Which of these situations are self defense?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Um, by shooting a man-you can go for a non fatal wound. How about the leg or something?

NOT trying to cause trouble. Just asking-did I misread something?
 
Rascalking said:
Um, by shooting a man-you can go for a non fatal wound. How about the leg or something?

NOT trying to cause trouble. Just asking-did I misread something?
Click to expand...
If you shoot him he dies, and that’s the only way to save yourself.
 
Whoops, I voted for all of them, before I read your explanatory post. I was saying that they’d all be potentially legit self-defense it shooting to stop them, rather than kill them.
 
In general, if someone is about to kill me I kill them first. No changes from the last thread, sorry 😦 Maybe if I knew more about the person I wouldn’t shoot them.
 
Bbigam said:
Whoops, I voted for all of them, before I read your explanatory post. I was saying that they’d all be potentially legit self-defense it shooting to stop them, rather than kill them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I’m not very good at making polls apparently 😦 No way to change it now, hopefully there won’t be more misunderstandings
 
  1. If he’s directly attacking you, you can defend yourself even if he’s being coerced into attacking you, let alone “merely” not in control of his faculties.
  2. Blasting a knee or foot makes anybody without a gun unable to kill you anyway (shooting a thigh could kill someone).
  3. A gun whip or buttstroke provides enough advantage in melee to make firing unnecessary in most cases.
 
chevalier said:
  1. If he’s directly attacking you, you can defend yourself even if he’s being coerced into attacking you, let alone “merely” not in control of his faculties.
  2. Blasting a knee or foot makes anybody without a gun unable to kill you anyway (shooting a thigh could kill someone).
  3. A gun whip or buttstroke provides enough advantage in melee to make firing unnecessary in most cases.
Click to expand...
But if the only way to save yourself would be to shoot him dead, would you?
 
I think all of the scenarios are good reasons to shoot someone, even fatally. The same thing keeps coming up, YOUR life is in danger. You are not going to know if someone is high or in control of their faculties until it is over. I hope and pray that I never have to face any of these situations, but if the situation would arise I would shoot. If I am going to die either way, I want to go down with a fight. The cops are pretty usless in any of these situations, all they will be able to do in the end is arrange to have the body taken away.
 
Why is it that those who are pro 2nd amendment are classified as baby killers? Comparing killing a baby and killing an intruder is comparing apples and oranges. Unless our babies are now able to lock and load, and break into someone’s home and threaten their lives, lets not compare self defence to baby killing.
 
Self defense doesn’t equate to abortion…I have this feeling that this is what your post is about - considering the last two options given… sneaky

Abortion is done with malicious intent - over a period of time.
If I have the time to know all about my attacker and I chose to murder them malicious intent ] - it’s not self-defense - it’s murder.

No matter how you try…it just doesn’t equate
 
kimmielittle said:
Self defense doesn’t equate to abortion…I have this feeling that this is what your post is about - considering the last two options given… sneaky

Abortion is done with malicious intent - over a period of time.
If I have to time to know all about my attacker and I chose to murder them malicious intent ] - it’s not self-defense - it’s murder.

No matter how you try…it just doesn’t equate
Click to expand...
I would prefer not to discuss abortion in this thread, there are already multiple threads about abortion.

I’ll admit this post was partially inspired by my surprise that people don’t think abortion to save the life of the mother is acceptable, because to me it seems like self defense. This makes me curious in general about what kind of thing Catholics consider to be self defense.

I’m not trying to argue for abortion here. It’s really just a curiosity on my part as to whether people think that intent on the part of your attacker is required for you to be able to morally kill him to save yourself.
 
flyingfish said:
I would prefer not to discuss abortion in this thread, there are already multiple threads about abortion.

I’ll admit this post was partially inspired by my surprise that people don’t think abortion to save the life of the mother is acceptable, because to me it seems like self defense.
Click to expand...
Your examples attacker have malicious intent - They all intend to kill you

The Self defense rule - IS determined by intent of both parties… the malicious intent of the attacker and response of the victim ].

They still don’t equate in any way
 
kimmielittle said:
Your examples attacker have malicious intent - They all intend to kill you
Click to expand...

The sleepwalker, the person being completely controlled by another, and the person whose heart has been hooked up to a machine killing you have no intent. They are a passive party, forced through no intention of their own to kill you.

In those cases, the only way for you to save yourself is to kill them. My question is whether it would be considered self defense
 
flyingfish said:
The sleepwalker, the person being completely controlled by another, and the person whose heart has been hooked up to a machine killing you have no intent. They are a passive party, forced through no intention of their own to kill you.

In those cases, the only way for you to save yourself is to kill them. My question is whether it would be considered self defense
Click to expand...
How is it passive with your examples?
Shooting a man who is about to kill you and you know he is sleep walking
Click to expand...
Sleep walking or not The intent of the body [man] has malicious intent.
Shooting a man who is about to kill you and you know his nervous system is being controlled by another
Click to expand...
Shooting a man whose heartbeat operates a device that’s about to kill you
Click to expand...
They would all demand premeditation - that is not passive - it’s active. The body intends to kill you and ACTS on that. You are defending against the body of the attack

These ALL have malicious intent - to destroy your life.

Self defense has no premeditation to commit malicious intent.

Would you not try to defend against a robot attacking you - no matter who controls it?
 
kimmielittle said:
How is it passive with your examples?

Sleep walking or not The intent of the body [man] has malicious intent.

They would all demand premeditation - that is not passive - it’s active. The body intends to kill you and ACTS on that. You are defending against the body of the attack

These ALL have malicious intent - to destroy your life.

Self defense has no premeditation to commit malicious intent.

Would you not try to defend against a robot attacking you - no matter who controls it?
Click to expand...
Well, if you define intent as something the body is doing I agree with you.

I thought intent meant consciously intending to kill someone. Simply having your body (without your knowledge) being in the position that threatens someone’s life would not be intent for me in these examples, because the owner of the body did not deliberately put the body there.

But if you want to define intent so that if the body is doing it there is intent, fine. 🤷

As for the robot, I don’t think intent matters in self defense. I would not attribute intent to anything other than a mind. A sleepwalking body would not have intent as I see it. But I personally think it’s okay to kill/destroy anyone/anything that threatens your life if that’s what you must do to surrive. For me it would all be self defense.
 
flyingfish said:
Well, if you define intent as something the body is doing I agree with you.

I thought intent meant consciously intending to kill someone. Simply having your body (without your knowledge) being in the position that threatens someone’s life would not be intent for me in these examples, because the owner of the body did not deliberately put the body there.

But if you want to define intent so that if the body is doing it there is intent, fine. 🤷

As for the robot, I don’t think intent matters in self defense. I would not attribute intent to anything other than a mind. A sleepwalking body would not have intent as I see it. But I personally think it’s okay to kill/destroy anyone/anything that threatens your life if that’s what you must do to surrive. For me it would all be self defense.
Click to expand...
The general criminal law** allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him**.
Click to expand...
The key word is Reasonable - it is supported by the malicious “intent” of the attacker. Without A **reasonable ** perceived danger - it’s murder
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top