What are the limits to self-defence?

[JD27076]

I ask this thread because I was thinking if I was ever threatened or attacked either with a melee weapon or even a gun, could I go as far as murder in self defense or should I limit my self defense only to temporarally paralyze/wound?

For example, if someone threatened me with a gun and I suddenly had a chance to get hit him really hard on the head with a bat, should I hit him constantly until hes down on the ground and maybe bleeds to death or his head ruptures and he dies?

If I should kill him in self defense, is it a moral offense?

Another scenario is if I was threatened with a melee weapon such as a bat or baton. If I get them in a position where I am able to attack with a gun or melee weapon, should I limit to paralyze or am I allowed to kill? If I do kill, what moral offense is it?

YES, As I was writing this, It did sound as if I sounded like a child who plays games that involve murder and gore and visualizing to kill… But no, I don’t play those games often and this is a serious moral question.

Thank you.

 

[Least]

When The Angel Of The Lord visits you while you stand on the ground littered with everyone else.

Ask Him.

Until then, MOLON LABE.

 

[dshix]

I ask this thread because I was thinking if I was ever threatened or attacked either with a melee weapon or even a gun, could I go as far as murder in self defense or should I limit my self defense only to temporarally paralyze/wound?

For example, if someone threatened me with a gun and I suddenly had a chance to get hit him really hard on the head with a bat, should I hit him constantly until hes down on the ground and maybe bleeds to death or his head ruptures and he dies?

If I should kill him in self defense, is it a moral offense?

Another scenario is if I was threatened with a melee weapon such as a bat or baton. If I get them in a position where I am able to attack with a gun or melee weapon, should I limit to paralyze or am I allowed to kill? If I do kill, what moral offense is it?

YES, As I was writing this, It did sound as if I sounded like a child who plays games that involve murder and gore and visualizing to kill… But no, I don’t play those games often and this is a serious moral question.

Thank you.

There is an answer to your question.

When you are fighting in self-defense or in the defense of another person, you are morally justified in taking the life of the aggressor. If it is at all possible to simply wound and/or paralyze them, that is best because it gives them a chance to heal their soul before death, but in a situation where it is impossible to stop them without killing them, you are justified in taking their life.

In the case of the melee weapon, you should hit the person until they are unable to harm you, but by no means go on killing them after they are unconscious. At that point, you would be the aggressor because they are no longer capable of doing harm.

In the case of the gun, hit as well as you can. If it were me, I’d try not to kill them with a head shot or shot in the heart, but if it cannot be helped, it cannot be helped.

 

[finebyme]

One has to watch out for getting caught up in the moment and having pleasure in beating someone to death!!!

Satan, you eventually took someone’s life, you should not justify yourself but repent, pray for the soul of the person.

I’ve thought of this too, and have often scared myself because I know I will be tempted to “follow the mob”

 

[dee_burk]

i have often wondered this same thing. i am ex-military, female and have a weapons around my home. part of me says to attempt to wound an intruder if possible to allow them time to change their life but my ex-mil side tells me not to trust wounding as that leaves a possible attack open. what is my moral or catholic obligation???

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Murder is the unjustified taking of a life. The taking of an attackers life when the real or perceived threat of serious injury or death is present, both morally and legally, is a justified action and though difficult would not be murder.

Just as a point of reference for real or perceived threat. More people are killed each year by hands and feet than the politically demonized Black Rifles…

On a secondary note, most attackers lose interest in the fight when they have somewhere close to 2 interactions with bullets fired from the “victims” weapon. Its remarkable how caliber or power do not matter as much as making contact. Most who are shot do not die.

 

[One_Sparrow]

Read the Legitimate Defense section of the CCC (2263 - 2267). It states that using more “violence” than necessary is unlawful but does point out that you are bound to take more care of your own life than the other.

 

[Spider42]

Read the Legitimate Defense section of the CCC (2263 - 2267). It states that using more “violence” than necessary is unlawful but does point out that you are bound to take more care of your own life than the other.

I’m not sure that I would concur with that characterization. Look at the whole quote from St. Thomas Aquinas in CCC 2264:

“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.”

The whole section from Summa Theologica, Part II, Question 64, article 7, is worth reading in it’s entirety, since it gives a good context even in English, but the “bound to take more care” is a little different in the original Latin, which is more akin to ‘inevitable’. In any event, the key word is “moderation”. All the answers, including to specific objections, make it clear that the death of the aggressor must be ‘double’ or unintended, effect.

