Lethal Force in Defense of Possessions?

[LukeFive]

There is nuance to what you are saying that I disagree with.

If I stumble upon an intruder in my home, I am not using only the force necessary to remove the threat…that makes too many assumptions about the threat.
I am using the maximum force I can until I perceive the threat to be gone…

Perhaps the same effect, but looked at from the opposite angle.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am not suggesting that you don’t fire until lockback. Depending on which loaded weapon I was closest to in my house (there are three), there would probably be anywhere between 8 (shotgun) to 30 (one of my rifles) shots fired. There would almost certainly be lethal results, but that is a side effect of obtaining the objective which is neutralizing the threat through whatever means necessary. Even though the result is the same, the objective is not to “dispatch the person into the afterlife”. That is just unfortunately part of obtaining your objective.

 

[Shannon9791]

I do not believe it is moral to use kill in defense of possessions.

However, in any type of scenario such as what is listed, you cannot make the assumption that it is only possessions that are in danger. The individual was bold enough to trespass and break in…at that point, I believe it would be naive to believe your life is not endangered.

Of course, this opens up other questions concerning killing when it is possible to render the intruder harmless without killing.

But for now I believe the OP is answered.

This tends to be what people say. “I’ll just shoot him in the leg” But anyone who owns and shoots guns will tell you that this is a highly unllikely probability. Police are trained to shoot at the biggest area of the body, the chest, simply because it’s the easiest place to hit.

Another question to add to this discussion would be what if one uses something other than a gun to dispose of the threat? I don’t own any guns, but I have a bevy of baseball bats at my disposal that would fit nicely into someone’s skull cavity if need be. I would personally suppose the “rules” are the same, no matter what the weapon, as long as one feels threatened in the ways discussed, neutralizing the threat is ok, by any means necessary.

 

[LukeFive]

This tends to be what people say. “I’ll just shoot him in the leg” But anyone who owns and shoots guns will tell you that this is a highly unllikely probability. Police are trained to shoot at the biggest area of the body, the chest, simply because it’s the easiest place to hit.

Another question to add to this discussion would be what if one uses something other than a gun to dispose of the threat? I don’t own any guns, but I have a bevy of baseball bats at my disposal that would fit nicely into someone’s skull cavity if need be. I would personally suppose the “rules” are the same, no matter what the weapon, as long as one feels threatened in the ways discussed, neutralizing the threat is ok, by any means necessary.

I agree, anyone that has any kind of defensive or offensive weapons training will aim for center mass. Anyone who has had to fire a weapon with a ton and a half of adrenalin in their system, with all kinds of distractions around the, their heart racing because they are scared for their life, in possibly uncomfortable poorly lit conditions will attest to the fact that your accuracy goes out the window. You shoot for what you know you can hit.

The weapon is just a tool. It doesn’t matter if it is a firearm, a bat, a knife, or the guitar that is sitting on a stand in your bedroom. That being said, it does bring up other considerations. Now you are coming into close quarters with the intruder. You may be better able to judge his intent. Also, there is a real possibility that the aggressor will disarm you when you engage him hand to hand. Unless you are highly trained, I would put money on the fact that I would disarm you if you were to come at me with a handheld weapon even if I was not armed. I would probably get cut if it was an edged weapon, but then you would be in a worse position than you started in. Unless you really know what you are doing, I recommend that you avoid a hand to hand confrontation unless the aggressor initiates it. In that case you would be better off trying to retreat with your family if at all possible.

 

[Shannon9791]

I agree, anyone that has any kind of defensive or offensive weapons training will aim for center mass. Anyone who has had to fire a weapon with a ton and a half of adrenalin in their system, with all kinds of distractions around the, their heart racing because they are scared for their life, in possibly uncomfortable poorly lit conditions will attest to the fact that your accuracy goes out the window. You shoot for what you know you can hit.

The weapon is just a tool. It doesn’t matter if it is a firearm, a bat, a knife, or the guitar that is sitting on a stand in your bedroom. That being said, it does bring up other considerations. Now you are coming into close quarters with the intruder. You may be better able to judge his intent. Also, there is a real possibility that the aggressor will disarm you when you engage him hand to hand. Unless you are highly trained, I would put money on the fact that I would disarm you if you were to come at me with a handheld weapon even if I was not armed. I would probably get cut if it was an edged weapon, but then you would be in a worse position than you started in. Unless you really know what you are doing, I recommend that you avoid a hand to hand confrontation unless the aggressor initiates it. In that case you would be better off trying to retreat with your family if at all possible.

While I will grant you that I’m no Chuck Norris, I have trained some in jujitsu, and what are the odds that the intruder is a highly trained martial artist? Also, if someone would approach me while I am weilding a bat it would seem as if their intent is to do me harm, as opposed to me just chasing someone out of the house. What would one’s obligation be if they “got the jump” on someone? Like if someone was in my house in a different room and I walked in and his back was to me? I think it would not be considered “self defense” if someone’s back was to you.

 

[RobHom]

Folks seem to be ignoring this part:

I myself would not shoot someone if I had a reasonable means of escape. Of course I’m just an atheist so my morals are obviously questionable.

Were I single, and I knew I had a clear path of escape… I too would escape, however, like one other poster…I am married, and though the kids are all grown and gone…I have my wife to consider foremost. While I prefer not to shoot someone if it can be avoided, I am not inclined to sacrifice myself or my wife to a criminal in my own home.

I find your second statement somewhat specious however. That you claim to be or are an atheist…does not cast aspersions on your morals. It is not correct to assume that your morals are less than anyone else. I know people who say they are atheists, and yet they are some of the most moral people I know.

 

[vz71]

What would one’s obligation be if they “got the jump” on someone? Like if someone was in my house in a different room and I walked in and his back was to me? I think it would not be considered “self defense” if someone’s back was to you.

Doesn’t matter.
They are intruders in my house. As such, they are a threat to my life and the lives of my family. The stakes are simply too high for me to consider beyond that.
I would consider the ‘got the jump’ position as simply an advantage to rendering the threat harmless.
I would still open with every bit of force available to me.

 

[mary_bobo]

While I will grant you that I’m no Chuck Norris, I have trained some in jujitsu, and what are the odds that the intruder is a highly trained martial artist? Also, if someone would approach me while I am weilding a bat it would seem as if their intent is to do me harm, as opposed to me just chasing someone out of the house. What would one’s obligation be if they “got the jump” on someone? Like if someone was in my house in a different room and I walked in and his back was to me? I think it would not be considered “self defense” if someone’s back was to you.

With all due respect, if someone is in my home who should not be there, I don’t plan to get close enough to them to use martial arts (if I could) or go at him with a bat. I would not want to do harm to someone, but I can’t rationalize that they are up to anything but no-good if they are in my house. I have a carry permit and I know how to use a gun. I pray that I never have to use it.