Lethal force: Under what c'stances?

[AllisonDT]

Assuming you are not a law enforcement officer, under what circumstances would you use lethal force on another citizen? I've heard people say that they would NEVER, under ANY circumstances kill another human being. I can't imagine this to be true.
If someone had your children held hostage and the only (read as ONLY!!) way you could get them back was to kill the person, would you?
If 100,000,000 random people would somehow be killed unless you personally killed a convicted serial-killer, would THAT do the trick?

If a situation arose where the law said it was justifiable to take a life, would you? COULD you?


Ally

[AllisonDT]

Woopsie-Doodles! This prooooobably should have been put on the "morality" page.

Moderators, MOVE ME! I beg of you! :)

[Thieving Magpie]

I don't think human life is sacred. I'd kill the person if I thought there were practical benefits for doing so.

Beyond these very broad statements, I cannot say much else... maybe it would be better for my children to die under certain circumstances, etc.

If the only way to stop a serial murderer would be to kill them, then yes, I certainly would try to kill them.

[Matt the Medic]

Moving to MF&P.

-i

[AllisonDT]

It just seems that some people have more respect and reverence for other people's lives (the "bad guys") than they do for their own or their family's. I've heard extreme pacifists say that they would rather die at the hands of a bad guy than to defend themselves with deadly force. Where's the self-respect? :huh:


Ally

[BDS]

I would never "use lethal force".

However, I might kill someone.

I don't care about ethics all that much, but I have a distinct preference for simple, direct English.

[Oar]

Personally I'd only use lethal force if I thought that my life or others' lives were in jeopardy, and even then I'd probably search for another solution if possible. Of course, I can say that now, but you never really know what you're going to do in an emergency situation until you're there.

As for those who say they'd rather die than kill their attacker, I think the rationale is something like they believe it is wrong to kill, and if it is wrong to kill it's always wrong. If someone stole from you would it give you the right to steal from them? Some say yes, others say no. I tend to take the middle ground position, where I'll only do it if absolutely necessary. The other problem is that violence tends to operate in a cycle, and under some circumstances it's necessary for someone to stop that cycle even if they end up dying for it. Just look at Gandhi-type protesting: even if the police come at you with guns you don't get your guns and go after them, because that'd only result in more dead people in the long run.

It all depends on the situation, really.

[Thieving Magpie]

It just seems that some people have more respect and reverence for other people's lives (the "bad guys") than they do for their own or their family's. I've heard extreme pacifists say that they would rather die at the hands of a bad guy than to defend themselves with deadly force. Where's the self-respect? :huh:


Ally

I know some existentialists believe killing other people is very very wrong because they are robbing the other person from exercising their free will. This may be perceived as a lack of self respect, but for these people it is the ultimate form of respect (for humanity in general) that they allow this 'bad guy' to choose not to be a 'bad guy.'

Question: Would you (Ally) think that a soldier who throws himself on a grenade during combat similarly lacks self respect because he sacrifices his own life for the lives of his comrades?

[Thieving Magpie]

I tend to take the middle ground position, where I'll only do it [kill someone] if absolutely necessary.

I think AllisonDT may be asking under what circumstances you may think it is necessary (assuming that no other option is available).

[Astreja]

If I was cornered and under attack, I would definitely strike to kill. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes. I would also kill to defend a friend, a family member, and possibly a complete stranger in need.

Not a desirable scenario, definitely a last resort, but I feel that I could do it if necessary.

[infinity]

if i could legally get away with it, i would use 'lethal force' for, well, just about anything really... looking or acting stupid (not foolish or weird mind you, but stupid: ie, unintelligent) covers about 99% of what i generally wish to murder people for.

example:
at a recent concert, a pair of highly pretentious emo fuckwits decided to stand directly in front of me and my girlfriend and jump around idiots at the top of the stairs leading to the lower area of the concert hall, not only blocking our view, but blocking everyone's access to and from half the theater. for that stupidity and inconsideration, i spent most of the concert day dreaming about how many knife holes i could put in their kidneys before their legs gave out.

the other 1% would be whim and spite. needless to say, in the event of self defense or what have you, on general principle i consider 'lethal force' to be a first option

[fast]

Assuming you are not a law enforcement officer
Wow! An easy one -- I like that.

under what circumstances would you use lethal force on another citizen?Generally speaking, I would lethal force on another at the point in which it became necessary. Necessary for what? Necessary for either my or another’s escape and/or survival. Given the right circumstances, and given the right frame of mind, I do find it conceivable that I may act to use lethal force prior to it becoming necessary--that point where it may unreasonable to others yet reasonable to me.

I've heard people say that they would NEVER, under ANY circumstances kill another human being.I admire the spirit of their intent, but I deplore their potential sacrifice. I deplore more than I admire.

I can't imagine this to be true.
Yes, I have a hard time respecting differences too. Even still, and even under the ultimate trying of times, it is hard to imagine that a person with our same primal drive and need to satiate our bloodthirsty unjust need to inflict revenge upon those that inflict harm upon us would not manifest itself even in those trying times.

