Poll: Would you permanently disable or kill an attacker?

[summit]

Originally posted by: Terabyte
I'd permanently disable an attacker. Disabling them when they threaten you = self defense. Killing them when unnecessary is crossing the line of self defense, and is going to be considered murder.

not murder it was not premeditated, manslaughter maybe.

 

[Jumpem]

Without question.

 

[JackBurton]

Disable them and then set them on fire?

 

[imported_Devine]

Me before them, always.

 

[cubeless]

be sure u kill if u shoot... do not shoot at head, unload all bullets in gun into mid-chest... be sure u are packing at least a .38 special... be sure u load hollow point bullets... this best for both shooter and shootee, u are safe and they die fast... reload your gun immediately... if u r not shaking and barfing take some pics with your cell phone... if u cannot secure the area, remove yourself immediately to a safe place whilst calling the police...

you do not want a wounded perp getting sympathy... you will have enough grief behind this without sympathy for the perp... but just make damn sure u r right when u pull that trigger...

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Disable them. The attacker could be mentally ill and doesn't deserve to die.

It's really, really hard to just "disable" someone. In fact, lots of fatal shootings by cops don't disable the attacker right away. They can still fight for a minute or two before they bleed to death.

Don't taze me bro!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: cubeless
be sure u kill if u shoot... do not shoot at head, unload all bullets in gun into mid-chest... be sure u are packing at least a .38 special... be sure u load hollow point bullets... this best for both shooter and shootee, u are safe and they die fast... reload your gun immediately... if u r not shaking and barfing take some pics with your cell phone... post on ATOT... if u cannot secure the area, remove yourself immediately to a safe place whilst calling the police...

you do not want a wounded perp getting sympathy... you will have enough grief behind this without sympathy for the perp... but just make damn sure u r right when u pull that trigger...

Fixed.

 

[cubeless]

i knew i forgot something...

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Hell yes, especially if this is taking place more than five months in the future; I plan on getting myself a handgun and concealed carry permit for my 21st birthday. Now I am by no means paranoid, but I'm not so naive as to think "it'll never happen to me."

Same here except I'm 24 and I should have mine in 1-2 months.

From everything I've heard, there's really no concept of "shooting not to kill" when you're in a self defense situation. Aiming for the legs, which are narrow and constantly moving in all directions, is a good way to miss and get killed yourself.

Yup, I'd aim for center of mass, if they're threatening my life I want them knocked out, not pissed off. "Shoot for the head" sounds nice on an internet forum but it's simply a much smaller target than their torso, not to mention much more likely to get you in trouble with the law if you actually hit it.

And FWIW, Oklahoma's version of Castle Doctrine states that you can use deadly force, without warning the assailant that you are about to do so, if you are anywhere that you have a legal right to be. Text And on the other end of the spectrum there are states where you're basically hamstrung and not allowed to do much of anything, even in your own house, so you just need to look it up yourself before you get yourself in trouble. Text

 

[nakedfrog]

I would prefer to kill them if for no other reason to avoid retribution. Especially if it was a home intruder.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

hopefully the guard bears will do the job for me

 

[Kirby]

Dead as a doornail.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I would prefer to kill them if for no other reason to avoid retribution. Especially if it was a home intruder.

This.

 

[jlee]

.45acp downrange until the threat is neutralized- whether they're alive or not is not my primary concern.

 

[Bignate603]

If they are a threat to me, my family, or even somebody that cannot defend themselves I would have no problem using force. If they are willing to use deadly force I will be too.

 

[conehead433]

This thread make me think that it should be a law for everyone to carry a gun. Better to have an occasional person go off tilt than have one person going on a rampage without stopping power nearby.

 

[KingGheedora]

Are you asking rhetorically, if we'd have a problem disabling an attacker? I wouldn't. I don't think I actually could if they had a knife or gun though.

 

[Eeezee]

If I could at least get the upper hand (ie if I'm able to knock them out or at least wear them out), then I wouldn't be afraid of breaking their arms and legs, to say the least. And then I might throw them in a river.

I wouldn't go as far as direct murder, but indirect murder (ie pushing an unconscious person into a river after breaking their limbs) or perhaps paralysis. Of course, that's assuming I knew what I was doing, which I don't.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: KingGheedora
Are you asking rhetorically, if we'd have a problem disabling an attacker? I wouldn't. I don't think I actually could if they had a knife or gun though.

I'm pretty sure it's rhetorical, yeah.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I would prefer to kill them if for no other reason to avoid retribution. Especially if it was a home intruder.

I see nothing wrong with this, so long as you're not going to be tried for murder, which is a real possibility in many states.

Hmm, I need to pose a new question in a new thread

 

[BurnItDwn]

Concealed Carry is illegal here (Illinois), so the ability to permanently disable or kill an attacker would be vastly diminished on the streets. That said, I would do what I could to make sure they never hurt anybody else.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Who's to say that my life is worth more than theirs? No one should have the right or the power to kill someone. I will never try kill someone, not even in my defense or in the defense of another.

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Disable them. The attacker could be mentally ill and doesn't deserve to die.

Why do mentally ill people not deserve to die?

 

[0roo0roo]

only if it were justifiable homicide.
no need to get yourself into hot water going to far

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Depends on the situation. To protect someone else I'd do what I can and go as far as I need to go.

Chances of being sued by the criminal are not as bad in the Netherlands. But most likely breaking a few fingers would be all that is needed if knocking him out immediately is not an option. Make sure you can get away safely, then call the police to tell them about it. If you do not report it they can warn the police that you attacked them, and then you're screwed instead.