When do you kill someone in self-defense?

[EasterJoy]

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.

The “Russian Roulette on a Friend” example demonstrates a gross lack of regard for human life, something for which we’re culpable. If you aim a gun at a police officer and say, “It’s not loaded, look!” there is going to be a point at which he’s going to have to quit yelling “Put that down!” and he’s going to shoot you before you shoot him. If you are a private citizen but the judge believes that this was really what happened, you would not be guilty of anything but self-defense. Catholic moral theology also allows you to defend yourself.

The third case would be someone who was perhaps pointing the gun and getting ready to fire, but not knowing he/she was pointing the gun at you. Again, you’d try to stop him/her without harming him/her, you’d expect that he/she will put the gun down immediately if asked, but you would still be justified in shooting to save yourself, if that was your only option. Even if a police officer were to see a small child waving a gun around, he can’t use the child’s innocence as a reason to let the child mow other people down with a gun, including himself. He might refrain from doing so, provided he was only putting himself in danger while trying to disarm the child without wounding him/her, but that would be an act of great selflessness. It would not be morally required of him.

The difference in the three cases, though, would be the extent to which you’d expect the person putting your life at risk would be willing to stop, when they comprehend the situation. On one end of the continuum you don’t have to wonder about the murderer stopping of his/her own accord. At the other end, you would fairly expect that a glimmer of comprehension would stop someone who means you no harm.

 

[valentino]

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.

No.but if he’s reversing the car out of the garage and does see him and the only way he can stop him from killing he shoots him,that’s self defense.

 

[thistle]

No.but if he’s reversing the car out of the garage and does see him and the only way he can stop him from killing he shoots him,that’s self defense.

If a driver sees a person and keeps driving at him that is not “accidental”.

 

[maryjk]

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.

My point is that someone cannot “unintentionally try to kill you.” Either it is an accident, like in your scenario. Or they try, which by definition can’t be unintentional. “unintentionally try” is an oxymoron. Which is why we were asked to suspend reality for this thread.

 

[fakename]

Would it be a sin for a starving man to use deadly force against a rich man to get the latter’s food?

I don’t think it would since “anyone can kill someone (if they have to) in order to protect their property”

But food and necessities for survival are the property of all men, such that it is considered theft not to donate to poor people. So there is no sin done in the above scenario.

Seems like a dangerous conclusion though, so I ask, is it true?

 

[passus]

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.

Inanimate objects (like trees) and animals (like bees) don’t present the same moral grey area that comes up when discussing killing a human, so I think those comments of yours are arbitrary.

As for children and the weapon-wielding feeble minded: I think that morality demands that any time deadly force is called for, we weigh the moral grounds for our decision and so sure, I think the knowledge and intent of the threat is relevant here, especially when it comes to a child. I would for sure be more hesitant to use deadly force against a child simply because it’s a child.

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.

This is a situation I can’t seem to play out in my mind and I doubt drivers attempt to kill police officers with vehicles so often that there is even enough precedent to give you a basis to comment on what police do “fairly often.” I’m not a police officer (are you? have you spoken to one?) and I’m not really sure what they do in this situation, but it would seem illogical to attempt to kill the driver of a vehicle headed for them when it would be far more effective to move out of the way.

I can understand suspended reality, but this thread seems to be turning particularly fantastical. Wow.

 

[valentino]

If a driver sees a person and keeps driving at him that is not “accidental”.

I agree.and (lets say the man was backed into a corner and he had a gun)and the driver was trying to run him down ,then the man could shoot the driver in self defense.

 

[passus]

I agree.and (lets say the man was backed into a corner and he had a gun)and the driver was trying to run him down ,then the man could shoot the driver in self defense.

Agreed.

 

[EasterJoy]

My point is that someone cannot “unintentionally try to kill you.” Either it is an accident, like in your scenario. Or they try, which by definition can’t be unintentional. “unintentionally try” is an oxymoron. Which is why we were asked to suspend reality for this thread.

Well, I meant to say there is the entire continuum from having no intent through being careless of consequences to choosing to kill to having a firm intent to do whatever it takes to kill someone.

Yes, you are right: I took “accidentally trying to kill someone” to mean one person intentionally doing something, but being unaware that killing a second person would be an unintended side effect of their action. The idea is that if the first person were to removed as the actor in the scenario, the second person would be spared.

You can’t kill one person who is doing nothing in order to spare another person who is also innocent and doing nothing, but you can stop one person from doing something that will kill another, even if stopping the person from acting might have the unintended side effect of killing them. You don’t choose one innocent life over another by directly killing one of them.

The point is that you are stopping a behavior before it ends a life. You don’t stop the behavior by killing the person unless you have no other choice, and that is even true if you think the person has an intention to kill you but have the certain opportunity to stop them without killing them outright. You don’t get to be judge and jury.

