If you had to kill to protect a family member, what would that action represent to you? (wife, male)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would certainly NOT wait to discern whether they were getting "beaten to death". If it is an unprovoked attack, the hostile subject would be neutralized immediately, no questions asked, no regret and certainly no questions of morality involved. They would get a very quick verbal warning and would only have the time it took me to run close enough and take dead aim to decide how long they wanted to continue their criminal career. All it takes is one properly placed or accidental blow to the head and said relative is in a coma with a brain bleed or worse. It happens all the time.
First I would fire a warning shot and command that they stop the beating/kicking of the family member.
If they continued after the warning then I would shoot them in a non fatal area such as the leg or stomach. Unlike the LAPD around here you can effectively shoot someone without necessarily killing them.
It doesn't sound like you have much gun experience. First of all, no warning shot. Where is your warning shot going to go? Second, by the time you aim again after the recoil, they'll be on you grabbing the gun. My warning shot would be the first bullet hitting them...it's a warning that the other 14 are coming down the pipe if they don't stop.
Third, you're not going to be able to aim for a leg or even the stomach while they're moving and kicking. If you're lucky, the family member is already on the ground and you can aim at the person attacking them, but you're not going to risk aiming for a leg because that would be pointing the gun down toward your family member. If you can, you aim for center mass because you're more likely to hit something that way. But some trick shot where you shoot through their hand or put a bullet in their leg is just not going to be possible in the heat of the moment, with a moving target and with the issue of where your family member is.
Say someone was beating your family member to death (for whatever reason, it's a hypothetical) and you had a gun. You were fairly sure that they intended to kill said family member, and you had the opportunity to save their life but killing this person. So you shoot to kill and kill them.
You've presented no reason to think my family member is more or less innocent/guilty, I can't imagine that any question to follow is relevant. So not understanding the conflict, why would I shoot?
Say someone was beating your family member to death (for whatever reason, it's a hypothetical) and you had a gun. You were fairly sure that they intended to kill said family member, and you had the opportunity to save their life but killing this person. So you shoot to kill and kill them.
A few questions:
Would this be a moral action?
Or would it be morally neutral/a necessary evil.
Is killing an evil person a morally positive action, or morally neutral, or simply morally justified but kind of amoral. Is the act of getting rid of a potential murderer to be seen as a heroic act?
Now imagine the same scenario. Your family member is being kicked to death. You have a gun but decide to do nothing.
Does this make you bad/immoral? Is it an immoral action?
Would the most moral option be to disable this person?
I think if there was clear intent for this person to kill my family member, I would shoot indiscriminately, not necessarily to kill or maim, but just to stop the person from continuing. I wouldn't see myself as heroic, or a moral action per se, but I would see it as necessary and morally justified.
it seems that people have more difficulty with these scenarios if they have very rigid beliefs. absolutes don't exist. its never absolutely wrong to kill. sometimes you have to. sometimes you are ordered to by the government whether you volunteered or not.
i think i would always wade in to protect my family. period. no question. even if it was ANOTHER family member who was doing the deed. it would be a cross to bear, but i don't see anything immoral about killing to save your family. filial or not.
I would not have let it get to that point and would have used deadly force as soon as I felt a real and immediate threat (i.e. first punch). I would shoot to kill, no warning shots. I don't own a gun to scare people or wound them. If they didn't die from the bullet, I would not offer any aid and may in fact delay calling authorities to help him on his journey. Its always better if there are less sides of the story, no matter how right you are. Then I would reload my gun for the next time and never think about the twink again. probably take my relatives out for dinner if they were able.
Unload your weapon into them until it is empty. Is this really a hard question to answer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
