thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
Would I Shoot A Minor In Self-defense?"
No, no. I always try to shoot in C minor.
Hahahahahahaha. I crack myself up sometimes.
Man, that's bad. But I did laugh.
-
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.
Would you shoot a minor in self-defense?
- Thread starter Dreamer
- Start date
Man, that's bad. But I did laugh.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
We used to have quite a bit of fun on this forum. Not sure where it went.
Jim675 is a master at funny haiku. A fella named Hawkflyer would chip in. As would several others. Seems a lot less now.
We need more.
sccrref
Regular Member
Would I shoot a minor in self defense?
No, I would shoot said minor in center mass as many times as it took to stop the threat.
No, I would shoot said minor in center mass as many times as it took to stop the threat.
Whitney
Regular Member
No hesitation
Would you shoot at these minors? Is there really a differance?
http://tinyurl.com/669y8ml
I guess you had to be there.
~Whitney
Would you shoot at these minors? Is there really a differance?
http://tinyurl.com/669y8ml
I guess you had to be there.
~Whitney
HankT
State Researcher
This question is interesting. But not too interesting. Everyone is saying 'yes.' For good reason.
To the more general "Would you shoot a minor in self-defense?", there should be more variation. I've thought about about a particular scenario (inspired by a thread here about some cops who answered a call about a very young kid (~3-4) with a gun). The scenario is that somehow I come into contact with a toddler, a really small and young kid who somehow manages to hold a gun (I can't think of any other way he could be a threat) and who may very well have or has displayed the ability to shoot me.
The 14 year old robber is an easy one. A gimme, as we can see above.
The 3 year old kid with a gun, that's a hard one. I'm talking about a normal environment (e.g., U.S., non-war) .
In same, I would not shoot any tyke. For any reason. Under any circumstances.
So my answer to "Would you shoot a minor in self-defense?" is, "Yes. But certainly not always. Depends."
There are some other exceptions I'd make to my self-defense plan. But not too many.
Ahh, the good gold days... Remember all those fun times you and LEO 229 had? I think you even won a few, Citizen.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
WARNING
Username HankT has a history of stirring up trouble. One of his favorite tactics was to introduce a newsstory and invite discussion. The ambiguity in the story would cause some to make assumptions and others to make other assumptions, and get to fighting over differences caused by the undeclared assumptions. He did it so often one could safely assume it was deliberate and that he derived personal enjoyment from the animosity created. He never, that I can recall, stepped in to knock down or lessen the fur pulling. If he did, it wasn't with any regularity that I can recall.
Beware this latest post that goes off on a tangent. Notice he doesn't explain his rationale for not shooting a tyke. He's opened the door...be careful how you walk through it.
This guy's been gone for six months. It was a pretty peaceful six months, relatively speaking.
Notice the coy, hidden twist about me. Its a deliberate jab intended to be painful. I was talking about actually having fun. He twisted it into reminding me and any other readers of the fighting with a cop-member a few years ago, very little of which was fun. Notice he even covers up the intended jab with the pretended compliment that I won a few. That or it was another jab that I lost the rest of the arguments with that cop. This is this guy's personality. Be wary. He definitely has a history here.
cpgrad08
Regular Member
Yes I would.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
well,,,,
first off,, welcome back hankt, i have missed you, worried that we had lost you for good.
funny you would obscure the question like someone had already done by bringing up the question of a three year old with a gun.
funny too that you would make aspirations about leo229 and citizens debates on this site,
leo229 NEVER won ANY debate. how could he. he was a power hungry, fear mongering, jackbooted, authority laden, anti,
jeri boniva, wave, MAIG, LYING, jerk!
He could not win any debate on this forum, against anybody, anytime, on any subject, because he did not have the capacity to
understand the truth, the law, or rational thought.
Since you brought the question of SHOOTING a three year old?
i say
If a three year old could stand before me with enough FORCE to present a clear threat?
If a three year old could hold a gun and point and handle a GUN to present a clear threat?
If a three year old could in a commanding VOICE a threat Like "give me all your money, or ill blow you away, mother fjucker"!
Notice, these are the same criteria that we would weigh in any scenario, whether our assailant seemed middle aged or even very old, let alone very young.
I Would shoot the three year old!!
Want to try for two year old?, how about one?
p.s. where is HankTs postulate on civilian self defense?
really though, i am happy to see you again,,, henrietta...
first off,, welcome back hankt, i have missed you, worried that we had lost you for good.
funny you would obscure the question like someone had already done by bringing up the question of a three year old with a gun.
funny too that you would make aspirations about leo229 and citizens debates on this site,
leo229 NEVER won ANY debate. how could he. he was a power hungry, fear mongering, jackbooted, authority laden, anti,
jeri boniva, wave, MAIG, LYING, jerk!
He could not win any debate on this forum, against anybody, anytime, on any subject, because he did not have the capacity to
understand the truth, the law, or rational thought.
Since you brought the question of SHOOTING a three year old?
i say
If a three year old could stand before me with enough FORCE to present a clear threat?
If a three year old could hold a gun and point and handle a GUN to present a clear threat?
If a three year old could in a commanding VOICE a threat Like "give me all your money, or ill blow you away, mother fjucker"!
Notice, these are the same criteria that we would weigh in any scenario, whether our assailant seemed middle aged or even very old, let alone very young.
I Would shoot the three year old!!
Want to try for two year old?, how about one?
p.s. where is HankTs postulate on civilian self defense?
really though, i am happy to see you again,,, henrietta...