CCC 2265 is also interesting, particularly since the Editio Typica in the printed version, which cross references CCC 2240. That and CCC 2315-16. They help explain why Rome and the US princes support limiting arms in civilian hands, particularly hand guns. Such guns are built to be effective killing devices and run contrary to the concept of ‘moderate’ self defense.

Pax Christi

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

In self-defense (or defense of another), use as much force as is reasonably necessary to stop the threat to your life/safety. Someone with a gun poses a lethal threat, so lethal force would absolutely be justified in stopping that threat. Someone attacking you with a knife, bat, crowbar, tire iron, etc. ALSO poses a lethal threat (since all of those can easily kill you or at least cause serious injury), so lethal force would be justified in that scenario as well. Like another poster said, if someone is unconscious on the ground, then at that point they would no longer pose a lethal threat, and therefore killing them would not be justified.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

CCC 2265 is also interesting, particularly since the Editio Typica in the printed version, which cross references CCC 2240. That and CCC 2315-16. They help explain why Rome and the US princes support limiting arms in civilian hands, particularly hand guns. Such guns are built to be effective killing devices and run contrary to the concept of ‘moderate’ self defense.

Pax Christi

Sorry, handguns are built to be effective killing machines? No, handguns are supposed to be a close-quarter back-up weapon when a rifle fails or can’t be used. Handguns are not that effective in killing people.

If someone attacks me with a knife, bat, crowbar, other dangerous weapon, I’m going to shoot them if I can. What would your recommendation be of an alternative?

 

[Spider42]

Sorry, handguns are built to be effective killing machines? No, handguns are supposed to be a close-quarter back-up weapon when a rifle fails or can’t be used. Handguns are not that effective in killing people.

You missunderstand, hand guns are different in the Church’s eyes in civilian hands because they are concealable weapons whose primary purpose is killing people. That is, they have no otherwise licit purpose, like hunting.

If, as you state, they are “not that effective” I guess we should be grateful. Of the 11,000+ gun homicides and the 19,000+ gun suicides in the US, the vast majority involved hand guns. True, the 76,000 (23,000 accidental) non fatal gun injuries also overwhelmingly involved hand guns.

If someone attacks me with a knife, bat, crowbar, other dangerous weapon, I’m going to shoot them if I can. What would your recommendation be of an alternative?

I am probably not the right person to ask. I’ve seen and done a lot more killing than any violent felon I’ve ever met, and spent 40+ years trying, and failing, to wash away the blood. Aside from teaching I spend most my time working with desperate people and tense situations do arise. I’ve learned that I will still shield another person with my body, but the only weapons I’ll every lift again are love and courage.

For me, the lessons in Scripture are quite vivid and appropriate. There is almost nothing that my fellow man can do to me that I have not already seen and even largely done. So the only real fear I have is facing God.

My path may not be for everyone. The ability to control my own fears has always been one of my gifts, even as a child. I also know, first hand, the true cost of, say, double tapping someone in the chest. Likewise I know how situations involving deadly force frequently go sideways. If I could not control my own fears or if the only thing I knew about violence was the adolescent fantasy of video games and Hollywood I might well be on a different path myself.

Pax Christi

 

[DexUK]

Morally one may use the minimum necessary force to protect oneself in the case of an attack.

That means if someone thumps you with his fist in the street, you are not justified in reaching for the keys of the armoured vehicle you keep on your lawn and blowing him up with a rocket propelled grenade.

Obviously the heat of the moment will preclude a great deal of prudent judgement, but provided one doesn’t grossly over-react, then morally you’re ok. Legally, that’s a different matter and is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction in which you live.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

You missunderstand, hand guns are different in the Church’s eyes in civilian hands because they are concealable weapons whose primary purpose is killing people. That is, they have no otherwise licit purpose, like hunting.

No licit purpose, except defending one’s life or family’s lives.

I am probably not the right person to ask. I’ve seen and done a lot more killing than any violent felon I’ve ever met, and spent 40+ years trying, and failing, to wash away the blood. Aside from teaching I spend most my time working with desperate people and tense situations do arise. I’ve learned that I will still shield another person with my body, but the only weapons I’ll every lift again are love and courage.