If someone had your children held hostage and the only (read as ONLY!!) way you could get them back was to kill the person, would you?I think this world has seen enough of killing, and I certainly wouldn't want to add myself to the list, but under the scenario provided, yes, I most certainly would and without reservation or hesitation.

If 100,000,000 random people would somehow be killed unless you personally killed a convicted serial-killer, would THAT do the trick?
I would need more details for this one. This scenario is actually more tame than the previous, to me. No? Consider the thought of having the ability of bringing back the Tsunami victims. The cost? Your family.

If a situation arose where the law said it was justifiable to take a life, would you? COULD you?Could I? Well, yes, I could. Would I? Unlikely. Why? Beyond the moral reasons, I have no trust in the law or the people that make it up, so like I said in the beginning – an easy one to assume that I’m not one of those.

[engly-saxo]

Assuming you are not a law enforcement officer, under what circumstances would you use lethal force on another citizen? I've heard people say that they would NEVER, under ANY circumstances kill another human being. I can't imagine this to be true.
If someone had your children held hostage and the only (read as ONLY!!) way you could get them back was to kill the person, would you?
If 100,000,000 random people would somehow be killed unless you personally killed a convicted serial-killer, would THAT do the trick?

If a situation arose where the law said it was justifiable to take a life, would you? COULD you?


Ally

I'd readily kill if such an action were saving someone's life or I were in jeopardy of my own life.

Legally in my country, lethal force can only be used if in response to lethal force. If someone punched you in the face, you can't draw a gun and shoot them, since the actions don't equate.

From a moral or ethical perspective though, I'd be willing to kill if it meant safeguarding the life of myself or another innocent person!

[fast]

Legally in my country, lethal force can only be used if in response to lethal force. If someone punched you in the face, you can't draw a gun and shoot them, since the actions don't equate.

You seem to be well grounded. Let me ask you something. There is something particularly peculiar about that law that I just don't like. The thing to which I refer is odd in itself, but here it goes for what it's worth. The law seems fair, and it is that very fairness that turns me off. Don't get me wrong; I don't want to see gun fire for every punch thrown, but the exceptions that come up isn't taken into account by the law. Example, if 8 people come at me and I have reason to suspect that I'm about to be mugged and who knows--maybe even killed. Time wise, I may be only at the stage in this little drama of being on the receiving end of a punch, but the last thing I want or NEED is some law of fairness giving me apprehension about doing what MAY be necessary to survive--even if unknown to me.

Waiting for the clock to strike high noon seems a little needlessly fair for my opponent...fairness is not in my best interest, and if it's me against bad guys, then I see no justification in fairness.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I'd consider lethal force to be a last resort. Given any choice at all, I'll take the non-lethal option. IMHO there's no conceivable act that actually *merits* death - the only question is whether one death is the least-worst option available.

Would I kill a serial killer so he couldn't kill again? Only if there were no non-lethal ways to stop him. If there wasn't - if I only had a hand-grenade, and I needed to stop a sniper who was busy picking people off - then yeah, I'd do my best to waste him.

Would I kill to save myself? Again, quite possibly. Would I think I had done no wrong? Absolutely not. I would have deliberately killed someone. Sure, it was him or me, but I don't see that I have any more of a claim on life than anyone else. My wife and I both agree that in the event of being attacked, we'd want the other to make killing the last resort.

As I asked in another self-defence thread - if your brakes failed on the way down a hill, and your choices were going over a cliff or slamming into a pedestrian, which would you choose? Would your conscience be clear? Would it be any better if the pedestrian were a criminal?

[Reign_Cryogen]

There seems to be a bit of disconcert in the terms here..
Legally in my country, lethal force can only be used if in response to lethal force. If someone punched you in the face, you can't draw a gun and shoot them, since the actions don't equate.Punching someone is lethal force. Make no mistake. The likelihood of the action causing death is what separates punching someone from shooting someone, in a legal sense; nonetheless, the definition includes striking.

[Reign_Cryogen]

With that said, I do support use of lethal force where one can reasonably argue for a clear and present threat.

[Kalvan]

Assuming you are not a law enforcement officer, under what circumstances would you use lethal force on another citizen?
I'm a little confused by the question. I can use "lethal force" without killing someone. It simply means that there is a potential that using that force might result in death. I would not so much deliberately kill someone as hit, stab, or shoot until the thrreat was no longer a threat. If the "threat" dies as a result, it's not that I intended for him to die. It's just that the priority of his continuing to live is far down the list after stopping him ASAP from doing whatever makes him a threat.

[fast]

I can use "lethal force" without killing someone.How? You could use a lethal weapon without killing someone, and you can use non lethal force without killing someone, but if the force you use is lethal, then lethal force has been used.

It simply means that there is a potential that using that force might result in death.On the other hand, (and I reserve the right to close my nose to the above as it has the smell of legal interpretation--jurisdiction dependent, I'm sure), you do have an interesting point. In either case, I don't see how it changes the intent of the question that much. How many would resort to killing? versus How many would resort to an action that has the potential of killing?

