[QUOTE=Bean-O;18841436]Did anyone mention that this happens [i]quite often[/i] yet?
There are over a million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. Only a small fraction (such as this one) involve a fatality, but never the less it happens.[/QUOTE]
Surely that only serves to prove people who support Trotsky's argument.
that if there can be millions of cases involving firearms, and a small fraction not involving a fatality, then that shows that lethal force isn't necessary.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18841560]Surely that only serves to prove people who support Trotsky's argument.
that if there can be millions of cases involving firearms, and a small fraction not involving a fatality, then that shows that lethal force isn't necessary.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but in this particular case, the woman obviously did not mean to kill the man. She didn't want to. But she panicked. It's hard to think about using "non lethal" force and consider "options" when there's a man coming at you. Of course, if one DOES have the time to consider the option to use non-lethal force to deter a criminal, then by all means, please take that route. The man didn't deserve to die but it is his fault that he did. He knew the woman had a gun and chose to ignore that.
[QUOTE=Pascall;18842047]Yes, but in this particular case, the woman obviously did not mean to kill the man. She didn't want to. But she panicked. It's hard to think about using "non lethal" force and consider "options" when there's a man coming at you. Of course, if one DOES have the time to consider the option to use non-lethal force to deter a criminal, then by all means, please take that route. The man didn't deserve to die but it is his fault that he did. He knew the woman had a gun and chose to ignore that.[/QUOTE]
But that is based on the interpretation of events provided by the woman.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18842443]But that is based on the interpretation of events provided by the woman.[/QUOTE]
What other interpretation would you consider? The criminal's?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18841560]Surely that only serves to prove people who support Trotsky's argument.
that if there can be millions of cases involving firearms, and a small fraction not involving a fatality, then that shows that lethal force isn't necessary.[/QUOTE]
You're being thick. Just because a firearm is able to take someone down and out doesn't mean that that somehow justifies using only other nonlethal methods to accomplish the same goal. Most of those methods are far, FAR more dangerous and could expose the victim to bodily harm or potential death they otherwise might not suffer. Not to mention that most of said methods would be much less effective.
It's a firearm's ability to neutralize an intruder effectively, without allowing harm to come [i]near[/i] the victim, that makes them such a widely used self-defense option in the United States.
[QUOTE=nERVEcenter;18842702]You're being thick. Just because a firearm is able to take someone down and out doesn't mean that that somehow justifies using only other nonlethal methods to accomplish the same goal. Most of those methods are far, FAR more dangerous and could expose the victim to bodily harm or potential death they otherwise might not suffer. Not to mention that most of said methods would be much less effective.
It's a firearm's ability to neutralize an intruder effectively, without allowing harm to come [i]near[/i] the victim, that makes them such a widely used self-defense option in the United States.[/QUOTE]
wow... Your argument went in a complete circle.
I doubt she aimed to kill. Most soldiers wouldn't, let alone a civilian.
Also, I doubt this dictates as "execution" OP.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18841560]Surely that only serves to prove people who support Trotsky's argument.
that if there can be millions of cases involving firearms, and a small fraction not involving a fatality, then that shows that lethal force isn't necessary.[/QUOTE]
uh, that's because the criminals aren't dumb and they run away when they see the gun, instead of drunkenly charging like this guy. just because it's self defense without a fatality doesn't mean every one of them were shoot-to-wound scenarios (when in reality self defense is shoot-to-incapacitate, which is the torso area).
[QUOTE=Nanaki;18843565]I doubt she aimed to kill. Most soldiers wouldn't, let alone a civilian.
Also, I doubt this dictates as "execution" OP.[/QUOTE]
Soldiers don't aim to kill?
what?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;18841560]Surely that only serves to prove people who support Trotsky's argument.
that if there can be millions of cases involving firearms, and a small fraction not involving a fatality, then that shows that lethal force isn't necessary.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely.
