behaviour. If the perp insists upon dying to infringe upon my or others rights and property. Well that is their choice. Personally I am content to have them on their knees peeing their pants, snotting all over themselves begging for forgiveness until LEO arrives. If they prefer they can lay there screaming in horror from broken limbs or from having had large holes ripped through their bodies, while they wait for LEO.