How Much Violence Justifies Use of Lethal Force in Self Defense?

[JimBowie1958]

yeeaahhh

If you can't take a hit from a woman.....

Lol, then let them slap YOU around like a little bitch.

Aint happening to me, bubba.

You dont seem to be keeping up with the times; lots of these little women are killing people every year, some of them being stomped to death.

Call me gay or a wimp or whatever the fuck you want, I will first SURVIVE and I will not tolerate anyone putting a hand on me that is meant to do me harm, fuck it.

No danm way.

 

[FA_Q2]

yeeaahhh

If you can't take a hit from a woman.....

Lol, then let them slap YOU around like a little bitch.

Aint happening to me, bubba.

You dont seem to be keeping up with the times; lots of these little women are killing people every year, some of them being stomped to death.

Call me gay or a wimp or whatever the fuck you want, I will first SURVIVE and I will not tolerate anyone putting a hand on me that is meant to do me harm, fuck it.

No danm way.

As my wife puts it:
If she is man enough to hit a man then he is woman enough to give it back


As for the op, I put all of 'em - except the last - because it is all subjective to the circumstances and what is going on in the moment. Really, you can use deadly force without any violence happening at all. Just had one case up here where a man shot another breaking into his house with birdshot in the FACT (ouch) as he was climbing through his window. There are a MILLION variables here, far too many to make such a simple poll mean squat.

 

[editec]

IN most civilized places, the benchmark for legally using deadly force when faced with violence is this:

When that victim of the violence is given sufficient reason to think that their life and limb are in jeopardy and they have no avenue of escape.

Of course the test of what is acceptable defence depends on where you live.

In some places you can kill an intruder regardless of the threat you might or might not feel from the interloper

 

[Sallow]

That is outrageous bullshit. That woman had every right to fire a warning shot if you look at it with common sense.
.

100% agreed.

And it's "common sense" if that "warning shot" strikes the neighbor's house and kills their poor little innocent child? 100% disagree. In self defense... You don't fire a gun to "warn", you fire one to "kill".

And that's part of the problem with the notion of arming civilians.

Warning shot or shooting to kill..doesn't make a difference..there is a possiblity that the bullet of a powerful handgun or assault rifle will hit an unintended target.

Dick Cheney hunting incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You either live with it..or you don't.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

100% agreed.

And it's "common sense" if that "warning shot" strikes the neighbor's house and kills their poor little innocent child? 100% disagree. In self defense... You don't fire a gun to "warn", you fire one to "kill".

And that's part of the problem with the notion of arming civilians.

Warning shot or shooting to kill..doesn't make a difference..there is a possiblity that the bullet of a powerful handgun or assault rifle will hit an unintended target.

Dick Cheney hunting incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You either live with it..or you don't.

Yeah, citizens with guns can cause stray bullet deaths. Police training allows bullets fired by the steady hands of government approved shooters to cease their forward momentum once they've exceeded the range at which the perp was disobeying the edicts of our Exalted Leaders, thus eliminating the risk of such accidents if we would only be wise enough to give a complete monopoly on the legal use of firearms to people popular enough to get votes and people who grew up and wanted a career wherein they were both armed and had authority over the average citizen. Clearly those two career choices couldn't possibly be inhabited by anyone other than a highly intelligent, cool headed, even handed, dexterous and competent individual.

Besides, the police typically find crimes occurring and get there quickly enough to prevent those violent ones that don't involve firearms. That's why there's practically no rape, anymore. If a person does anything violent to another person, these days, that takes longer than shooting them and running off, the cops pretty much manage to get there soon enough to prevent it from going too far. Anyone who says they need more than the police to protect them is just being a paranoid separatist militia tinfoil hat wearing nutjob.

 

[George Costanza]

'About to lose her life' is a gray scale.

As I said, the test is an objective one, not subjective. In other words, the trier of fact must itself into the position of the person being attacked, and judge whether or not a reasonable person in the position of the person being attacked would have felt that the attack was life threatening. Which brings us to your next comment . . .

What amazes me are the people who think that they can sit behind a desk in their office attire and judge whether a person who has been abused by the same man for years is truly in danger or not. If that isnt arrogance of legendary proportions I dont know what would be.

