ELITEofWarman8
King of Swissland
- May 13, 2013
- 117
- 19
Why do you all think about the right to defend yourself? How far or little should you be able to go to be able to do that?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?
Why do you all think about the right to defend yourself? How far or little should you be able to go to be able to do that?
Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?
There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.
Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?
There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.
I disagree, George. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I don't have the time or ability to determine if it's a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. For my own safety, and since they have forced their way into my sanctuary, I must assume it's a deadly attack. I'm a small woman, hesitation could get me killed.
I see what you're saying, but if some little old lady shoots someone who broke into her house in the middle of the night, and it turns out the intruder didn't have a gun...it shouldn't matter. They wouldn't have needed a gun to seriously hurt or kill the old lady. She has a right to equalize the situation. If they don't want to get killed they should quit breaking into people's houses.
Now, outside of your house, the question becomes a little trickier. : ) I carry bear spray when I walk my dogs. If some guy wants to mess with me, and the two Dobermans don't scare him off, I figure the bear spray will do the trick until I can get away/get help.
But he deserves to be shot dead.
Now, outside of your house, the question becomes a little trickier. : ) I carry bear spray when I walk my dogs. If some guy wants to mess with me, and the two Dobermans don't scare him off, I figure the bear spray will do the trick until I can get away/get help.
But he deserves to be shot dead.
In passing, I would certainly hope that not EVERY guy who might want to mess with you, deserves to be shot dead. Just sayin'
Just trying to spark a debate.
There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.
I disagree, George. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I don't have the time or ability to determine if it's a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. For my own safety, and since they have forced their way into my sanctuary, I must assume it's a deadly attack. I'm a small woman, hesitation could get me killed.
I see what you're saying, but if some little old lady shoots someone who broke into her house in the middle of the night, and it turns out the intruder didn't have a gun...it shouldn't matter. They wouldn't have needed a gun to seriously hurt or kill the old lady. She has a right to equalize the situation. If they don't want to get killed they should quit breaking into people's houses.
No - if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you have every right to shoot to kill. No argument there.
If someone comes up to your table in a restaurant, calls you a nasty name and throws a drink in your face, you do have a right to act in self defense, but that would not include hauling a gun out and shooting them, at least not until they escalate things with some type of deadly force against you.
Here's another one for you - suppose two guys get into a fight. A starts the fight. B merely defends himself, at first. But, as the fight progresses, B gets the better of A (the guy who started it). Now A is lying on the ground, knocked unconscious. B continues to kick him while he is on the ground. That would be a no-no. Self defense does not extend to a point where the opponent is no longer able to defend himself.
Define the circumstance and then we can tell you how we think we ought to react, eh?
There's the right answer. It depends. You cannot use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly attack. Whatever is reasonable under the circumstances - and the test is an objective one, not subjective.
I disagree, George. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I don't have the time or ability to determine if it's a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. For my own safety, and since they have forced their way into my sanctuary, I must assume it's a deadly attack. I'm a small woman, hesitation could get me killed.
Anyone who argues there is no such right is just plain silly.Why do you all think about the right to defend yourself? How far or little should you be able to go to be able to do that?
The good thing about the truth is that it almost always sets you free.The obvious problem that might arise is that no one believes you were actually defending yourself. Then you are accused of murder. And convicted of murder. As we have seen happen recently.
The obvious problem that might arise is that no one believes you were actually defending yourself. Then you are accused of murder. And convicted of murder. As we have seen happen recently.