A matter of life or death
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:20 am
A matter of life or death
We can all probably agree that killing people is something you probably shouldn't do. However, sometimes, such as self-defense, when people are threatened, or a guy with brass stars on his collar tells you to, its seen as acceptable. Under what circumstances is killing people alright? And in that situation, whats the best way to go about it.
-
- KillEvilBanned
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
- Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Yeah, a move is in order.
I think that killing is never justified. End of story.
Incapcitate by all means, but please cause as little permanent damage as possible, it's just common courtesy. People feeling justified in killing in "self defense" is the only reason that cops end up killing so many people, because they are allowed (and trained) to kill.
Bottom line: killing is bad. Don't do it kids.
I think that killing is never justified. End of story.
Incapcitate by all means, but please cause as little permanent damage as possible, it's just common courtesy. People feeling justified in killing in "self defense" is the only reason that cops end up killing so many people, because they are allowed (and trained) to kill.
Bottom line: killing is bad. Don't do it kids.
- neo-dragon
- Commander
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
- Title: Huey Revolutionary
- Location: Canada
I say it's fully justified in self-defense or defense of another. Of course you try to incapacitate rather than kill if at all possible, but if my life or the life of someone I care about is in danger I'll do whatever is necessary to stop the aggressor. If it's kill or be killed, what else can you do?
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
Wow. Some of you are real pansies.
Kidding, kidding. But seriously. With the world as it is, with cops murdering people in the street, with war and sectarian strife around the globe, with hatred run-rampant in all societal circles, your #1 priority is the protection of yourself and your loved ones. You have no other duty, not to me, not to your government, not to "humanity." You have one primary responsibility, and that is to ensure that you and those you care about thrive. I don't care if I have to use a gun, garotte, kitchen knife, whatever. If someone poses a threat to the life or livelihood of myself, my sisters, my parents or my close friends, I'm going to kill them. I'm going to put them into the ground. I'm going to send them to the cemetary, bottom line. In fact, I'd extrapolate this to other life-death situations: if, in the first example in the thread, someone with brass stars on his shoulders tells you to kill someone (presumably, an enemy of the nation you reside), you're gonna do it - otherwise, you are a failure to yourself and your loved ones. Not because this enemy needs to be killed to ensure "peace" (as we don't have details of this hypothetical situation) but because failure to comply is the same as spending the next decade in Leavenworth. You might as well be dead to your family and friends. If I'm ordered to do it, I'm sorry - but that guy is deader than a doornail. Additionally, if I'm told that some enemy has information needed to prevent/mitigate some disasterous attack or plan, I'm going to use whatever coercion is necessary to extract that information. Or say, one of your family is missing; you catch someone with knowledge of it - what are you gonna do? Call the mother-f****** police? Hell no. Not at first, at least. Not so he can cut a deal, get away with his role in it and only give as little information as he has to. No, I'm gonna do a little Dick Cheney water-boarding, if you know what I mean. If I have to make this guy beg me to kill him, just to end the suffering I've put him in, in order to get what I need - I'll do it. No questions asked. Anything less is a compromise with someone else's perceived moral set. Anything less is failure to yourself.
Kidding, kidding. But seriously. With the world as it is, with cops murdering people in the street, with war and sectarian strife around the globe, with hatred run-rampant in all societal circles, your #1 priority is the protection of yourself and your loved ones. You have no other duty, not to me, not to your government, not to "humanity." You have one primary responsibility, and that is to ensure that you and those you care about thrive. I don't care if I have to use a gun, garotte, kitchen knife, whatever. If someone poses a threat to the life or livelihood of myself, my sisters, my parents or my close friends, I'm going to kill them. I'm going to put them into the ground. I'm going to send them to the cemetary, bottom line. In fact, I'd extrapolate this to other life-death situations: if, in the first example in the thread, someone with brass stars on his shoulders tells you to kill someone (presumably, an enemy of the nation you reside), you're gonna do it - otherwise, you are a failure to yourself and your loved ones. Not because this enemy needs to be killed to ensure "peace" (as we don't have details of this hypothetical situation) but because failure to comply is the same as spending the next decade in Leavenworth. You might as well be dead to your family and friends. If I'm ordered to do it, I'm sorry - but that guy is deader than a doornail. Additionally, if I'm told that some enemy has information needed to prevent/mitigate some disasterous attack or plan, I'm going to use whatever coercion is necessary to extract that information. Or say, one of your family is missing; you catch someone with knowledge of it - what are you gonna do? Call the mother-f****** police? Hell no. Not at first, at least. Not so he can cut a deal, get away with his role in it and only give as little information as he has to. No, I'm gonna do a little Dick Cheney water-boarding, if you know what I mean. If I have to make this guy beg me to kill him, just to end the suffering I've put him in, in order to get what I need - I'll do it. No questions asked. Anything less is a compromise with someone else's perceived moral set. Anything less is failure to yourself.