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
It isn't about "age" of a threat. It is about ability.
Upon credible threat, yes I would shoot to end the threat. That threat may come from a 90 year old, or a 9 year old. If I have a reasonable belief that my life (or that of my family) is in danger, I am willing to defend against that threat.
Upon credible threat, yes I would shoot to end the threat. That threat may come from a 90 year old, or a 9 year old. If I have a reasonable belief that my life (or that of my family) is in danger, I am willing to defend against that threat.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
Consider carefully what you just said. These guys were probably combat-trained and experienced (assume you mean in Viet Nam, or during war), and when it came down to making a snap decision they hesitated. That's the key. Most people, not being "killers" would hesitate; and not just shooting a minor. I don't know how you prepare yourself to take a life.
HankT
State Researcher
Wow, you read a LOT into things, Citizen. All so carefully....um....crafted.
But I'm curious, Citizen. The OP asked a question. And just about everyone has commented what they would do/and or what they think about the question.
Except you. I notice that you didn't even answer the basic question that Dreamer put forth.
Citizen, would you shoot a minor in self-defense?
Last edited:
IanB
Regular Member
I'll answer for Citizen: ""Yes. But certainly not always. Depends."
There, now you can argue against yourself Hank!
BTW welcome back we sure missed you. I can't wait for more of HankT's "I'll asnwer your questions with more of my own questions w/o answering yours first" trolling. Oh, wait... does the "T" in HankT stand for TROLL? I sure hope this doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack, it was framed as a question. Please don't report me to the mods. Gosh this place might start being entertaining again now that our Joisey friend is back.
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy!
I am confused about shooting a minor. Why would anybody do that anyhow. Does it matter whether they are mining for coal? Gold? Silver?
I don't understand what a child would be doing in a mine either. Why would a three year old be mining?
But if a minor were to threaten my life, I'd shoot him to prevent harm or serious injury to myself or others.
Then again, I don't know too many minors, and even through we have mining operations all over Colorado,
none of the minors have ever posed a threat to me or mine.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
I am confused about shooting a minor. Why would anybody do that anyhow. Does it matter whether they are mining for coal? Gold? Silver?
I don't understand what a child would be doing in a mine either. Why would a three year old be mining?
But if a minor were to threaten my life, I'd shoot him to prevent harm or serious injury to myself or others.
Then again, I don't know too many minors, and even through we have mining operations all over Colorado,
none of the minors have ever posed a threat to me or mine.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
I would say you don't train to take a life, you train to neutralize threats. Unless you're a sniper or some such thing, you're trained to hit center of mass because it's the most effective means to end the hostile acts of a target. It just so happens that in many cases such hits end up causing mortal wounds.
If the threat was neutralized, meaning the hostile acts had been stopped and no weapons were available to the assailant I would be compelled to render aid. Very carefully of course.
hermannr
Regular Member
Yes, a lot of guys were killed by old women and young kids during Vietnam. Age does not make you deadly, actions do.
So to the OP, if some 14 year old were to point a shotgun at me and demand money, yes he might very well receive 158 gr of lead in response. Would I instantly shoot first and ask questions later? No. A shotgun is a credible threat in the hands of a minor, but there may be situations where instant retaliation would not be the best response. Like is the weapon a toy? or real?
Reminds me of Siagon, 1968, when some kids were in a balcony about 3 stories up and it looked like they were getting ready to through a hand ganade out at me, but something just didn't look right so I held my fire. Good thing too, what they actually threw was a water balloon.
Credible threat is the key...
So to the OP, if some 14 year old were to point a shotgun at me and demand money, yes he might very well receive 158 gr of lead in response. Would I instantly shoot first and ask questions later? No. A shotgun is a credible threat in the hands of a minor, but there may be situations where instant retaliation would not be the best response. Like is the weapon a toy? or real?
Reminds me of Siagon, 1968, when some kids were in a balcony about 3 stories up and it looked like they were getting ready to through a hand ganade out at me, but something just didn't look right so I held my fire. Good thing too, what they actually threw was a water balloon.
Credible threat is the key...
HankT
State Researcher
Why would you wish to "answer for Citizen," IB?
He can answer the question himself, really.
What about you, IB. Would you shoot a minor?
It's a good effort on the part of Dreamer to raise the question. It's basically a form of scenario excercise...
IanB
Regular Member
Yes. But certainly not always. Depends.
eye95
Well-known member
Most of us had already figured out that that was precisely how you'd respond.
Aknazer
Regular Member
In hankts scenario it is hard to see the toddler as a threat. If its a threat then its dead. Simple as that. The issue is in determining if the kid is a threat. In war I'd be more likely to shoot if the kid has a gun, but non-war chances are I wouldn't shoot a 3 year old because he wouldn't be a credible threat. Hell my 6 year brother could barely pull the trigger on my TCP and he requiem even more coaching to be able to shoot the XD 9SC; nevermind him trying to shoot the XDm 40. On top of all that and with help from me and my dad he still only had maybe 40% of shots on paper and even fewer that actually hit the target. And now you're expecting someone half his age to be a credible threat? Good luck with that, but if he somehow was a threat then I have a bullet for him.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
A large percentage of the VC were that age in 'Nam. Their intent was to kill us. We killed them instead. Why should this be any different? They aren't 'children'; they are criminals who threaten your life. The VC weren't children; they were enemy combatants that threatened our lives. To me, exactly the same scenario.