self-defense

[tau_gamma_pi]

Peter Kreeft’s Socrates once said that it’s better to suffer an evil than to commit one.

Is it morally okay to kill someone if they’re about to kill you?

Is it morally okay to kill someone if they’re about to kill someone you’re there to protect?

For the second scenario… say you have a 5’1" college freshman who wants to go to adoration. The Catholic church has adoration on Sunday evenings, and for most of the school year it’s after dark. It’s a 20-minute walk into town from campus to the Catholic church. She asks her 6’4" college junior guy friend to walk with her and he agrees to. The two of them are walking to the church and some idiot comes by and attacks her. Is it okay for her friend to kill the attacker? (I ask because this happens about every week, minus the getting attacked part, and I’m wondering what would be morally licit if something did happen.)

hvala

 

[Scottgun]

Peter Kreeft’s Socrates once said that it’s better to suffer an evil than to commit one.

hvala

[2263](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2263.htm’) The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

[2264](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2264.htm’) Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 [2265](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[BlaineTog]

If you can somehow stop them without killing them, you should, but if it comes down to it and killing them is the only way you can prevent them from killing one or both of you, then it is licit to do so.

 

[LDNCatholic]

You use the minimum force necessary. If that ‘‘minimum force’’ is a loud refusal/shout, then so be it. In some rare cases the minimum force needed to end a conflict is the death of the attacker. If an attack cannot be resolved by any other means than the death of the assailant then that is the necessary amount of force.

On a practical and moral note, as a martial arts/self defence instructor:

If you can possibly avoid the confrontation then it is the safest option (as well as the most moral in some cases) to do so.

 

[Newbie2]

Agreed with he previous posts.

In the OP, it would be better to have both the protector and the protectee run away and miss adoration than to engage and end up killing the attacker; that may be the minimum force necessary.

 

[tau_gamma_pi]

Oh, yeah, the Catechism. Maybe I should start there next time…

One more question. Our campus is really safe, and the 6’4" guy who usually walks with me once joked that he wished some male idiot would show up and start hitting girls, just so he (my 6’4" friend) had someone (the idiot) to beat up. He and several other of my male friends have told me “if any guy hits you, let me know and I’ll go beat him up.” That’s the general attitude of men on campus.

Now, assuming the girls’ jaws and not their lives are at stake, is that morally okay?

I wonder because, in this instance, the guys are defending the girls, but they’re also defending themselves. They know that society sees men as superflous and they hate that men (sometimes) have a reputation for being chauvinistic, rapist pigs (which isn’t true, by the way). So when the first guy hits a girl and the second guy beats the first guy up, the second guy is saying “I’m sorry, but real men don’t treat women that way.” (Which is true, by the way.)

But, nobody’s life is at stake.

Thoughts?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

You use the minimum force necessary. If that ‘‘minimum force’’ is a loud refusal/shout, then so be it. In some rare cases the minimum force needed to end a conflict is the death of the attacker. If an attack cannot be resolved by any other means than the death of the assailant then that is the necessary amount of force.

On a practical and moral note, as a martial arts/self defence instructor:

If you can possibly avoid the confrontation then it is the safest option (as well as the most moral in some cases) to do so.

I’m a martial artist too and I’m also a police officer. I agree with you about avoiding a confrontation if it is possible (though while on duty I cannot avoid confrontations). That is definitely the safest thing to do.

I disagree, however, about the “minimum” amount of force. There is a reason why police use-of-force policies no longer use the word “minimum”. That is because always using the minimum amount of force (and having that mindset of always using the least force) will end up getting you killed. You should use the amount of force “reasonable” to end a confrontation.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[CathFaith1]

I’m a martial artist too and I’m also a police officer. I agree with you about avoiding a confrontation if it is possible (though while on duty I cannot avoid confrontations). That is definitely the safest thing to do.

I disagree, however, about the “minimum” amount of force. There is a reason why police use-of-force policies no longer use the word “minimum”. That is because always using the minimum amount of force (and having that mindset of always using the least force) will end up getting you killed. You should use the amount of force “reasonable” to end a confrontation.

In Christ,
Rand

Makes sense.