[Reign_Cryogen]

How? You could use a lethal weapon without killing someone, and you can use non lethal force without killing someone, but if the force you use is lethal, then lethal force has been used.See above. The definition of lethal force is more broad than what you're operating with. Striking someone with your hand is lethal force. It may seem trite, but think about it: hit someone hard enough and in the right place and you will kill them.

[Shake]

Any of us who use automobiles are using deadly force.

[Reign_Cryogen]

The most underestimated weapon ever, I would wager.

[Marson]

I've heard people say that they would NEVER, under ANY circumstances kill another human being. I can't imagine this to be true.

Because I'm devoid of any beliefs of an afterlife, I can't think of an act with any greater moral seriousness than killing another human being. We only get one life, and the idea of ending another's existence is very sobering.

The only circumstances in which I would kill another person would be to defend myself or another against aggression that is intended to kill or rape. Even then, I would kill only if there was no other alternative. I only support killing by the state in similar circumstances -- as such, I don't support the death penalty, because it takes effect on criminals who are already removed from society and no longer a threat.

As for whether I'm capable, there's only one way to find out. I hope that I never do.

[Rayven_Alandria]

Oh, there are MANY instances in which I would use lethal force....Many people here all ready know my views on the matter.

I feel that once you violate another human to certain degree you forfeit your right to exist. I have my idea about what "certain degree" means and some people here agree and some disagree with my views.

Rapists- whack 'em
Pedophiles- whack 'em
certain murderers- whack 'em
people who cause children harm- whack 'em
con artists- whack 'em (this includes TV evangelists) LOL
anyone who breaks into my home- whack 'em

I'm sure I could come up with many other people I would not mind whacking.

Isn't the world lucky I'm not invulnerable and eternal?

[Reign_Cryogen]

Isn't the world lucky I'm not invulnerable and eternal?Pity, that. I thought we had a future together! *sniff* :(

(P.S. Long time, no hear.)

[Rayven_Alandria]

Well howdy there, Reign.

Yea, I know... I've been neglecting my post. I've been spending too much time flirting at a poly site lately.
:devil3: :angel:

[Secular Elation]

(wrong thread)

[fast]

See above. The definition of lethal force is more broad than what you're operating with. Striking someone with your hand is lethal force. It may seem trite, but think about it: hit someone hard enough and in the right place and you will kill them.

Given the construct of the OP, I would maintain that my definition is not only within the scope of the topic but more accurately describes the intent of the OP.

But hey, I'm easy -- um, this and many other threads anyhow -- sometimes not though :D

Any of us who use automobiles are using deadly force.hmmm, I wonder if that's pedantically correct. Sounds reasonable.


The most underestimated weapon ever, I would wager.Yea. I don't even like to drive on Halloween because I don't want to be the one that...

con artists- whack 'em (this includes TV evangelists) LOLI would say that intent is a critical element in determining 'con', and I would say that many do not have such 'con'ish intents, therefore, don't whack 'em too hard.

Isn't the world lucky I'm not invulnerable and eternal?Pity, that. I thought we had a future together!Wow, I have seriously under estimated my opponent.

[atonal chaotic]

I would consider killing to be a moral act if the individual I'm killing has or is or imminently will commit an act worthy of killing. I use this phrasing rather than "if it would save lives," which is too utilitarian for my taste. Acts I consider worthy of death include murder, torture, rape, possibly despotism. Killing under that condition I consider moral, and if a jury disagrees, I could serve the sentence with pride. "What're you in for?" "Offing a child-rapist."
Of course, in the case of someone who committed an evil act in the past, one must consider whether they can or have "paid their debt" or "redeemed themselves." The guy who murdered someone three days ago hasn't. The guy who murdered someone three decades ago may or may not have.

I can also speculate that I might murder under certain circumstances, though still considering the act immoral after doing so. (Immoral killing = murder, moral killing or justifiable killing = not murder) For example, while I (like most libertarians associated with the Libertarian Party) believe in and have signed a pledge that "I do not believe in nor advocate the initiation of force or fraud to achieve social or political ends," I can imagine that I would be severely tempted if I found myself in a position where a murder or similar crime (as opposed to justified acts of protest, self-defense, or revolution) could potentially guaruntee my idea of "liberty and justice for all." I don't know whether I would give in to such temptation, and if I did I would consider it immoral afterwards, even if the good consequences outweighed the bad.

Note that I haven't addressed legality anywhere, here. Laws and states are temporary and of limited jurisdiction. By contrast, subjective morality exists in any time or place the individual who holds it may be (no potential limit, though the current practical limit is still threescore and ten.) Objective morality exists for all time and throughout the universe from the moment it emerged (whether that's the beginning of all or the emergence of intelligence or somewhen else.)

[staceyturner]

Assuming you are not a law enforcement officer, under what circumstances would you use lethal force on another citizen? I've heard people say that they would NEVER, under ANY circumstances kill another human being. I can't imagine this to be true.

It's not.

If someone had your children held hostage and the only (read as ONLY!!) way you could get them back was to kill the person, would you?

Yes.

If 100,000,000 random people would somehow be killed unless you personally killed a convicted serial-killer, would THAT do the trick?

Sure.

If a situation arose where the law said it was justifiable to take a life, would you? COULD you?


Ally

Yes.