Poll: Would you permanently disable or kill an attacker?

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't fergit to sex em up afore you toss em in teh reever...no sense in wasting a perfectly good opportunity...

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

I'd do whatever was necessary. If I have to break his neck to stop him then I would. If all it takes is a punch to deter him, then that's fine as well.

 

[Xavier434]

I would do whatever I felt necessary to get out of the situation. My safety is priority #1 and nothing else matters in that kind of scenario. If that means killing or disabling my attacker then so be it and I would not feel bad about it at all. However, I would not do that just to do it regardless of what I felt they deserved. It is not my job to decide punishment for criminals. I am not above the law any more than they are. Pushing that limit is not going to help keep me safer and I feel it just adds more fuel to fire in our society. Besides, I believe that going beyond the limit in some states can get me prison time and I don't feel like risking that after I am already convinced that I am safe.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
Who's to say that my life is worth more than theirs?

Well, for starters, you aren't initiating an assault on an innocent victim. That's a damn good indication that your life is worth more than theirs.

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
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.

So, through your own inaction, you would allow an innocent victim to die? If you watched a man come up to someone without provocation and assault the victim in such a way that death was essentially assured, and the only way for you to stop the assault was to kill the attacker, you would instead choose to allow the unprovoked attacker to live while choosing to let the innocent victim die?

Why do you give criminals the right to kill people but deny innocent victims that same right?

ZV

 

[sourceninja]

I would have to be in fear of my life (or my family members life) to attack someone. If I did attack them I would kill them. Fear for my life means exactly that. I had a guy take a swing at me a few days ago at a bar. I didn't fight back, I just kept the distance and waited for it to get broken up. I knew I was mostly sober and he was very drunk and not a threat.

Now a situation where the guy has a weapon, confronts me on the street, or is breaking into my house, well I'm going to have to kill him. I won't feel good about it I'm sure, but I wont' hesitate and put anyone else at risk. I have a nice shotgun in my closet for that purpose and a few very nice carry weapons. Admittedly, I do not carry as often as I used too. It is a hassle. But I think even without a weapon I still have a better then average chance at saving my life in a street fight. I base this on competitive martial arts training (bjj, judo, MMA).

 

[TallBill]

Whatever your choice is, if someone pulls a gun or a knife on you, do not verbally tell them to leave you alone.

 

[KeithTalent]

Really hard to say what I would do until actually backed into a corner like that. I'm certainly not going to proclaim I'm some badass and would whoop someone silly if they tried to attack me personally, because for all I know I would just piss my pants and cower like a little girl.

I am quite sure I would try my best to disable an attacker, to the point of causing him/her physical harm, if they were to attack someone I love. I am typically less concerned with my own safety, but if you threaten someone I love then I will do everything in my power to stop you, to the point where fear of endangering myself would go out the window.

KT

 

[IceBergSLiM]

In a situation like that its all survival instincts and adrenaline. I would do whatever was necessary to insure my survival even if it means eating babies

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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.

In self defense situations you do not attempt to kill, you attempt to stop the threat, it just happens that killing them is the usual outcome.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Would I be willing to kill/disable someone in self defense?....absolutely. However, I would not execute someone, just because I have them submitted and I think they're trash and deserve to die, if that's what you're asking.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
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.

So, through your own inaction, you would allow an innocent victim to die? If you watched a man come up to someone without provocation and assault the victim in such a way that death was essentially assured, and the only way for you to stop the assault was to kill the attacker, you would instead choose to allow the unprovoked attacker to live while choosing to let the innocent victim die?

Why do you give criminals the right to kill people but deny innocent victims that same right?

ZV

I cannot speak for Mr. Pickles, but given the scenario you are presenting I would most likely try to stop the attacker without trying to kill him if I believe I can do so. If that is not possible and it is a live or die situation then I would kill him without hesitation, but there are few situations where that will be the case unless the attacker is armed with a gun and even then there are exceptions.

One of the biggest reasons why I would be cautious when choosing how to stop the attacker is that I do not want to accidentally harm the victim. This is especially true if my method of resolving the situation involves using a weapon whether it be a gun, knife, bat or whatever. The point is that missing moving targets happens and that could very easily get me in some serious trouble with the law in most states. Not to mention that the whole reason why I am doing this is to help the victim and I do not want to become part of the problem even if by accident.