It also makes sense for a police officers to avoid ‘equal’ numbers in confronting criminals (whenever possible). One would think having overwhellming numbers; with say 6 to 8 officers (or more) to apprehend and arrest say 1 or 2 criminals may help avoid violence? And if it doesn’t the innocent have a better chance at being protected?

 

[1ke]

Oh, yeah, the Catechism. Maybe I should start there next time…

One more question. Our campus is really safe, and the 6’4" guy who usually walks with me once joked that he wished some male idiot would show up and start hitting girls, just so he (my 6’4" friend) had someone (the idiot) to beat up. He and several other of my male friends have told me “if any guy hits you, let me know and I’ll go beat him up.” That’s the general attitude of men on campus.

Now, assuming the girls’ jaws and not their lives are at stake, is that morally okay?

I wonder because, in this instance, the guys are defending the girls, but they’re also defending themselves. They know that society sees men as superflous and they hate that men (sometimes) have a reputation for being chauvinistic, rapist pigs (which isn’t true, by the way). So when the first guy hits a girl and the second guy beats the first guy up, the second guy is saying “I’m sorry, but real men don’t treat women that way.” (Which is true, by the way.)

But, nobody’s life is at stake.

Thoughts?

No, this is not “OK”. In your scenario a girl is hit by someone and then the friend-- after the fact-- goes and “beats up” the person who hit her… what you are describing is not “self defense” but retribution.

As has already been stated, if an attack were in progress it would be morally permissable to repel the attack with as much force as necessary, but not more force than necessary.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Makes sense.

It also makes sense for a police officers to avoid ‘equal’ numbers in confronting criminals (whenever possible). One would think having overwhellming numbers; with say 6 to 8 officers (or more) to apprehend and arrest say 1 or 2 criminals may help avoid violence? And if it doesn’t the innocent have a better chance at being protected?

Yeah, usually if you’ve got that many officers the person is less likely to decide to fight. A while ago I had a similar thing happen. I was going to cover another officer who was in a fight and when I got there one other officer had already arrived and the two were arresting the suspect. The suspect’s two friends were standing there yelling and I thought I was going to have to fight both of them because I was yelling at them to get back and I was trying to stay between them and the two officers cuffing the guy on the ground. But when the 8 other cars showed up, the two friends decided that the best idea would be to go back inside the bar. So numbers sure worked out that time.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[DaveBj]

I have an Alabama concealed carry license, and I carry a firearm almost every day. Here is the prayer I pray every morning when I strap it on:

Heavenly Father, I am about to take up a deadly weapon. First of all, I pray that I will not have to use it. But if I do have to use it, I pray that You will guide my eyes and my hand, so that no innocent person will be hurt. If anyone must be harmed at my hand, I pray that it will be only the guilty. Amen

DaveBj

 

[LDNCatholic]

I’m a martial artist too and I’m also a police officer. I agree with you about avoiding a confrontation if it is possible (though while on duty I cannot avoid confrontations). That is definitely the safest thing to do.

I disagree, however, about the “minimum” amount of force. There is a reason why police use-of-force policies no longer use the word “minimum”. That is because always using the minimum amount of force (and having that mindset of always using the least force) will end up getting you killed. You should use the amount of force “reasonable” to end a confrontation.

In Christ,
Rand

You have a good point. When I say minimum I meant reasonable, i.e don’t go overboard. I don’t mean give them one punch and back off, hoping that will end the conflict, I mean after you’ve battered someone to the floor, if they are only semi conscious and unable to attempt another attack, then there would be no need (as a civilian) to continue the attack, you should remove yourself from the area. I understand however that law enforcement has a different requirement and you must not only make sure that the attacker is no longer a danger, but you must also restrain him, so you’d need to use a different level of force.

 

[Newbie2]

You have a good point. When I say minimum I meant reasonable, i.e don’t go overboard. I don’t mean give them one punch and back off, hoping that will end the conflict, I mean after you’ve battered someone to the floor, if they are only semi conscious and unable to attempt another attack, then there would be no need (as a civilian) to continue the attack, you should remove yourself from the area. I understand however that law enforcement has a different requirement and you must not only make sure that the attacker is no longer a danger, but you must also restrain him, so you’d need to use a different level of force.

