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.
The answer to the question is just brutal common sense. Whether an attacker, intruder or whatever is armed or not, if he;
's attacking you he's a potentially lethal threat. Now lets do away with any notions we are even considering bar room brawls or a parent fight at a Little League game. Please Legitimate self defense and defense of loved ones. Common sense as I said.
If one is physically outmatched and getting beat to a pile of goo is going to be the obvious outcome, with a criminal act of robbery or whatever attached to the attack, lethal means are justified.
Someone breaks into your house while you're sleeping and you don't know their intent.
Of course. Defend yourself - deadly force as the last resort.
You come home and someone's walking out of your house with your iPad and you chase him down the street and shoot him.
You should go be subject to the law.
Exactly. I don't own a gun, but if I did, I would use it to protect life, but never property.
It seems like some on this site find it never justifiable.
Are you speaking of police? Police are trained in unarmed self-defense tactics. There's no reason to shoot an unarmed man. Even if the man is armed with a brick, it still isn't necessary to shoot. Even when it is necessary to shoot, they can shoot to wound, instead of shoot to kill.
Probe: Officers fired four shots at man with brick
Patient had fled University Hospital
Lorenzo Collins, brick in hand, was 6 to 8 feet from police officers when they shot him, investigators said Monday. Cincinnati Police Specialist Douglas Depodesta and University of Cincinnati Officer John E. Engel fired a total of four shots Sunday afternoon, inflicting at least three wounds, said Lt. Clarence Mullis, commander of the city homicide unit. 'They were standing together, that's why they both fired,'' Lt. Mullis said of the officers who shot Mr. Collins. Three or four other officers who weren't in Mr. Collins' path didn't fire their weapons, Lt. Mullis said.
How Mr. Collins, 25, of Avondale, escaped from the hospital's locked psychiatric floor is still unknown, hospital spokesman Rick Smith said Monday. Mr. Collins was not deemed to pose a threat of violence or to flee, and therefore didn't have a guard at his door, Mr. Smith said. Nor had tests been finished when Mr. Collins escaped, running about three blocks to East Rochelle Street.
Are you speaking of police? Police are trained in unarmed self-defense tactics. There's no reason to shoot an unarmed man. Even if the man is armed with a brick, it still isn't necessary to shoot. Even when it is necessary to shoot, they can "shoot to wound", instead of shoot to kill.
Probe: Officers fired four shots at man with brick
Patient had fled University Hospital
Or if you're like George ZIMMERMAN, and you've picked a fight with the wrong black guy and you've realized it too late because he's already whuppin' your ass.
So those are two cases. SMH.
Great point. How do we know that the person with the gun isn't the one who provoked the fight? If we're allowing citizens to kill each other under the "fear for my life" or "I started the fight and I'm losing so now I have to kill" guise, we might as well go back old school and challenge each other to a duel. That way, both sides actually get a fair shot at surviving instead of how it is now with only one side being able to tell the story.
Great point. How do we know that the person with the gun isn't the one who provoked the fight? If we're allowing citizens to kill each other under the "fear for my life" or "I started the fight and I'm losing so now I have to kill" guise, we might as well go back old school and challenge each other to a duel. That way, both sides actually get a fair shot at surviving instead of how it is now with only one side being able to tell the story.
Ya know, I've been hearing such dire predictions of things becoming like this ^^ since the CCW laws became as they are. "Wild West shootouts", "rivers of blood", and all manner of doom and gloom. It hasn't happened. I haven't heard but very very few incidents where a person actually licensed to carry has done anything remotely close. A couple widely publicized happenings of road rage and such, but the streets are hardly turning into Deadwood.
Those of us who have made the choice to be armed have also made the choice to realize what responsibilities that entails. We go seriously out of the way to avoid confrontations. Especially silly stuff like disagreement over parking places, insults to our Mothers virtue, wolf whistles at our ladies, (who often enough are armed as well and have to let such garbage roll off of them to). We sure aren't walking around advertising we are armed as some sort of preemptive measure.
Even with open carry it's not that way. I'm not a fan of open carry personally, and can't carry thus anyway because I have a CCW. But the reason I don't care for it has nothing to do with the possibility of gunslinging fights. It's because of phobics panicking when they see someone with a firearm and wigging out dialing 911 and having SWAT roll up because they saw a pistol in a holster. Lots of people open carry here so that's not been much of a problem lately, but it has happened some in the past. Just relax folks. The mere presence of a firearm does not even mean that a shootout is prerequisite. Quite the opposite actually.
The two men started walking to him, would not follow his commands. They knew he was armed, but some criminals think people don't have the conviction to use it. They would have taken it and killed him had he let them approach and gain a physical proximity to him. This sort of confrontation has gone the other direction in the past where the person with the gun failed to use it to defend the approaching suspect.
It seems like some on this site find it never justifiable.
It can be justifiable.
If you don't know for sure whether he's armed.
If he presents a serious threat to others, armed or not.
But if you're talking about the recent trial...policemen are held to a different standard. They are charged with a duty to protect and must make split second decisions under a great deal of stress and perhaps passion. There are also official protocols that must be followed.
I can understand how a policeman might make the wrong decision in a split second, thinking he was right at the time, or maybe just reacting to an action on the perp's part.
The first thing anyone needs to do when stopped for possible violation of a law is NOT to resist, and to obey instructions like presenting your I.D. and such. If you instead attack the officer or take off running, anything could happen. The best way to prevent that and to be sure you're safe is to obey all legal and reasonable instructions. The cop is doing a job. If he arrests you, you must submit to that. You can object later, in court. But it's against the law to resist arrest, so if you do, that forces the cop's hand. He MUST react to that. It's the job he's charged with doing.
Weak people allow the fate of their lives to be dictated by their attackers. There are some who would feel it was wrong to shoot someone even when they are on the ground getting stomped. It only takes one blow to lose consciousness. You don't allow the attacker to even get that far. If you value your life, then you defend yourself. It doesn't matter if your attacker is armed. Once he's attacked you, he's declared himself your enemy. You should feel no guilt about protecting your life and health.
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.
Legitimate self defense and defense of loved ones. Common sense as I said.
