Here's a topic to discuss--is it acceptable for someone who has been abused to use deadly force against the abuser when they attack again? Is it morally right? Or does it just make the abused no better than the attacker?
I say it can be appropriate if the abused person fears for his or her life.
@Emperor Devon: :xp:
OH MY GOD, JAE! After the last two days (which you are fully aware of!!) I'm not sure what the Hell I should say to someone bringing up this topic again. Maybe after my temporary insanity (not exagerrating) cools down you'll get a logical reply. For now, all I can do is gape. Dear Lord. :xp:
I specifically stated my opinions on this. Mods! Please delete this wretched thread at once! :xp:
I think it's okay. It's self defense right?
OH MY GOD, JAE! After the last two days (which you are fully aware of!!) I'm not sure what the Hell I should say to someone bringing up this topic again. Maybe after my temporary insanity (not exagerrating) cools down you'll get a logical reply. For now, all I can do is gape. Dear Lord. :xp:
I specifically stated my opinions on this. Mods! Please delete this wretched thread at once! :xp:
Oooh, darkside points to me! :dev7:
I never said you had to answer! :lol:
I was feeling evil tonight after looking at the gaping hole in my ceiling and cleaning up bag upon bag of that obnoxious vermiculite insulation.
Besides, you needed extra incentive to win the duel. :lol:
I don't think it's right for someone to use deadly force, unless his or her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's best to get the police involved instead so the situation can be resolved legally.
I agree with skye. Only use it when your life is in danger, or if you are ambushed.
If you are attacked, you have a right to use any means necessary to get rid of the attacker. But i think, its only good for when they attack after the first time. When they first attack, get the police involved, and if they attack the second time, then use the force yourself, to prove that you are not an as 'easy target' as what they first thought you out to be.
That is my opinion.
I agree with you too Mr_BFA. Always call the police first.
I agree with you too Mr_BFA. Always call the police first.
Which can be quit hard when the mofo that's attacking you is stabbing you to death...
Imo, if you get attacked with a weapon, the attacker has the possibility to kill you. So you will HAVE to imagine the worst case scenario: You dying. Ussage of deadly force? Depend in the situation.
Hell yeah you should! I mean, if your own life is in peril, wouldn't you use self-defense?! I mean, if someone ambushed me, i would go straight to a kick on the groin, and if it hit, i would then armbar him to the ground or so, then call the cops.
The Gandian philosophy states that when a person resorts to violence to counter violence, the person becomes no better than the attacker. A lot of abusers turned into abusers, because they were abused themselves. When the abused takes to violence, he grows a liking towards such violence. That is also the philosphy of the Jedi. Revenge, however tempting and judicious, is never the right path. (Though I don't understand why they love battling so much, when they can just use the Force to quell such problems).
as Jason said, a groin kick, but i'd take a photo if i can with my nifty cam-phone. the cops will find that incredibly useful.
but yeah, me being a 14 year old, there's not much "deadly" force i can dish out, but i'll at least make their eyes water :p
Yeah, exactly my point, i'm only 11 year old, soon to be 12, but since i don't have much strength, i can just groin kick him, perhaps bite him a bit, and then a good ol' armbar locked in.
If there is a direct threat to your life I say kill the f***er, but otherwise: Revenge is a dish best served cold...
It depends on how big the person has abused the other person. And like RC, as a fourteen year old, I can't dish out much pain.
It depends on the circumstance.
If it's in cold blood, then no. It's still wrong, even if they were terribly abused.
If it's a heat-of-the-moment, middle-of-a-fight-to-the-death kinda thing, then it's necessary, and I suppose you can hardly say it was *wrong*.
Doing the right thing, and doing the necessary thing are rather different, however, IMO.
Hm.. and what happens when you miss that groin kick? Because the attacker is like, swift? :D
But I should not lecture you bout that, although I'm 17, I'm not strong at all. I Though, would be cabable of dodgin a kick I guess :D
Anyway... I would not want to kill someone, even under the worst circumstances, when I can just knock the attacker out. (Well I can't, but let's suppose so :D)
If so called "self defense" results in a kill... I'd really wanted to know if it was such a brutal assault, that requiered someone to die...
If someone decideds to beat you up (not kill or rape you) and you happen to kill that person in self defense, I would not consider it to be justifyed.
Well, self-defence is always the old standby.
As for abuse, it'd have to depend of what kind and how bad before a person would be justified. Of course, if I was defending my wife or daughter from someone who had abused either one of them, I doubt I'd have any hesitation or moral qualms about snuffing them horribly and painfully. I can be quite a sociopathic, sadistic when I want.
It depends on how big the person has abused the other person. And like RC, as a fourteen year old, I can't dish out much pain.
Actually, you can dish out pain quite effectively even if you're small. We discuss in taekwondo places to grab/hit that'll stop someone. That includes the eyes, nostrils, Adam's apple/larynx, and ears. Their head is going to go wherever their ear goes.
We also discuss using equal force--if someone's just grabbing your arm, you can't use killing force back. What our master and the lawyer who's a student in the dojang recommend to us is using just enough force to get away to call the police.
The one time in 4 years of doing tkd that I thought I might actually have to use it was when a guy threatened to punch his girlfriend in the face in my office because she didn't ask him if it was OK to get her eyes dilated. I'm not kidding. When I left the room I was in to see what all the screaming was about, he was standing over her with his fist raised. I told him he had to leave and he told me I'd have to call the cops. I immediately told the other staff to call the cops, then I prayed hard that I _wasn't_ going to have to figure out where to kick him to stop him from nailing her in the head before the cops got there. I was terrified and angry all at the same time. Fortunately, he didn't make any more threatening moves on either his girlfriend or me--we just stared at each other til the cops arrived (very quickly I might add, to my relief).
