B
Big_Dummy
Guest
take common sense measures and pray – house alarm, arm yourself, defensive driving course, have priest visit them. The law will not allow you to kill someone because they might come after you in the fulture.
- Status
E
exnihilo
Guest
The idea might be that a person’s actions endangers your life without the person having knowledge of this. If so then a person does have a right to defend their life because self-defense is not contingent on the threat having knowledge of the likely consequences of their action. We can defend our life against non-human and inanimate dangers so knowledge and even intent is not relevant.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
Exodus 22:2-3
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
I guess a hunter firing his weapon in your direction would be unintended, one could simply fire your own weapon into the air to let his know you are there, and then take aim.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Your position is very consistent with Catholic teaching on self defense.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
It is interesting how self defense has become a passion for some, to the point where they almost dare anyone to give them a reason to use their right to self defense.
-Tim-
L
Love_Divine
Guest
This is a very dangerous thing to do, and is typically done as a last resort (at least in Canada. Bullets don’t just disappear into thin air when they miss their target. They hit things and innocent bystanders) Also, there is still the risk of the person dying with their foot still on the accelerator, which still won’t stop the threat, and will keep it going without someone “in control”. It’s also important to remember, those who are driving at them, are trying to kill them. The average person who is at risk of being hit by a vehicle, the intent of the driver usually isn’t to kill them.
I’m from Canada, so we don’t carry guns on our person. If someone is coming at me with a car, common sense dictates to get out of its way. I
M
maryjk
Guest
Most people would not be able to physically stop them without shooting the knife wielder or getting hurt themselves.
So as an older woman, it would be safer for me to draw a weapon and shot someone than to try to disarm them.
(Just so you know, I am agreeing with you, just giving information from a different point of view.
)
M
maryjk
Guest
It is common sense here in the US too. Even if you are armed, you would try to get out of the way of an on coming vehicle.
L
Love_Divine
Guest
Is this some sort of whacko American gun “safety”???
Nowhere in any firearms safety class I’ve taken have we ever been told to fire a warning shot into the air (Remember the law of gravity? What goes up, must come down??), or to aim our firearm at another person.
This is why you wear bright orange clothing when you’re out hunting, so you’re not mistaken for a deer. Why would a hunter be shooting at something that isn’t his intended target???
M
maryjk
Guest
Don’t be confused. We have been asked to suspend reality for this thread.Is this some sort of whacko American gun “safety”???
Since no one can think of a reason someone might unintentionally try to kill you. Some are trying to make up ways this might happen.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
A person who would desist from the fatal action the moment they realize it is in fact a fatal action doesn’t require the same force of deterence as a person who can be expected to resume their attack if you don’t incapacitate them entirely. This is why a person can be permitted to kill a would-be rapist or someone attempting grand theft. It is not that the heinousness of the crime gives us the right to be judges, but that those crimes are often concommitant with an intent that includes the willingness to kill in order to complete the crime without getting caught. If someone is trying to rape you, IOW, it is reasonable to infer that he isn’t above killing you in order to conceal his crime. You can take that into account when you decide how to go about resisting him.
Even in self-defense against a person bent on murdering you, your duty is to prevent the attack with the least amount of force necessary. If a woman were being raped and knocks her attacker into some hole he can’t possibly get out of by himself (i.e., before help arrives), she usually wouldn’t have the right to go get a gun and finish him off. That would only be true if she has good reason to believe that he will mount another attack until he either succeeds or he dies, because there is no civil authority or greater community that can be expected to keep her safe from later attacks or because co-conspirators might soon come to his aid.
Another case is the person who puts you in mortal danger not out of malicious intent, but out of negligence. An example would be someone in the habit of getting roaring drunk and then causing murderous havoc “without meaning to”, or someone who carelessly drives in a way that puts others in immediate mortal danger. They may not have the intent to kill, but they are culpable for the situation. They pose a deadly threat by choice, even if that is not their primary intention.
The third case would be someone who is not culpable at all. This person has taken every rational precaution to conduct themselves so as to not be a hazard to others. They are no more responsible for the situation than you are. May you save yourself by directly killing them? No. May you save yourself by a means that might have the unintentional side-effect of killing them, because you had no other means to save yourself? Yes…but since you are aware of the situation and they are not, you have the duty to do your best for everyone involved with the information you have.
You have to try to save everyone, if you can. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”. (Rom 12:9b) By preserving the lives of those who would kill us, we preserve the chance that they might repent and be saved.
Short of that, greater force should be reserved for the person who poses a greater threat, which includes the person who combines not only opportunity, but intent. That is because you are allowed to consider how to stop them in a way that will head off a second attack, however, and not because you’re judge and jury with regards to culpability. When it comes to culpability and intent, in any actual scenario that will usually be no better than a guess. You just have to do the best you can with the knowledge you have.