Then there is also the whole vigilante mentality thing which I disagree with. As I mentioned before, safety is #1 and if that means killing someone else to make that happen then so be it. However, I believe that convincing the general public that they can kill someone in pretty much any given scenario involving this sort of stuff leads to people taking the law into their own hands beyond the desire to keep themselves and/or others safe and that is not a good thing imo. There are simply too many people that desire to punish others and do what they wish to do to criminals because they feel that they deserve it. If you want to have that kind of power then that is fine, but there is a place to do it and that requires one to become a politician. That is how we keep order in this country. What too many people forget is that even criminals have rights until they are proven guilty in a court of law.

There is nothing wrong with defending yourself or others and generally doing what you gotta do to remain safe, but you have to be responsible about it and you have to remember that you are not above the law just because someone else is breaking laws around you. If you want more power, either become a cop or dedicate your time to changing the law.

 

[Wheezer]

if it is in self defense, I would make it my goal.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
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.

So, through your own inaction, you would allow an innocent victim to die? If you watched a man come up to someone without provocation and assault the victim in such a way that death was essentially assured, and the only way for you to stop the assault was to kill the attacker, you would instead choose to allow the unprovoked attacker to live while choosing to let the innocent victim die?

Why do you give criminals the right to kill people but deny innocent victims that same right?

ZV

I cannot speak for Mr. Pickles, but given the scenario you are presenting I would most likely try to stop the attacker without trying to kill him if I believe I can do so. If that is not possible and it is a live or die situation then I would kill him without hesitation, but there are few situations where that will be the case unless the attacker is armed with a gun and even then there are exceptions.

One of the biggest reasons why I would be cautious when choosing how to stop the attacker is that I do not want to accidentally harm the victim. This is especially true if my method of resolving the situation involves using a weapon whether it be a gun, knife, bat or whatever. The point is that missing moving targets happens and that could very easily get me in some serious trouble with the law in most states. Not to mention that the whole reason why I am doing this is to help the victim and I do not want to become part of the problem even if by accident.

Then there is also the whole vigilante mentality thing which I disagree with. As I mentioned before, safety is #1 and if that means killing someone else to make that happen then so be it. However, I believe that convincing the general public that they can kill someone in pretty much any given scenario involving this sort of stuff leads to people taking the law into their own hands beyond the desire to keep themselves and/or others safe and that is not a good thing imo. There are simply too many people that desire to punish others and do what they wish to do to criminals because they feel that they deserve it. If you want to have that kind of power then that is fine, but there is a place to do it and that requires one to become a politician. That is how we keep order in this country. What too many people forget is that even criminals have rights until they are proven guilty in a court of law.

There is nothing wrong with defending yourself or others and generally doing what you gotta do to remain safe, but you have to be responsible about it and you have to remember that you are not above the law just because someone else is breaking laws around you. If you want more power, either become a cop or dedicate your time to changing the law.

I agree that deadly force should be used only when there is reasonable fear for the life or immediate physical safety of oneself or those around you. I do also believe, however, in the right to confront criminals in a situation that may escalate to that reasonable fear. That is to say, if I walk out the door and see someone trying to break into my car, I should be allowed to approach and confront them, but not use deadly force unless they escalate to a point where I am in fear for my life. (In other words, if I yell, "HEY, GET AWAY FROM MY CAR!" and they run off, I should not be allowed to pursue them, but if they turn and come after me, I should be then permitted to act in self-defense.)

ZV

 

[MotionMan]

If I am threatened (or if someone breaks into my house), the moment I get the upper hand, that person is dead. And not just kinda dead. Totally, completely and irreversibly dead. There will not be a Jason moment, nor will there probably be an open casket. Threatening me or my family is punishable by death - no exceptions.

You don't like it? Don't threaten me or my family.

MotionMan

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
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

The list at Wikipedia only has 36 states

Having my house robbed last year, by a group who robbed 40 houses in my neighborhood, only made me more certain that death is the only solution for lost causes. You don't let them live because they'll do it again.

If I had been home or knew who they were, never mind my state's Castle Law; they would be Missing Persons.

 

[jonks]

I would utilize my extensive martial arts training on the perp before drawing my CCW and putting a bullet through each of his eyes while firing between my legs, thus protecting my playmate girlfriend, safeguarding my Rolex, and allowing me to hop in my Porsche convertible and taking off home to relax in my mansion and watch the news report about the incident on my 100" plasma. And then posting about it here of course.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I agree that deadly force should be used only when there is reasonable fear for the life or immediate physical safety of oneself or those around you. I do also believe, however, in the right to confront criminals in a situation that may escalate to that reasonable fear. That is to say, if I walk out the door and see someone trying to break into my car, I should be allowed to approach and confront them, but not use deadly force unless they escalate to a point where I am in fear for my life. (In other words, if I yell, "HEY, GET AWAY FROM MY CAR!" and they run off, I should not be allowed to pursue them, but if they turn and come after me, I should be then permitted to act in self-defense.)

