quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this.

Just wish to you to clarify something for me. Are we talking self defense:

A ) In the Home/Residence?
B ) In one's place of business/work?
C ) Out in the public eye (i.e. parks, roadways, places with lots of people, etc.)?
D ) All the above?

And self defense from what, exactly?

A ) Intent to threaten/intimidate?
B ) Intent to injure?
C ) Intent to kill?

I know it might sound silly, but humor me. I've heard of little league baseball games were the adults are getting so out of hand after a call is played by an umpire. That two or more adults become enraged, shouting at the top of their lungs, threatening each other with bodily harm, and even acting upon it. Scores of examples of one or both sides being sent to the hospital for injures inflicted. We as Americans have been fortunate (to my knowledge) that one or both sides did not erupt with firearm in hand, blind rage in mind, and a determination to 'settle a score' by deadly means. Where does self defense come into play here?

I don't argue when someone breaches the home, and those within use firearms for self defense (or any other weapon on hand). That's the castle doctrine. But if you leave your front door open, at night, in an area riddled with crime; Is it self defense or just plain stupidity?

The problem in the USA, is there exists so many variants to the concept of 'self defense', that were in your area my 'definition' of self defense 'would not work/is illegal/to light' and vise versa. Some states have the 'Castle Doctrine' others, 'Stand Your Ground', while still further other states of a hodge-podging of different ideas. Which of the many definitions of 'self defense' are we using in this discussion? And do we all agree on that definition?

I hope you understand, that I'm not posting this to slam your viewpoints or creation of the thread. Just trying to get definitions and concepts understood ahead of time, so we can have the real 'meat' of the discussion take place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges.
The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions.

Even the cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense gets a legal review, and that is exactly as it should be. That can include charges being filed, and a trial before the jury. Or it could be an investigator looking at the evidence, and saying, "nice shooting, ma'am. Will your grandkids be picking you up to spend the rest of the night at their house?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges.
The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions.

Even the cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense gets a legal review, and that is exactly as it should be. That can include charges being filed, and a trial before the jury. Or it could be an investigator looking at the evidence, and saying, "nice shooting, ma'am. Will your grandkids be picking you up to spend the rest of the night at their house?"

But that's just it, Heretic, even the "...cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force..." is not reviewed often to see if the matter was 'self defense' or not. Its rare to find a court case in which the self defense argument is used, and it was clean and justified. Much more often than not, facts are not present, people say conflicting things, and the scene of the crime is just a jumble of problems. The Zimmerman case is one good example of this. We have a thread on this here forum all about it. And that 'un-moderated' thread only got started because any number of us started over a dozen different threads and the Moderators got tired of policing each one. Political agendas aside, Heretic, that case was not one of 'clean and justifiable'. But serves as an example of the sort of cases in many courts across the nation that are not as well publicized, but equally hard to determine fault.

We all have different views on self defense, but I believe we can come to some agreement on common viewpoints, right?

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges.
The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions.

Even the cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense gets a legal review, and that is exactly as it should be. That can include charges being filed, and a trial before the jury. Or it could be an investigator looking at the evidence, and saying, "nice shooting, ma'am. Will your grandkids be picking you up to spend the rest of the night at their house?"

But that's just it, Heretic, even the "...cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force..." is not reviewed often to see if the matter was 'self defense' or not. Its rare to find a court case in which the self defense argument is used, and it was clean and justified. Much more often than not, facts are not present, people say conflicting things, and the scene of the crime is just a jumble of problems. The Zimmerman case is one good example of this. We have a thread on this here forum all about it. And that 'un-moderated' thread only got started because any number of us started over a dozen different threads and the Moderators got tired of policing each one. Political agendas aside, Heretic, that case was not one of 'clean and justifiable'. But serves as an example of the sort of cases in many courts across the nation that are not as well publicized, but equally hard to determine fault.

We all have different views on self defense, but I believe we can come to some agreement on common viewpoints, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges.
The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions.

Even the cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense gets a legal review, and that is exactly as it should be. That can include charges being filed, and a trial before the jury. Or it could be an investigator looking at the evidence, and saying, "nice shooting, ma'am. Will your grandkids be picking you up to spend the rest of the night at their house?"

But that's just it, Heretic, even the "...cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force..." is not reviewed often to see if the matter was 'self defense' or not. Its rare to find a court case in which the self defense argument is used, and it was clean and justified. Much more often than not, facts are not present, people say conflicting things, and the scene of the crime is just a jumble of problems. The Zimmerman case is one good example of this. We have a thread on this here forum all about it. And that 'un-moderated' thread only got started because any number of us started over a dozen different threads and the Moderators got tired of policing each one. Political agendas aside, Heretic, that case was not one of 'clean and justifiable'. But serves as an example of the sort of cases in many courts across the nation that are not as well publicized, but equally hard to determine fault.