I assume you’re former military. I’m sorry you have had trouble with what you’ve had to do in the past, truly.

My path may not be for everyone. The ability to control my own fears has always been one of my gifts, even as a child. I also know, first hand, the true cost of, say, double tapping someone in the chest. Likewise I know how situations involving deadly force frequently go sideways. If I could not control my own fears or if the only thing I knew about violence was the adolescent fantasy of video games and Hollywood I might well be on a different path myself.

Pax Christi

I’m a police officer, so my knowledge of violence certainly does not come from video games or movies. I don’t like the idea of shooting someone, but I like the idea of them killing me and my children growing up without their father even less.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I ask this thread because I was thinking if I was ever threatened or attacked either with a melee weapon or even a gun, could I go as far as murder in self defense or should I limit my self defense only to temporarally paralyze/wound?

If the justified self-defense results in the attacker dying, it is not “murder.” Murder is the intentional killing of someone.

For example, if someone threatened me with a gun and I suddenly had a chance to get hit him really hard on the head with a bat, should I hit him constantly until hes down on the ground and maybe bleeds to death or his head ruptures and he dies?

Guns are serious weapons. Even some real serious martial arts practitioners will say not to resist if someone is pointing at you. However, if one gets the opportunity to disarm the individual and neutralize the attack; do so. In the case of a gun, very severe actions on the part of the victim are justified. Once the attacker is effectively neutralized, the attack must stop, both for moral and legal reasons. If you severely hurt an individual that threatened you with a gun in order to neutralize his attack, you may walk away with no charges. If you continue the attack after the attacker is, say, unconscious, and that attacker dies, you could be charged with murder.

Another scenario is if I was threatened with a melee weapon such as a bat or baton. If I get them in a position where I am able to attack with a gun or melee weapon, should I limit to paralyze or am I allowed to kill? If I do kill, what moral offense is it?

Effectively answered by my last paragraph. You may only defend enough to neutralize the attack. FWIW, bats and batons are not as bad as guns. The possibility to simply run away exists if the person has a bat, whereas that is really not an option in a gun attack (unless on can take immediate secure cover, etc.).

It should be noted that the skill set of the person doing the self defense is likely to be taken into account if charges are filed. A police officer, military person, martial artist, etc. is going to be held to a higher standard because they are expected to have greater control of their self defense skills.

 

[Spider42]

I’m a police officer…

CCC 2265 grants the right to armed defense to rightful civil authority. Which would include police officers acting in their official capacity. The church’s recommendations on restricting weapons is for civilians, not government entities.

That’s not to say that all police shootings are licit by Catholic standards. Clearly, they are not. Just a few days ago mutiple officers in the Los Angeles area riddled a pickup truck with bullets in what was, clearly, a case of mistaken identity and an illicit attempt at ‘street justice’ which seriously (still possibly mortally) wounded civilians.

It’s tempting to judge, but I, personally, consider it part of the hidden cost of violence, like PTSD and combat troops. In any event, the Church does grant extra latitude for individuals in law enforcement.

Peace

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

CCC 2265 grants the right to armed defense to rightful civil authority. Which would include police officers acting in their official capacity. The church’s recommendations on restricting weapons is for civilians, not government entities.

The problem is that we are reactive, for the most part. Meaning if there is a shooting, assault, robbery, home invasion, etc. we have to get called and drive there before we can do anything. That can take a bit of time, depending on where it happens. I would not want an innocent and law-abiding person to be left defenseless against their attacker when we are not going to get there in time to save them.

That’s not to say that all police shootings are licit by Catholic standards. Clearly, they are not. Just a few days ago mutiple officers in the Los Angeles area riddled a pickup truck with bullets in what was, clearly, a case of mistaken identity and an illicit attempt at ‘street justice’ which seriously (still possibly mortally) wounded civilians.

I agree, there are some shootings that are either questionable or wrong. I don’t know the specifics of what exactly prompted those particular officers to fire (if it was just that the truck matched or if the people did something when stopped that prompted the shots).

It’s tempting to judge, but I, personally, consider it part of the hidden cost of violence, like PTSD and combat troops. In any event, the Church does grant extra latitude for individuals in law enforcement.