If you have the threat of lethal force in your hands and the perpetrator knows you aren't allowed to actually use it under any circumstances that threat isn't worth as much.
Again, we can use law enforcement as an example.
Assume that cops are never allowed to actually shoot anyone regardless of the circumstances, even if the person he was shooting at was trying to slaughter him or someone else with a gun. Never. Period. They can't do it and the guns, while very real and loaded with real ammo can never, under ANY circumstances, be used to take anyone's life.
Knowing this, if a cop were to upholster his weapon and aim it at you, something that according to those rules he can still do, is that threat of lethal force still as scary as a scenario where you know he CAN pull the trigger?
The answer is no.
It is still intimidating, but far less so. Because you know the odds that he will compromise his career and potentially put himself in prison are unlikely. Whereas in the real world that threat is at face value. He wouldn't unholster the weapon unless he is ready and able to use it and therefore you damn better comply. So it goes without saying.
Let's apply that to the scenario in question.
You shouldn't try to use a real gun loaded with live, lethal ammunition in your defense unless you are prepared to use it. Knowing this, most criminals will know that when most of their victims point a gun at them, they are ready to use it. But because some aren't, some criminals call that bluff, which is what caused the man in the story we're discussing his life. He made the fatal mistake in that he believed his victim wouldn't follow through with the threat of lethal force. And she did.
Therefore in this case I would sooner say it is the perpetrator, rather than the person defending herself that made the mistake, resulting in a fatality.
Therefore, and such is the prevailing doctrine, if you have the threat of use of lethal force but either the lack of right or will and the perpetrator is aware of that the threat in question is less effective for that reason.
They are more likely, not less, under that circumstance to call your bluff.
I wasn't aware all criminals were law experts, Bean-O
I'm not talking law here, I'm talking common sense.
If someone points a gun at you it is good practice to assume it is loaded and the person holding it is ready and willing to use it.
The law does, and should, adhere to that basic premise.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18837753]Stealing is a dick thing to do.
We get it
it is, however, nothing you should die over[/QUOTE]
Well this guy did, get over it.
[QUOTE=Urkel01;18805555]there is a homeless black man breaking into my house to steal some of my food to feed his family, it's my hard-earned things so I better take the top of his head off with my super-awesome 5.32x chamber bullet steel-scoped AR15 assault rifle. this is appropriate retribution
people who don't support shooting every living thing that comes within 20 feet of their homes are stupid, I guess
yes I would seriously debate something with a bunch of 13-year-olds who fap over their guns and play modern warfare 2 everyday, without understanding what the consequences of killing another human being is.
holy fuck finally someone who isn't completely insane[/QUOTE]
You are twisting this into extreme examples of thing that RARELY HAPPEN. This guy was insane, so she defended herself, it wasn't some poor guy trying to feed his family. It was a convicted criminal who was threatening her.
We aren't saying we shoot everything that comes near us, we are saying that she was right to defend herself when threatened. She was very obviously threatened. What should she do, wait until AFTER he throws the table, comes in, and does something like assault her of break more shit? His intentions were fucking obvious.
This isn't a "we kill stuff cause it's fun" rant. It's a "we believe in our rights to defend ourselves" rant. I would love to see your reaction in a home invasion. "Hey guy, can we talk this out? You don't NEED to do this." And then you'd probably get raped and killed by a psychopath. Seriously this is the real world, grow up, shit like this happens and kind words and logical arguments don't work on batshit insane people.
[QUOTE=Bobbo666;18844552]You are twisting this into extreme examples of thing that RARELY HAPPEN. This guy was insane, so she defended herself, it wasn't some poor guy trying to feed his family. It was a convicted criminal who was threatening her.
We aren't saying we shoot everything that comes near us, we are saying that she was right to defend herself when threatened. She was very obviously threatened. What should she do, wait until AFTER he throws the table, comes in, and does something like assault her of break more shit? His intentions were fucking obvious.