 

[Warrior1979]

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

You can defend yourself when attacked, regardless of whether the intent is simply to harm, or to kill. This issue with self defense is using the appropriate use of force against the attacker. If the attacker slaps someone, the person being slapped doesn’t have the right to use deadly force. On the other hand, if the pull out a deadly weapon and are acting in a threatening manner, deadly force is appropriate.

The main issue in your post is “about to kill you.” If someone is about to kill you, then you have a right to use deadly force.

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

“Unintentionally going to kill you” makes no sense.

 

[Warrior1979]

This is a situation I can’t seem to play out in my mind and I doubt drivers attempt to kill police officers with vehicles so often that there is even enough precedent to give you a basis to comment on what police do “fairly often.” I’m not a police officer (are you? have you spoken to one?) and I’m not really sure what they do in this situation, but it would seem illogical to attempt to kill the driver of a vehicle headed for them when it would be far more effective to move out of the way.

This situation does occur. I’m fairly certain that in all jurisdictions the police officer would be justified in shooting the driver. The law generally allows the use of deadly force in preventing or stopping certain felonies, such as murder, (armed) robbery, rape, arson, etc. A driver attempting to run down a police officer is attempting first-degree murder, and deadly force may be used in this situation.

 

[EasterJoy]

“Unintentionally going to kill you” makes no sense.

Unintentionally murdering someone doesn’t make any sense (well, not unless it is their intention to murder someone in particular, but not you), but unintentionally behaving in a way that could kill someone, someone who could well see and want to avert their imminent death, that is something else again. That is totally possible.

 

[exnihilo]

The “Russian Roulette on a Friend” example demonstrates a gross lack of regard for human life, something for which we’re culpable. If you aim a gun at a police officer and say, “It’s not loaded, look!” there is going to be a point at which he’s going to have to quit yelling “Put that down!” and he’s going to shoot you before you shoot him. If you are a private citizen but the judge believes that this was really what happened, you would not be guilty of anything but self-defense. Catholic moral theology also allows you to defend yourself.

The third case would be someone who was perhaps pointing the gun and getting ready to fire, but not knowing he/she was pointing the gun at you. Again, you’d try to stop him/her without harming him/her, you’d expect that he/she will put the gun down immediately if asked, but you would still be justified in shooting to save yourself, if that was your only option. Even if a police officer were to see a small child waving a gun around, he can’t use the child’s innocence as a reason to let the child mow other people down with a gun, including himself. He might refrain from doing so, provided he was only putting himself in danger while trying to disarm the child without wounding him/her, but that would be an act of great selflessness. It would not be morally required of him.

The difference in the three cases, though, would be the extent to which you’d expect the person putting your life at risk would be willing to stop, when they comprehend the situation. On one end of the continuum you don’t have to wonder about the murderer stopping of his/her own accord. At the other end, you would fairly expect that a glimmer of comprehension would stop someone who means you no harm.

I think we agree but might be looking at this differently. I’m looking at the issue of can you use self defense more in isolation. I most certainly agree the level of force and when you can use that force are very important matters to consider regarding the ultimate decision. You are obligated to use the minimal force necessary to defend yourself and you are obligated to pursue other measures, if available (this would include things like verbal communication) to avoid using deadly force.

 

[exnihilo]

Inanimate objects (like trees) and animals (like bees) don’t present the same moral grey area that comes up when discussing killing a human, so I think those comments of yours are arbitrary.

As for children and the weapon-wielding feeble minded: I think that morality demands that any time deadly force is called for, we weigh the moral grounds for our decision and so sure, I think the knowledge and intent of the threat is relevant here, especially when it comes to a child. I would for sure be more hesitant to use deadly force against a child simply because it’s a child.

Why do you say arbitrary? I think the threat to your life is one component and the nature of the threat is a separate component. The principle that you can protect your life with force (deadly if discussing living things) is absolute. But like all principles it is not considered in isolation. We must also consider things like the nature of the object that threatens us. Certainly we do not have to use as much care when defending ourselves against trees and bees as we would humans.

You might be right but the way I look at it is the fact that the threat is a child or simple minded adult is not relevant to the issue of can we use deadly force. Where these facts matter is in determining our obligations prior to using deadly force. We might be obligated to first try to reason with them. If a child is just pointing a gun around then taking cover is probably often warranted. When I considered the question I was simply assuming the proper care and any obligation to try other means was taken.

This is a situation I can’t seem to play out in my mind and I doubt drivers attempt to kill police officers with vehicles so often that there is even enough precedent to give you a basis to comment on what police do “fairly often.” I’m not a police officer (are you? have you spoken to one?) and I’m not really sure what they do in this situation, but it would seem illogical to attempt to kill the driver of a vehicle headed for them when it would be far more effective to move out of the way.

Maybe not ‘fairly often’. I can think of at least a couple of cases in my area in the last few years. Compared to the number citizen murders or police killings it might be said not to be exceptionally rare.

I’m not a police officer but I dont have to be one to think about this issue. I can only tell you that in at least two cases a driver was shot and killed by police who claimed the driver was attempting to kill them with a car.