ZV

Sounds fine to me.

You sound like the type of person that understands where the line is drawn and that is a good thing. When it comes to the law and people fearing the idea of acting in self defense, I believe it should be strict enough to the point where people do not push the envelope too far out of a desire to do something more than simply protect themselves, others, or their property.

For example, let's take the scenario you just described with the car and the thief. There are some people who would go out and do what you said, but secretly they almost hope that a confrontation occurs to the point where they can pull out a gun and kill the thief. They do not just want to protect their property. They see the thief and they want to kill them. Sometimes they are even willing to go as far as to try and provoke the thief to confront the "victim" where normally they would have just ran off or something. That or they will even lie about what happened and kill the thief regardless.

To me, that is not right. That extra desire and intent to kill is not a good thing and I believe the law should intimidate people like that so they do not do it. They are not above the law and they have no right to pass judgment. Unfortunately, there is a very fine line between doing what you said and provoking the criminal in the manner that I described. Furthermore, it is even more difficult to prove one way or the other in court which is why these "victims", who are no better than the criminals in my mind, get away with abusing the system. Still, I guess that is better than the needle tipping more in favor of the criminals who started the mess in the first place. Sucks, but there really isn't a more pleasant gray area unless Big Brother starts recording everything all over the place which obviously isn't worth it.

Originally posted by: MotionMan
If I am threatened (or if someone breaks into my house), the moment I get the upper hand, that person is dead. And not just kinda dead. Totally, completely and irreversibly dead. There will not be a Jason moment, nor will there probably be an open casket. Threatening me or my family is punishable by death - no exceptions.

You don't like it? Don't threaten me or my family.

MotionMan

This is a good example of what I mean. MotionMan is acting out of fury and anger in addition to the desire to protect his family and himself. It isn't enough for him to just provide safety and protection. If push came to shove and that protection reasonably required killing then that is fine in my book, but that does not appear to be the case here. He wants to kill the criminal regardless. I believe that is the wrong thing to do. Every murderer justifies to themselves whether it be through the heat of passion or some other means as to why killing at that moment is the right thing to do. It is important that we separate ourselves from the murderers more than that.

Don't get me wrong. I understand why MotionMan would feel that way. I just expect our citizens to have more control over their emotions and remain objective if they wish to continue to be granted their freedoms.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: jonks
I would utilize my extensive martial arts training on the perp before drawing my CCW and putting a bullet through each of his eyes while firing between my legs, thus protecting my playmate girlfriend, safeguarding my Rolex, and allowing me to hop in my porche convertible and taking off home to relax in my mansion and watch the news report about the incident on my 100" plasma. And then posting about it here of course.

i would try to not aim backwards while i shoot a hole through my jacket pocket and hope that one of the 5 rounds is a good hit while hoping that i will get on the no spin zone and lecture circuit so i can then go buy a playmate girlfriend; a Rolex; a porche convertible; a mansion; and a 100" plasma. and have my secretary post about it here...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones
My first option would be to get away, its always best to avoid a fight, there is nothing cowardly about avoiding an unnecessary fight. That being said, if I can't avoid it I'll have no moral issues over seriously fucking up someone in self defense.

:thumbsup:

 

[MyThirdEye]

Originally posted by: Random Variable
Was he trying to rape me in the butt?

You wanna what what, in the butt?

 

[SZLiao214]

I would disable them over killing. If there is more then 1 however they just forfeited their lives.

I see fights in the same way. If someone attacks me i will fight. If there is more then 1 attacker then i will be kneeing and eye gouging the hell out of everyone.

 

[bapace]

without a doubt....and I would go for the kill....No one is suing my ass for permanent disabilities.

 

[Nebor]

Resisting criminals with force just makes the criminals use overwhelming force to start with. We're better off not escalating the level of violence and just giving them what they want.

 

[Golgatha]

The response would be in proportion to the threat.

If the thug wants my wallet and threatens with a gun, he gets it.

If the thug wants my son and threatens with a gun, I'll do everything in my power to make sure he never makes such a threat against anyone ever again.

 

[pontifex]

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.

permanently disabling could be deemed unnecessary or torture...