Yes, there is a significant difference between a peace officer and a civilian…both in terms of practicality and morality. Morally, a police officer is bound by duty to resolve the situation; they can’t very well consider running away from a bad guy like a civilain could.

Not to mention that officers are trained in the use of force, both what to do and how to apply it. Very different situation than relying on a big friend to “protect” you. A 4’9" thug with a gun could take of this 6’4" dude pretty easily if he so desired.

Anyway, good post about retribution, morally speaking.

 

[tau_gamma_pi]

Not to mention that officers are trained in the use of force, both what to do and how to apply it. Very different situation than relying on a big friend to “protect” you. A 4’9" thug with a gun could take of this 6’4" dude pretty easily if he so desired.

Yeah… which is why I don’t like guns and all the conservatives on campus think I’m crazy. But anyway I feel safer not walking by myself. And good comes out of it sometimes: one time he said he hadn’t planned on going but didn’t want me walking by myself, and afterward told me thank you, I really needed to spend that time with God.

As far as retribution… that makes sense. It never really sat right when they say things like that, and now I have an answer to that. I keep thinking, but the attacker is made in the image and likeness of God, too.

Alright. Thank you.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I have an Alabama concealed carry license, and I carry a firearm almost every day. Here is the prayer I pray every morning when I strap it on:

Heavenly Father, I am about to take up a deadly weapon. First of all, I pray that I will not have to use it. But if I do have to use it, I pray that You will guide my eyes and my hand, so that no innocent person will be hurt. If anyone must be harmed at my hand, I pray that it will be only the guilty. Amen

I like that prayer. I carry daily as well.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

Off topic a bit so pardon me, but I’ve trained in martial arts and the whole 6’ 3" thing is over rated. Even w/out resorting to knives and guns a smaller opponent could be deadly. Your friend shouldn’t be so quick to want to use his fists.

Also, morally, I would believe if someone has a modicum of capcity, they are duty bound to protect the innocent. Even as a civilian, I’ve been in the military and trained in ma, I couldn’t live with myself with just running away.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Off topic a bit so pardon me, but I’ve trained in martial arts and the whole 6’ 3" thing is over rated. Even w/out resorting to knives and guns a smaller opponent could be deadly. Your friend shouldn’t be so quick to want to use his fists.

Also, morally, I would believe if someone has a modicum of capcity, they are duty bound to protect the innocent. Even as a civilian, I’ve been in the military and trained in ma, I couldn’t live with myself with just running away.

Possible that a smaller person can successfully defeat a larger opponent. Yes it is possible however in the grand scheme of things is it likely that a much smaller person can tackle a larger person on equal ground? Not very.

Of course there is always the occasional ‘‘giant killer’’

 

[vern_humphrey]

Possible that a smaller person can successfully defeat a larger opponent. Yes it is possible however in the grand scheme of things is it likely that a much smaller person can tackle a larger person on equal ground? Not very.

Of course there is always the occasional ‘‘giant killer’’

There’s an old saying and a true one, “A good big man will almost always beat a good little man.” That’s why in martial arts competition, opponents are matched by both weight and skill level.

When it comes to self-defense, I always think of Blondie Hassler’s comment that yachtsmen shouldn’t carry radio transmitters, “Because we go to sea for pleasure, and we have no right to call for someone else to risk his life if we get into trouble.”

Similarly, there is something a bit self-serving about expecting someone else to defend us if we will not take reasonable precautions to defend ourselves.

 

[Alphonsus_John]

Yes, of course all things being equal being the bigger guy is an advantage. However, one rarely knows if all things are equal and enough big guys get in to trouble by over estimating their own abilities.My comment was related to the OP’s friend who appeared to not necessarily realize that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, of course all things being equal being the bigger guy is an advantage. However, one rarely knows if all things are equal and enough big guys get in to trouble by over estimating their own abilities.My comment was related to the OP’s friend who appeared to not necessarily realize that.

And because one rarely knows if all things are equal, I carry a .45.