Even in self-defense against a person bent on murdering you, your duty is to prevent the attack with the least amount of force necessary. If a woman were being raped and knocks her attacker into some hole he can’t possibly get out of by himself (i.e., before help arrives), she usually wouldn’t have the right to go get a gun and finish him off. That would only be true if she has good reason to believe that he will mount another attack until he either succeeds or he dies, because there is no civil authority or greater community that can be expected to keep her safe from later attacks or because co-conspirators might soon come to his aid.
Another case is the person who puts you in mortal danger not out of malicious intent, but out of negligence. An example would be someone in the habit of getting roaring drunk and then causing murderous havoc “without meaning to”, or someone who carelessly drives in a way that puts others in immediate mortal danger. They may not have the intent to kill, but they are culpable for the situation. They pose a deadly threat by choice, even if that is not their primary intention.
The third case would be someone who is not culpable at all. This person has taken every rational precaution to conduct themselves so as to not be a hazard to others. They are no more responsible for the situation than you are. May you save yourself by directly killing them? No. May you save yourself by a means that might have the unintentional side-effect of killing them, because you had no other means to save yourself? Yes…but since you are aware of the situation and they are not, you have the duty to do your best for everyone involved with the information you have.
You have to try to save everyone, if you can. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”. (Rom 12:9b) By preserving the lives of those who would kill us, we preserve the chance that they might repent and be saved.
Short of that, greater force should be reserved for the person who poses a greater threat, which includes the person who combines not only opportunity, but intent. That is because you are allowed to consider how to stop them in a way that will head off a second attack, however, and not because you’re judge and jury with regards to culpability. When it comes to culpability and intent, in any actual scenario that will usually be no better than a guess. You just have to do the best you can with the knowledge you have.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Buck fever can make a person color-blind. If someone is shooting at you, you have nowhere to take shelter from the gunfire, and coming out with your hands up isn’t going to stop him, you may shoot back.Is this some sort of whacko American gun “safety”???
Nowhere in any firearms safety class I’ve taken have we ever been told to fire a warning shot into the air (Remember the law of gravity? What goes up, must come down??), or to aim our firearm at another person.
This is why you wear bright orange clothing when you’re out hunting, so you’re not mistaken for a deer. Why would a hunter be shooting at something that isn’t his intended target???
If some guy has obviously gone nuts and thinks you’re a deer or a bear or something, you have as much right to shoot him as if he knew what you were and was trying to shoot you as a human being. You are allowed to do what is necessary to stop him, but may only use deadly force if no other option seems likely to succeed in saving you.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Somebody pass me a tissue… I havn’t laughted like that in a long time.
The “Whacko American gun safety” comment was great too.
Thanks guys.
-Tim-
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Let us say two guys are target shooting. Through no fault of their own, they are unaware that the backstop they thought was there has been removed. They are unaware that their bullets are firing upon persons out of their sight.
Provided that there was no way to communicate with the shooters and no less-deadly way to stop them, another person might fire upon them to stop them, even though that person knew the target-shooters wouldn’t be guilty of negligence, let alone attempted murder.
R
Rascalking
Guest
Thanks, and yes, your right. It’s frightening how some people view self defense. People have a chip on their shoulder and go looking for trouble. It’s disgusting.
R
Rascalking
Guest
Ma’am, I totally agree with you. When you engange in a fight with someone with a knife, you WILL get cut, anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or totally ignorant.Most people would not be able to physically stop them without shooting the knife wielder or getting hurt themselves.
So as an older woman, it would be safer for me to draw a weapon and shot someone than to try to disarm them.
(Just so you know, I am agreeing with you, just giving information from a different point of view.
I firmly and strongly support your right to own a gun, by the way-so I 100 percent agree with you!
E
exnihilo
Guest
I agree that this defense itself could be dangerous and is not recommended. My point was that it is not uncommon for police in my area to shoot and kill people who are driving a car ‘at them’. If the alleged criminal survived they would be charged with attempted murder. I’m not sure how often these are cases of actually being driven at versus a person fleeing. But the justification for the shooting is self-defense. If it is a valid case for one then it should be valid for all.
S
squirrelMLM
Guest
Well for example, if the person was intoxicated in any way to which they are not able to control their actions and they were pointing a gun at you…
E
exnihilo
Guest
I’d be interested if you could explain this more. It seems to me the intent of someone is not relevant. Lets use an example where a person has their trigger on a gun that you know to be loaded. The person with the gun believes it is not loaded and is going to prove it to you by pulling the trigger. Would you be permitted to use deadly force to prevent this? I admit this might be seem contrived but I’m sure such a case has occurred probably with people drunk or using drugs.
I’d also be interested in further explanation here. Maybe an example would help.
R
Rascalking
Guest
If a drunk was pointing a gun at me, I’d take it very seriously. You can never tell what a drunk would do.
- Status