Poll: Would you permanently disable or kill an attacker?

[Stiganator]

You're on a street late at night and assailant(s) approach you and threaten you with violence (knife, gun, etc).If the opportunity presented itself would you be able to permanently disable (paralyze, shatter knee, etc) or kill your would be attacker(s)? This is assuming you have the physical ability to do so, they attempted to attack you, and you verbal told them to leave you alone.

Seems like trash like that get what they deserve, I would have no problem dispatching them with extreme prejudice.

 

[CrazyLazy]

Personally I wouldn't because in that situation the attacker has a better chance of killing me than I do of killing him. You have to weigh the odds of them killing you if you do nothing, and them killing you if you try to fight back, and if I was bigger/armed i might fight back.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Random Variable]

Was he trying to rape me in the butt?

 

[JohnCU]

kill them so they wouldn't sue me

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
kill them so they wouldn't sue me

Exactly... dead thugs can't sue, although their pathetic families occasionally do.

 

[Ruptga]

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."

 

[PrinceofWands]

No worries at all, that's why I carry a gun.

 

[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.

 

[LS21]

the assailant would suffer more greatly living paralyzed, then being afforded death.... i'd stab em a few times

 

[PrinceofWands]

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 going is going to be considered murder.

Actually in most areas the opposite is true. If you act against an opponent without trying to kill them it's thought that you weren't really in fear for your life, and therefore no form of violence was warranted. I don't agree with it, of course, but that is how the courts spin it. I have a couple friends who served prison time because they fired warning shots, fired at a cars tires, or struck to wound/incapacitate instead of kill.

The moral is, if you're going to strike, kill.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No worries at all, that's why I carry a gun.

:thumbsup:


If I feel threatened enough to use my firearm, then I am going to do my best to kill the attacker with as many rounds as it takes to stop them.

 

[illusion88]

This thread makes me want a gun. Although never once in my life have I ever thought "danm I wish I had a gun so I could save my life or the life of another".

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

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 going is going to be considered murder.

Actually in most areas the opposite is true. If you act against an opponent without trying to kill them it's thought that you weren't really in fear for your life, and therefore no form of violence was warranted. I don't agree with it, of course, but that is how the courts spin it. I have a couple friends who served prison time because they fired warning shots, fired at a cars tires, or struck to wound/incapacitate instead of kill.

The moral is, if you're going to strike, kill.

Furthermore, there have been many cases of would-be robbers who were shot but NOT killed turning around and suing the homeowner for injuring them. In the research I've been doing on guns, a lot of people seem to believe (and rightly so) that it's better to kill an intruder than injure him because it's much harder for the family to sue you successfully than it is for the intruder to do so.

Pretty fucked up.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Disable them. The attacker could be mentally ill and doesn't deserve to die.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Shit, I voted wrong in the poll, but if this person clearly wanted to harm or kill me I wouldn't think twice about "shooting to kill".

 

[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.

 

[Baked]

Death is the only solution to stop these types of POS from committing the crime again on somebody else. Do the right thing and shoot them in the head.

 

[Deeko]

I wouldn't really make a determination. I would do what I had to do to stop them. To quote the great Ivan Drago - "If he dies, he dies".

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: JohnCU
kill them so they wouldn't sue me

Exactly... dead thugs can't sue, although their pathetic families occasionally do.

Bah...I wouldn't stick around. I'd just dump the body in a storm drain and let the rats take care of the rest.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: Baked
Death is the only solution to stop these types of POS from committing the crime again on somebody else. Do the right thing and shoot them in the head.

QFT. Make sure they are dead one way or another. Make sure you leave no DNA evidence and no one sees you at the scene. Then get the hell quickly away. They will have gotten what they deserved and you don't deserve to be sued for their death or injuries if you just disable them.

 

[Nitemare]

gladly

 

[Sinsear]

It's pretty easy to say one thing or another on an internet forum.

 

[BoomerD]

Why of course not. They're probably the result of a terrible childhood, and never learned to make good choices in life. I'm sure they're basically good people inside, they just need some guidance...

Yoar poal faels.

Thyere neads to bea options for:
Not unless my life (or that of a loved one) was in imminent danger
AND
If I had a clear opportunityto do so.

Charging into the teeth of loaded weapons sounds brave, looks great on the television, but isn't very smart.

Nowadays, I probably physically couldn't do such a thing, but once upon a time...well, I have a couple of minor scars from similar experiences...(and I survived to be the crabby old fuck that I am today)