We all have different views on self defense, but I believe we can come to some agreement on common viewpoints, right?

We have a couple of people who insist that if you aren't injured and can't prove they shot first it isn't self defense. I think that reasonable people can agree that that is too strict an interpretation.
I think we can also agree that you can't shoot someone because of a general feeling that they could be a threat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
My point is that this would still lead to manslaughter charges.
The person who inspired this thread insisted that there would, and should be no legal reproductions.

Even the cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense gets a legal review, and that is exactly as it should be. That can include charges being filed, and a trial before the jury. Or it could be an investigator looking at the evidence, and saying, "nice shooting, ma'am. Will your grandkids be picking you up to spend the rest of the night at their house?"

But that's just it, Heretic, even the "...cleanest and most justifiable use of deadly force..." is not reviewed often to see if the matter was 'self defense' or not. Its rare to find a court case in which the self defense argument is used, and it was clean and justified. Much more often than not, facts are not present, people say conflicting things, and the scene of the crime is just a jumble of problems. The Zimmerman case is one good example of this. We have a thread on this here forum all about it. And that 'un-moderated' thread only got started because any number of us started over a dozen different threads and the Moderators got tired of policing each one. Political agendas aside, Heretic, that case was not one of 'clean and justifiable'. But serves as an example of the sort of cases in many courts across the nation that are not as well publicized, but equally hard to determine fault.

We all have different views on self defense, but I believe we can come to some agreement on common viewpoints, right?

We have a couple of people who insist that if you aren't injured and can't prove they shot first it isn't self defense. I think that reasonable people can agree that that is too strict an interpretation.
I think we can also agree that you can't shoot someone because of a general feeling that they could be a threat.

I agree one should not be allowed to shot and/or injure someone else (be it with arm/leg/foot/hand/head or other object in melee combat), by feeling threaten by another person. There has to be a defining point when 'threat' becomes 'violent'. How does a society establish that 'moment' of time between 'self defense' and 'acting out in a criminal fashion'? Since that would allow for general warfare at any political event. The OWS crowd stumbling into the Tea Party Rally would end in a blood bath that makes the Boston Massacre look timid in comparison. Which in my view is the fallacy with the 'Stand Your Ground' laws in existence. Opens a door that allows this behavior to erupt; were as a more restricted view helps a self defense argument in a court case. Rather than vague and widely open to interpretation on 'self defense', the rules of self defense are pretty well established. Hence, my original post on this thread seeking clarification and definition. The US Military has 'rules of engagement' that are pretty well defined. Its set up to cover problem situations that in the past posed problems for the military and/or the nation (and we learned from those past mistakes).

I may or may not be disagreeing with you in one thing, BamaD.....I *DONT* want the National Rifle Association (NRA) nor the Brady Against Gun Violence, to be defining self defense for the nation. Such laws and definitions would need to be agreed upon by the majority of Americans, not just the special interest groups. Through laws and or a specific additional amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You are a fucking liar.
I do not oppose using a weapon in defense of myself or others. I just find most of the cases that make the news to be crap. Shooting old men wandering around in the dark is not self defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

Seems to me that someone interested in skill with a firearm could choose to wound without much difficulty.

Shooting instead to kill becomes a choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this.

No. I do see you missing the point that comparison presents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

Seems to me that someone interested in skill with a firearm could choose to wound without much difficulty.

Shooting instead to kill becomes a choice.

That is not true. Almost any gunshot wound can kill. And the ones that don't are also next to useless for stopping a person from attacking you. If you shoot someone you aim for center mass and you shoot to kill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

Seems to me that someone interested in skill with a firearm could choose to wound without much difficulty.

Shooting instead to kill becomes a choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

Seems to me that someone interested in skill with a firearm could choose to wound without much difficulty.

Shooting instead to kill becomes a choice.

That is not true. Almost any gunshot wound can kill. And the ones that don't are also next to useless for stopping a person from attacking you. If you shoot someone you aim for center mass and you shoot to kill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

Seems to me that someone interested in skill with a firearm could choose to wound without much difficulty.

Shooting instead to kill becomes a choice.

That is not true. Almost any gunshot wound can kill. And the ones that don't are also next to useless for stopping a person from attacking you. If you shoot someone you aim for center mass and you shoot to kill.