Peace

The reasonableness standard that is set for police use of force is usually the same for self-defense laws (at least here in Oregon it is). Of course, citizens are not normally making arrests (possibly citizens’ arrests sometimes), but a reasonable amount of force to defend yourself is the law. I think that is a good way to view it–use the amount of force that is reasonable to stop the threat to your safety or life. If you are faced with a lethal threat, then it is reasonable to use lethal force to stop that threat, whether you are a soldier, police officer, or everyday citizen.

 

[ephesians4]

It is not, I think, within our remit to consider our wounded pride something we should do violence in defense of, so we do need to truly distinguish self-defence from retaliation. I think that whether we are up to it or not, we are expected to face low level violence without allowing our egos to drive so that we do evil. This is my interpretation.

–

That said, you are talking about deadly weapons there, intent to murder - so generally speaking in the simplest and most obvious of situations, I would have it like this:

1. Observe your duty to protect your family, other people and yourself from being murdered and to prevent the evil act of murder itself.
2. Other moral considerations, including avoiding doing murder.

In general as has been mentioned, we should generally err towards the minimum of violence that will achieve what we really need to do, but I would be wary of hesitation in defending yourself or others, to work out what that is.

If a person attempts to do murder and their intended victim cannot defend themselves without an enormous adrenaline response and/or a weapon, then the would-be murderer cannot rightly expect to be protected from severe harm.

At the other end of the same point, I would hate to see a Christian murdered or unable to protect others because they were confused about the moral issues at the time. If you are forced to protect yourself or someone else from murder I would say pray if possible, and give God your body and do your best to do the right thing, what must be done with courage and positivity.

I became concerned with this a while ago, as I felt that as a Christian I am kind of obliged to treat people with love and not violence. It occurred to me that as a very strong but out of shape man with something of a potential for a temper , I was in fact not at all equipped to properly protect my family without doing seriously violent and unpleasant harm to a potential attacker - and you know, that does not seem to be the ideal to reach for, to me.

Bizarrely you might think, it became clear to me on pondering this as a Christian who also has a duty to protect, I should train in how to contain or actually inflict violence competently if I ever wished to negotiate such a situation calmly, confidently and (in the unlikely event it should prove possible) with a minimum of harm to everyone concerned including the aggressor who is after all a human being to be treated decently and given a chance to repent if at all possible. Of course, this is only a hope, but I give some time to the idea, because you never know - being prepared could in an ideal world actually save lives.

I am not a big fan of weapons to be honest so I don’t like to have them around, but if somebody were to have a legal, safely kept weapon available with the genuine intention of minimizing harm to everyone in such an emergency, I would consider that a good thing to do. God knows your heart.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

The law does not measure force nicely. If someone attacks you with a knife and you shoot the person, you are acting justly.

Killing in self defense is not murder - it is justifiable homicide.

I’m an attorney rather than a moral theologian, but I assume the general rules are similar. Those who are attacked or coming to the aid of someone who’s being attacked and justifiably feel that the attack may result in death or serious bodily injury may use whatever force is necessary to defend themselves (or the person being attacked) and drive away or disable the attacker.

If flight is possible and likely to allow the victim to elude the attacker then that should be considered before a counter attack.

The problem arises when the victim becomes the aggressor. So let’s say you are attacked and manage to subdue the attacker with your bat. If you keep beating his skull with the bat after your blows rendered him unconscious, you may have crossed a line into culpability. However, if the person is someone who will resume the aggressive behavior (e.g. a persistent stalker or hellbent former spouse) killing the attacker after he/she has been subdued may nonetheless be justifiable.

 

[ephesians4]

The law does not measure force nicely. If someone attacks you with a knife and you shoot the person, you are acting justly.

It is worth pointing out in an international context like the web, that this is not the same everywhere - where I live for example, escalating the situation like that could even see you considered worse than your aggressor in the eyes of the law.

Not that I think that’s just. Just a thought.

 

[sw85]

Exercise reason. If simply brandishing a firearm is enough to scare away an intruder, you’re not justified in shooting him in the back as he’s fleeing. If, on the other hand, he lunges at you, you’re justified in shooting him, even if it’s reasonable to believe that doing so would kill him.

You should never deliberately will the death of your attacker. That is, you shouldn’t shoot him because you want him to die. But you may shoot him because you want you or someone else to live. That’s a good reason.