This isn't a "we kill stuff cause it's fun" rant. It's a "we believe in our rights to defend ourselves" rant. I would love to see your reaction in a home invasion. "Hey guy, can we talk this out? You don't NEED to do this." And then you'd probably get raped and killed by a psychopath. Seriously this is the real world, grow up, shit like this happens and kind words and logical arguments don't work on batshit insane people.[/QUOTE]
Don't try and reason with the unreasonable.
[QUOTE=Bobbo666;18844552]You are twisting this into extreme examples of thing that RARELY HAPPEN. This guy was insane, so she defended herself, it wasn't some poor guy trying to feed his family. It was a convicted criminal who was threatening her.
We aren't saying we shoot everything that comes near us, we are saying that she was right to defend herself when threatened. She was very obviously threatened. What should she do, wait until AFTER he throws the table, comes in, and does something like assault her of break more shit? His intentions were fucking obvious.
This isn't a "we kill stuff cause it's fun" rant. It's a "we believe in our rights to defend ourselves" rant. I would love to see your reaction in a home invasion. "Hey guy, can we talk this out? You don't NEED to do this." And then you'd probably get raped and killed by a psychopath. Seriously this is the real world, grow up, shit like this happens and kind words and logical arguments don't work on batshit insane people.[/QUOTE]
You don't fucking seem to understand this ONE basic concept:
There is IN FACT a middle ground. It's not kill or be killed. This is not a video game like you people think it is. You can wound people. And I don't think severely wounded people are a threat.
[editline]03:06AM[/editline]
[quote=malumbre;18844607]don't try and reason with the unreasonable.[/quote]
"I'm helping!" - you
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18845369]You don't fucking seem to understand this ONE basic concept:
There is IN FACT a middle ground. It's not kill or be killed. This is not a video game like you people think it is. You can wound people. And I don't think severely wounded people are a threat.
[/QUOTE]
You're partly right- It's not a video game, which means you risk a lot more than taking 20 damage by taking too long to act.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18845369]You don't fucking seem to understand this ONE basic concept:
There is IN FACT a middle ground. It's not kill or be killed. This is not a video game like you people think it is. You can wound people. And I don't think severely wounded people are a threat.[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to understand that not a lot of people think the way you do and intruders are going to get killed, not wounded, for their stupidity. What the hell are you even arguing about here? Idealism =/= realism.
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;18845423]You're partly right- It's not a video game, which means you risk a lot more than taking 20 damage by taking too long to act.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because in order to think, you need to stand there for 10 whole minutes thinking.
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;18845423]You're partly right- It's not a video game, which means you risk a lot more than taking 20 damage by taking too long to act.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. When it comes to your own safety, shoot first and sort it out later. If you end up getting killed because you're breaking into someone's house, well that's your problem, isn't it? Should have thought twice, especially in the states where there are 90 guns between every 100 people.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;18845482]You don't seem to understand that not a lot of people think the way you do and intruders are going to get killed, not wounded, for their stupidity. What the hell are you even arguing about here? Idealism =/= realism.[/QUOTE]
that in a home invasion the persons goal is not to kill everyone and if you have a gun, you do not actually have to kill them.
I'm not pushing idealism you fucking tool, nor are you pushing "realism"
there is in between's
So Trotsky, a man breaks into your house screaming bloody murder, you're trapped inside your house and all you have is a shotgun to defend yourself. Tell me, what do you do?
Is it just me or is there no way what so ever to win in this thread? :geno:
C'mon guys can't we just come to something we can agree with?
[QUOTE=Malumbre;18845504]Exactly. When it comes to your own safety, shoot first and sort it out later. If you end up getting killed because you're breaking into someone's house, well that's your problem, isn't it? Should have thought twice, especially in the states where there are 90 guns between every 100 people.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is, trespassing should be punishable by death?
why do you still post?
[editline]03:17AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=GhostSonic;18845530]So Trotsky, a man breaks into your house screaming bloody murder, you're trapped inside your house and all you have is a shotgun to defend yourself. Tell me, what do you do?[/QUOTE]
I won't actually fire until he does something rash. If he comes at me, I aim for the legs.