-
- Commander
- Posts: 2741
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
- Title: 01111010 01100111
- First Joined: 0- 8-2001
- Location: Where you least expect me.
- Contact:
What if someone is, without a reasonable doubt, about to kill numerous innocent people, and the only thing you can do stop it is to kill that one person?I think that killing is never justified. End of story.
Incapcitate by all means, but please cause as little permanent damage as possible, it's just common courtesy. People feeling justified in killing in "self defense" is the only reason that cops end up killing so many people, because they are allowed (and trained) to kill.
Bottom line: killing is bad. Don't do it kids.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.
dgf hhw
dgf hhw
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:20 am
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:06 am
- Title: Fill in the Blank
- Location: SC or FL mostly
I don't know if I can say I'd have the will to kill under a circumstance, but I won't rule it out as an option in a moment where I feel like it's the only option. I mean it has to be a major struggle and specific scenario to have to consider killing someone... I dunno. I won't go looking for or anticipate a time when I'd have to kill, but I would kill if I felt like I had to.
Hmm maybe cause it's 4 am but I can't really answer the question the way I want to.
Hmm maybe cause it's 4 am but I can't really answer the question the way I want to.
It is not the sound of victory;
it is not the sound of defeat;
it is the sound of singing that I hear.
-Moses
it is not the sound of defeat;
it is the sound of singing that I hear.
-Moses
- Jebus
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:53 pm
- Title: Lord and Saviour
- First Joined: 07 Nov 2001
That was some rant.Kidding, kidding. But seriously. With the world as it is, with cops murdering people in the street, with war and sectarian strife around the globe, with hatred run-rampant in all societal circles, your #1 priority is the protection of yourself and your loved ones. You have no other duty, not to me, not to your government, not to "humanity." You have one primary responsibility, and that is to ensure that you and those you care about thrive. I don't care if I have to use a gun, garotte, kitchen knife, whatever. If someone poses a threat to the life or livelihood of myself, my sisters, my parents or my close friends, I'm going to kill them. I'm going to put them into the ground. I'm going to send them to the cemetary, bottom line. In fact, I'd extrapolate this to other life-death situations: if, in the first example in the thread, someone with brass stars on his shoulders tells you to kill someone (presumably, an enemy of the nation you reside), you're gonna do it - otherwise, you are a failure to yourself and your loved ones. Not because this enemy needs to be killed to ensure "peace" (as we don't have details of this hypothetical situation) but because failure to comply is the same as spending the next decade in Leavenworth. You might as well be dead to your family and friends. If I'm ordered to do it, I'm sorry - but that guy is deader than a doornail. Additionally, if I'm told that some enemy has information needed to prevent/mitigate some disasterous attack or plan, I'm going to use whatever coercion is necessary to extract that information. Or say, one of your family is missing; you catch someone with knowledge of it - what are you gonna do? Call the mother-f****** police? Hell no. Not at first, at least. Not so he can cut a deal, get away with his role in it and only give as little information as he has to. No, I'm gonna do a little Dick Cheney water-boarding, if you know what I mean. If I have to make this guy beg me to kill him, just to end the suffering I've put him in, in order to get what I need - I'll do it. No questions asked. Anything less is a compromise with someone else's perceived moral set. Anything less is failure to yourself.