Yes, it probably is arrogance - but it's the only thing we (the legal system) have. What's the alternative - to have the person being attacked be allowed to set the standard as to whether they were justified in using deadly force? Think about it. The attacker is dead and the person who was being attacked is on trial for killing them. What do you think the defendant in that case (the person who had been attacked, killed the attacker and is now on trial for murder) is going to say on that point? "Yes, the dirty look that he gave me made it very clear that my life was in danger, so I shot him."

See the problem? So the legal system must "arrogantly" make a judgment as to whether or not the actions of the person being attacked in killing the attacker, were really justified. The only way to do that is by an objective determination that takes into account all of the circumstances that took place at the time.

 

[Katzndogz]

'About to lose her life' is a gray scale.

As I said, the test is an objective one, not subjective. In other words, the trier of fact must itself into the position of the person being attacked, and judge whether or not a reasonable person in the position of the person being attacked would have felt that the attack was life threatening. Which brings us to your next comment . . .

What amazes me are the people who think that they can sit behind a desk in their office attire and judge whether a person who has been abused by the same man for years is truly in danger or not. If that isnt arrogance of legendary proportions I dont know what would be.

Yes, it probably is arrogance - but it's the only thing we (the legal system) have. What's the alternative - to have the person being attacked be allowed to set the standard as to whether they were justified in using deadly force? Think about it. The attacker is dead and the person who was being attacked is on trial for killing them. What do you think the defendant in that case (the person who had been attacked, killed the attacker and is now on trial for murder) is going to say on that point? "Yes, the dirty look that he gave me made it very clear that my life was in danger, so I shot him."

See the problem? So the legal system must "arrogantly" make a judgment as to whether or not the actions of the person being attacked in killing the attacker, were really justified. The only way to do that is by an objective determination that takes into account all of the circumstances that took place at the time.

Brown v. United States
Brown v. United States - 256 U.S. 335 (1921) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Detatched reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

 

[Bigfoot]

Hopefully no one here will ever be found in a position to find out.

 

[WillowTree]

That woman who went all the way to the back of the bus and started savagely clubbing the man for no reason is a good case in point and he needed to do it before she rang his bells and put his lights out. He would never be convicted.

 

[9thIDdoc]

How bad does his 'manhandling' have to get before she is justified in shooting him dead?

To a point where a reasonable person in the position of the woman would be justified in believing that the force being used against her was in fact deadly. It is an objective standard, not subjective. To put it another way, someone in the woman's position would have to feel that she was about to lose her life and, in order to save it, she had to shoot the attacker dead. Once again, an objective standard, not subjective.

There's nothing objective about making a guess about what an imginary person would think in a rumored situation.

 

[9thIDdoc]

IN most civilized places, the benchmark for legally using deadly force when faced with violence is this:

When that victim of the violence is given sufficient reason to think that their life and limb are in jeopardy and they have no avenue of escape.

Of course the test of what is acceptable defence depends on where you live.

In some places you can kill an intruder regardless of the threat you might or might not feel from the interloper

Nothing reasonable about the inclusion of "...and they have no avenue of escape."
in that standard. Sometimes trying to excape will get you killed quicker than anything else.

 

[JimBowie1958]

IN most civilized places, the benchmark for legally using deadly force when faced with violence is this:

When that victim of the violence is given sufficient reason to think that their life and limb are in jeopardy and they have no avenue of escape.

Of course the test of what is acceptable defence depends on where you live.

In some places you can kill an intruder regardless of the threat you might or might not feel from the interloper

Nothing reasonable about the inclusion of "...and they have no avenue of escape."
in that standard. Sometimes trying to excape will get you killed quicker than anything else.

In normal life, the standard of 'reasonably feels threatened' is NOT morphed into 'theatened and cannot flee'.

The law abiding should not be xpected to flee the cimrinal.

That sort of civilization is the sort where the mob rules and wants to protect their shylocks and leg-breakers.

 

[bobgnote]

Anybody should be subject to deadly force, who watches Seinfeld re-runs, including late at night, taking up the downstairs TV, without admitting somebody named Larry and Jerry tried to make a point, about how the last several sociopathic US Presidents would be better served, if they lived in NYC, where Nixon moved, after he resigned.