If I kill him, oh well, I did something horrible that will bother me for the rest of my life, but it was out of self preservation.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18845529]that in a home invasion the persons goal is not to kill everyone and if you have a gun, you do not actually have to kill them.
I'm not pushing idealism you fucking tool, nor are you pushing "realism"
there is in between's[/QUOTE]
She pointed her gun and shot because some crazy cunt was busting her shit, scaring her, and more than likely threatening her with violence or death. There is no in between here. She shot, he paid the price, the end.
You are pushing idealism by saying there is a much more preferred and [i]IDEAL[/i] way for this to have played out.
[editline]09:28PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18845549]I won't actually fire until he does something rash. If he comes at me, I aim for the legs.
If I kill him, oh well, I did something horrible that will bother me for the rest of my life, but it was out of self preservation.[/QUOTE]
Once again, idealism. There are so many variables in a situation like this. You're not always going to be in a position to think and aim well enough to hit a much smaller, moving target, assuming he's charging you. What if you miss? Are you going to plead with him to stay where he is and stand still so you can fire another shot at his knee?
[QUOTE=Malumbre;18845646]She pointed her gun and shot because some crazy cunt was busting her shit, scaring her, and more than likely threatening her with violence or death. There is no in between here. She shot, he paid the price, the end.
You are pushing idealism by saying there is a much more preferred and [i]IDEAL[/i] way for this to have played out.[/QUOTE]
I know you don't give two shits about human life, because your windows and fragile ears are SO much more important, but what you have to fucking understand is, that's paranoia. maybe he was drunk and trying to scare her, you don't know what exactly happened.
And if she wounded him, would that not be idealism on YOUR part?
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18845549]So what you're saying is, trespassing should be punishable by death?
why do you still post?[/quote]
No, breaking and entering is not punishable by death in the court of law, but when you're dealing with an armed and very scared woman who isn't an expert marksman, and probably had nothing but fear and adrenaline driving her, then it's the most likely outcome and I don't blame her in the least for what happened. I blame the criminal. I'd rather he die for his stupid behaviour than see a hair on her head harmed.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;18845646]
Once again, idealism. There are so many variables in a situation like this. You're not always going to be in a position to think and aim well enough to hit a much smaller, moving target, assuming he's charging you. What if you miss? Are you going to plead with him to stay where he is and stand still so you can fire another shot at his knee?[/QUOTE]LOOK AT ME, i can shout theword idealism around like itfucking means something
IDEALISM
IDEALISM
IDEALISM
way to make a superficial argument.
A shot gun in a close range and closed area like a kitchen is pretty easy to hit a target. you're being fucking retarded- oh, sorry, more then usual. Which is a plus, I might add.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18845813]I know you don't give two shits about human life, because your windows and fragile ears are SO much more important, but what you have to fucking understand is, that's paranoia. maybe he was drunk and trying to scare her, you don't know what exactly happened.
And if she wounded him, would that not be idealism on YOUR part?[/QUOTE]
I do value life. I don't even harm insects. It doesn't mean I'm going to put my own life in danger to help an attacker out however.
No, that's your ideal scenario. It played out how it played out and I accept that.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;18845844]No, breaking and entering is not punishable by death in the court of law, but when you're dealing with an armed and very scared woman who isn't an expert marksman, and probably had nothing but fear and adrenaline driving her, then it's the most likely outcome and I don't blame her in the least for what happened. I blame the criminal. I'd rather he die for his stupid behaviour than see a hair on her head harmed.[/QUOTE]
you are obviously too slow to fucking understand this
so let me spell it out
you are in a closed area with a shotgun. A man theoretically charges at you, you, having this weapon in this environment, will, in fact, wound him if you aim low. Maybe it'll kill him, but less of a chance.
Yes, I'm implying someone USE their fucking head. Something you're incapable to do
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.