When do you kill someone in self-defense?

[fakename]

Can you defend yourself if they are lunging towards you about to kill you?

Can you defend yourself (even to the point of dealing a deathblow) if the attacker is unintentionally going to kill you?

 

[Catholic90]

Yes. We are not doormats.

 

[passus]

I’d say most definitely yes to the first one.

As for the second scenario, I take issue with the premise. What kind of situation in which an attacker was going to unintentionally kill you would warrant the use of a deathblow? Any defensive force along the lines of “deathblow” would seem to be appropriate only in a situation where the attacker definitely had intent to kill.

 

[fakename]

I’d say most definitely yes to the first one.

As for the second scenario, I take issue with the premise. What kind of situation in which an attacker was going to unintentionally kill you would warrant the use of a deathblow? Any defensive force along the lines of “deathblow” would seem to be appropriate only in a situation where the attacker definitely had intent to kill.

sorry I meant, what should we do if someone is going to accidentally, say, run you over with a car? Should you have a gun, would you be right to kill the driver?

Oh, I also have info. to share for anyone who doesn’t know:

you can fatally attack someone for defense of chastity or for defense of important property.

 

[passus]

sorry I meant, what should we do if someone is going to accidentally, say, run you over with a car? Should you have a gun, would you be right to kill the driver?

This presumes that killing the driver would be an effective means of stopping the car, the actual imminent danger to your life. If you managed a perfect kill shot on the driver, the vehicle would likely be close enough to you that the momentum of the vehicle in question would still be enough to run you over and so you would be unjustified in killing the driver.

 

[fakename]

This presumes that killing the driver would be an effective means of stopping the car, the actual imminent danger to your life. If you managed a perfect kill shot on the driver, the vehicle would likely be close enough to you that the momentum of the vehicle in question would still be enough to run you over and so you would be unjustified in killing the driver.

It’s a hypothetical situation designed to see if a general rule “self-defense is justified in the case where someone accidentally threatens you” is true. Don’t pay attention to what might happen in the reality.

 

[Santi2]

Can you defend yourself (even to the point of dealing a deathblow) if the attacker is unintentionally going to kill you?

The common law principle over here poses that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of self-defence and one can argue that the attacker’s conduct operates on what is referred to in common law as transfer of malice.

 

[Catholic90]

Don’t pay attention to what might happen in the reality.

Yeah…

 

[exnihilo]

I’d say most definitely yes to the first one.

As for the second scenario, I take issue with the premise. What kind of situation in which an attacker was going to unintentionally kill you would warrant the use of a deathblow? Any defensive force along the lines of “deathblow” would seem to be appropriate only in a situation where the attacker definitely had intent to kill.

I disagree. The lack of knowledge of a person about the threat they present has no bearing on the matter. What if a child was pointing a gun, you knew to be loaded, at you with their finger on the trigger? This might be hard to imagine because it involves a child, but we could consider the same case with a feeble minded adult or even someone under the influence of a drug.

But rather than worry about all that just consider do you have the right to prevent your death by a non-human actor or physical event? Of course. You can kill an animal that is about to kill you. If you were deadly allergic to a bee you can kill it if it is threatening you. You can saw down a tree that is about to crash down on your house and thus threatens your life. So the knowledge and even the intent of that which threatens your life is not really relevant.

This presumes that killing the driver would be an effective means of stopping the car, the actual imminent danger to your life. If you managed a perfect kill shot on the driver, the vehicle would likely be close enough to you that the momentum of the vehicle in question would still be enough to run you over and so you would be unjustified in killing the driver.

Police do this fairly often. Not the perfect kill shot since it often involves several rounds and several officers. But they do kill people who are driving at them in self defense.

 

[thistle]

It’s a hypothetical situation designed to see if a general rule “self-defense is justified in the case where someone accidentally threatens you” is true. Don’t pay attention to what might happen in the reality.

How does someone “accidentally” threaten you?

 

[fakename]

Can you exercise self-defense when you think (again hypothetical) that someone who has tried to kill you in the past and has a revengeful personality is probably going to try to kill you again?

I’m a little divided on this one.

 

[Santi2]

Can you exercise self-defense when you think (again hypothetical) that someone who has tried to kill you in the past and has a revengeful personality is probably going to try to kill you again?

I’m a little divided on this one.

Probably is not “immediate threat”, which is crucial to self-defence.

 

[Rascalking]

GREAT question.

As someone who has participated in martial arts for over 20 years now, I’m alway stunned by the actions of some people who almost try to look for reasons to beat someone up. They say, “Well, if someone breaks into your house, you have to the right to kill them! Or, If they steal my car!” NO! THat’s an awful thing to say.

What I teach my students is this-You never, ever, ever try to kill a person, period. What you do is take the necessary steps to protect 1) the life of your family, 2) your life. You never kill someone in order to defend your property.

Now, I’m a pretty good show with a handgun, and I’m very skilled in certain martial arts. I am confident I could incapacitate someone without the need to kill them. Other people may not be as confident as I am.

To make it clear-if someone has a knife and is running towards a loved one, I would make the attempt to disarm them, not kill them. However, I would do what it takes to stop them from hurting my loved ones.

Only if it was a last resort (The man had opened fire with a gun in a crowded mall) would I feel it is moral to kill someone.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[sw85]

Can you defend yourself if they are lunging towards you about to kill you?

Can you defend yourself (even to the point of dealing a deathblow) if the attacker is unintentionally going to kill you?

It is morally licit to use whatever amount of force is necessary to protect your own life. If, in your judgment, this force must be lethal, then it is morally licit to use it. If you can protect your life using less force (for instance, if you can escape or incapacitate the attacker) then it would not be morally licit to take their life.

So I think, in both scenarios, it would be licit to take the other person’s life if absolutely necessary to do so.

 

[thistle]

Can you exercise self-defense when you think (again hypothetical) that someone who has tried to kill you in the past and has a revengeful personality is probably going to try to kill you again?

I’m a little divided on this one.

I repeat the question as you seem to be avoiding it.

How does someone “accidentally” threaten you??

 

[valentino]

when you’re life is threaghtened or you think it is threatened.

 

[thistle]

when you’re life is threaghtened or you think it is threatened.

Is the OP then saying he thinks he has the right to kill someone if they are reversing a car out of the garage and doesn’t see him??
That is not self defence. That would be murder.

 

[lucky4075]

Using deadly force very much depends on the circumstances of each particular situation. I think some of these hypothetical situations are taking a bit too far.

You have to use reason, judgement, and compassion. If I have a CCW permit ( I dont have one but I usually carry a small folding knife with me- you’d be surprised how handy those things are for everyday things you never think of ) Im not going to whip out my firearm at every opportunity- like someone backing a car towards me or something along those lines. Now if there driving a car at me while shooting, yeah probably.

When my father first started taking my siblings and I shooting rifles/handguns he always told us that to use good judgement and this: “Its better to be judged by 6 of your peers then to be carried by 6 of your family members.”

 

[maryjk]

When my father first started taking my siblings and I shooting rifles/handguns he always told us that to use good judgement and this: “Its better to be judged by 6 of your peers then to be carried by 6 of your family members.”

The quote actually goes.

It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

A jury has 12 members.

 

[Big_Dummy]

It’s a hypothetical situation designed to see if a general rule “self-defense is justified in the case where someone accidentally threatens you” is true. Don’t pay attention to what might happen in the reality.

I never met anyone with reflexes that fast.

If the there is enough time to draw your weapon, aim and shoot, then you have enought tome to take out a tire.