I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where one would be able to kill an agressor and not able to incapacitate them, and what the benefit would be of killing them instead.
The little spiel about being ordered to kill someone didn't make much sense to me, but I get the feeling you weren't all together while writing it.
As to torture, well that would involve the sacrificing of my morals in order to gain a small chance to save someone I cared about, which I suppose could happen, if circumstances where very severe. More likely, however, I'd bring him into the police, let them squeeze the information out of him and let him go for all I care, revenge wouldn't be too high on my list of priorities.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
I don't see why you're drawing a distinction between "incapacitate" and "kill." They would both accomplish the same goal for the person in question. I think perhaps that you and certain others are overestimating one's options in the stated "life and death" situations, while underestimating the options of a determined individual who is the cause of your "situation." What are you going to do to "incapacitate" someone? Do a little James Bond judo chop where the chap gets a nice little immediate unconsciousness?
And yes, Jeebs - I was right here the whole time I wrote it.
Lastly, your morals are, as stated, your own. If you wouldn't resort to torture in a situation where it may hypothetically be necessary, so be it. Perhaps you are drawing too clear a distinction between "revenge" and "justice." But alas, that's not my concern.
And yes, Jeebs - I was right here the whole time I wrote it.
Lastly, your morals are, as stated, your own. If you wouldn't resort to torture in a situation where it may hypothetically be necessary, so be it. Perhaps you are drawing too clear a distinction between "revenge" and "justice." But alas, that's not my concern.
- Jebus
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:53 pm
- Title: Lord and Saviour
- First Joined: 07 Nov 2001
I think the distinction is an important one. You'd been making the case that killing your attacker is the only way to defend yourself.I don't see why you're drawing a distinction between "incapacitate" and "kill."
Perhaps I am overestimating, in any case I think if there's truely no other option, and I mean if it's kill or be killed, then by all means do use deadly force. But what I'm saying is that, if you're in a position to kill someone, often enough you're also in a position to leave it at severe bodily harm to the extent where they are no longer a threat.They would both accomplish the same goal for the person in question. I think perhaps that you and certain others are overestimating one's options in the stated "life and death" situations, while underestimating the options of a determined individual who is the cause of your "situation." What are you going to do to "incapacitate" someone? Do a little James Bond judo chop where the chap gets a nice little immediate unconsciousness?
Fair enough, I think an extremely clear line between revenge and justice is needed though.Lastly, your morals are, as stated, your own. If you wouldn't resort to torture in a situation where it may hypothetically be necessary, so be it. Perhaps you are drawing too clear a distinction between "revenge" and "justice." But alas, that's not my concern.
- neo-dragon
- Commander
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
- Title: Huey Revolutionary
- Location: Canada
Incapacitating someone isn't always as easy as one might think. I'm sure we all know that it's not like in the movies where you give a guy a good thump on the head and he's out cold and suffers no more ill effects than a headache an hour later. If we're talking about taking down the aggressor with your bare hands, one of the surest ways to stop someone is a solid blow to the throat. Of course, that can crush a person's wind pipe and have fatal results. Using such an attack doesn't necessarily mean that you are trying to kill the person, even if you're aware that it could have that result. Other attacks like a blow to the solar plexus or even the head or groin might not get the job done, or simply might not do it fast enough. Personally, if it's a life or death scenario, I'm going with whatever means of defense has the highest probability of taking the guy down immediately, even if it also has the highest probability of causing serious injury or death. My philosophy if I'm under attack: I'm only responsible for my own safety and well being. The other guy forfeit his as soon as he made it clear that he has the intention and means to harm me.
I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where one would be able to kill an agressor and not able to incapacitate them, and what the benefit would be of killing them instead.
In an armed situation, for instance, if in intruder with a gun breaks into your home and you have a gun as well, once again incapacitating the intruder isn't so easy or safe. You can try and shoot the guy in the legs but you can only count on getting one shot before the guy shoots you, and you're far more likely to hit if you aim at the body. In fact, even if you hit a leg, the guy will likely still be holding his gun, and he will be alive and conscious. Will pain and shock prevent him from squeezing off a shot at you? Maybe, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. I think he'll have less of a chance at retaliating if he takes the bullet square in the chest.
My point is, the methods which are most likely render the attacker incapable of retaliation are also more likely to be fatal. It's not that I'm saying you should try to kill to be safe, but you have to be aware that specifically trying not to use deadly force against someone who isn't going to grant you the same courtesy is very risky, especially if you haven't received training in that area.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am
DEADLY FORCE
I agree with neo-dragon and AnthonyByakko. I hear people say far too often that if that person was involved in an armed conflict (both parties having guns) they would "shoot the other person in the knees." As has been said, this usually does not have the desired effect (it is not Hollywood) and the person is usually able to maintain their hold on the weapon and is now pumped full of adrenaline, having actually been shot. They can still pull the trigger (rather fast too) and pump the tragically compassionate person full of holes. In that situation compassion will likely get you killed. Anyone who has been in a conflict such as this will probably tell you they fired until their gun was empty, hitting nowhere near their intended target (watch the police videos for evidence of this). The central body mass is large. A kneecap is small. Hitting a target becomes much more difficult under stress. If it was my life on the line I can say that I will not take any chances. I have compassion for human beings who follow the law, not for criminals willing to kill someone for $20. And even if you do manage to hit the person in the knees you have now crippled them for life and, with our rather liberal judicial system in some areas, you will likely be getting sued by your attacker and end up paying that person for the rest of your life for the injuries you inflicted upon them. Perhaps, in the end, you should kill your attacker for no other reason than the fact that it is more economical.
Animus, Vires et Honoris
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:06 am
- Title: Fill in the Blank
- Location: SC or FL mostly
What if we take into account the rage or anger we might have in the situation. For example, you come into your house one day to find your wife/daughter/sister, etc being raped. You're gonna wanna do a lot more in the heat of the moment than "incapacitate" if you've got the chance. I just think that none of us are looking or wanting to kill, but I don't think anyone could rule it out entirely unless they've been in the situation.
It is not the sound of victory;
it is not the sound of defeat;
it is the sound of singing that I hear.
-Moses
it is not the sound of defeat;
it is the sound of singing that I hear.
-Moses
- Platypi007
- Soldier
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:56 pm
- First Joined: 0- 0-2006
- Location: Columbia, SC
- Contact:
I don't really have a totaly formed opinon as to it being right or wrong to kill another person in self defence but I do not think that I could ever kill another person.
The only possible reason that I could do it would be if they threatened my family, not me. I know my fate if I die and so death isn't a major concern to me.
I was thinking about this yesterday, actualy. My boss carries a handgun thats about the size of a glock, apparently (I'm not a gun person so I dont know. I do know it is very small) in a holster inside his pants. And yesterday I was with him when he was buying a new holster for it. I hadn't really thought much about it though I knew he has a gun on him all the time (I work in a print shop. It is a very dangerous profession with rival print shop owners putting out hits on the other printers in town all the time. You think that red ink you saw on that last post card you got was ink? Think again!) [/sarcasm] but I just don't think about it often.
So anyway, he was telling me how he wants to know that he can take out someone if they come in the shop to rob it or somesuch.
I just don't think I could ever do that. Of course I wasn't in the special forces, either.
The only possible reason that I could do it would be if they threatened my family, not me. I know my fate if I die and so death isn't a major concern to me.
I was thinking about this yesterday, actualy. My boss carries a handgun thats about the size of a glock, apparently (I'm not a gun person so I dont know. I do know it is very small) in a holster inside his pants. And yesterday I was with him when he was buying a new holster for it. I hadn't really thought much about it though I knew he has a gun on him all the time (I work in a print shop. It is a very dangerous profession with rival print shop owners putting out hits on the other printers in town all the time. You think that red ink you saw on that last post card you got was ink? Think again!) [/sarcasm] but I just don't think about it often.
So anyway, he was telling me how he wants to know that he can take out someone if they come in the shop to rob it or somesuch.
I just don't think I could ever do that. Of course I wasn't in the special forces, either.
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot] and 49 guests