And the girlfriend--who was an intelligent woman--went home with the guy. I wanted to beat my head against the wall at that one, because I knew he was going to hit her as soon as she got home, if not in the car. I even offered her a ride to the woman's shelter, and she refused, so all I could do was give her the phone number. Sigh....
I think they have the right to defend themselves if they're being abused.
I figure there is a time to kill, if your life is in direct danger. Or for a couple of other reasons, but I don't believe that you should just kill all willy-nilly. God himself has killed people, and ordered people to be killed so seeing as the state our world is in, it will have to take place eventually.
Well let's put it this way Jae. I'm no fighter.
Well let's put it this way Jae. I'm no fighter.
Neither am I, but I have been playing soccer since the age of 5. The Ztalkerian-Groin-kick will be deadly enough as it is with those neat li'll soccer-shoes and incredible leg muscles! :xp:
I don't think it's right for someone to use deadly force, unless his or her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's best to get the police involved instead so the situation can be resolved legally.
:wstupid:
If there is a direct threat to your life I say kill the f***er, but otherwise: Revenge is a dish best served cold by Hallucination with a side of kickass...
Fixed for great justice. :)
Don't get me started on techniques for revenge and/or torture *evil grin*
"This **** is between me and Mr soon-to-be-living-the-rest-of-his-life-in-agonizing-pain rapist here, you hear me hillbilly boy? I'm gonna get medieval on yo ass!"
Here is on of my negative cases, written at the last minute. I'd also give a positive one, but those were written by hand.
The value I have chosen for this round is justice, which is defined as giving what is due to them. Justice is an essential thing to a civilized society for obvious reasons. One of the key principles in it is proportionality, for justice cannot exist if there are no standards for it. Executing someone for petty larceny, for instance, could be considered justice, but would be completely out of proportion to the situation. As it is such an important thing, proportionality will be my criterion for this round.
Contention 1: The use of deadly force against abuse is not proprotional. It is inevitable that with all the battered women in the world, some of their torment is worse or better than others. Some can vary from simple beatings daily to torture sessions, humiliation, and starvation. It is not possible for all types of abuse suffered to be judged the same. However, killing is a much more limited field. Although people can be killed in various ways, some worse or better than others, the end result is obviously death, something that there is absolutely no form of proportion with. If various types of abuse are met with an equal punishment, is that justice? Obviously not, as our judicial system believes that different crimes should be punished to various degrees. Death cannot vary in the slightest, and goes completely against our established form of what is just.
Contention 2: There are nonlethal alternatives, which is essential to justice being served. The only effective way in this situation for justice to be served would be to have the abuser come up before a court, have all the evidence and facts taken into consideration, and then be sentenced in proportion. This obviously can't happen if he's dead, which is where nonlethal alternatives to escaping from abuse come in. Some of these include shelters for the victim, the police, or any friends and relatives the battered woman has who can be trusted. If the victim can have the abuser brought to court and testify against him, justice will have been better served. To allow this to happen, nonlethal alternatives to escaping are essential.
Contention 3: Victims are biased in their decisions and are unlikely to effectively serve proportional justice. If someone is abused for varying amounts of time and is trapped in a mindset that nonlethal alternatives are impossible (which as stated in my previous observation, they are not), they cannot effectively make decisions that can compare to those made by a jury of non-biased people.
And the girlfriend--who was an intelligent woman--went home with the guy. I wanted to beat my head against the wall at that one, because I knew he was going to hit her as soon as she got home, if not in the car. I even offered her a ride to the woman's shelter, and she refused, so all I could do was give her the phone number. Sigh....
One the issues about abuse I discussed and debated was battered woman's syndrome. To make a long story short, they are often trapped in a sort cycle. The violence escalates, reaches it's height, cools down, and then gets repeated over and over. It's part of the mindset that the abuser can change.
Btw, did you ever find out what happened to her?
Oh, so everyone knows the heck I'm talking about: For the last few days I was in a debate tournmanent and this was the chosen issue. So I ended up discussing and debating (both sides of) it with around ten people for eight hours straight the first day, and about the same amount of time straight the next day. Nope, no exagerrations here. A definite way to get your brain fried. :)
But at least I know the issue inside out now. Does anyone want to try to outdebate me in it? :p
Neither am I, but I have been playing soccer since the age of 5. The RCian-Groin-kick will be deadly enough as it is with those neat li'll soccer-shoes and incredible leg muscles! :xp:
ditto, brother :D
also, i have a pair of those running shoes. those lil metal spikes sure look pretty :xp:
ditto, brother :D
also, i have a pair of those running shoes. those lil metal spikes sure look pretty :xp:
Metal spikes vs Groin...I suppose the guy who would assaultd you would speak a few tones higher for the rest of his life then :D
If you are attacked, you have a right to use any means necessary to get rid of the attacker. But i think, its only good for when they attack after the first time. When they first attack, get the police involved, and if they attack the second time, then use the force yourself, to prove that you are not an as 'easy target' as what they first thought you out to be.
That is my opinion.
I totaly agree with Mr_BFA
It depends on how big the person has abused the other person. And like RC, as a fourteen year old, I can't dish out much pain.
Actually you can dish out pain that will bring a full grown man down but only striking at certain places on the body. Ask Jae since she is the martial artist :D
As to the topic, I think that every person has a right to defend themself if they are being threatened. That is in general. Specifically to defending yourself against an abuser, they abuser has no right to physically harm you. If it comes worse to physical violence, defend yourself until you can get away and call for help. Yeah it sounds like what cops tell kids what to do when it's an emergency but hey, sound advice I think. I realize that not all abuse cases are reported with the number one reason being fear.
I play soccer too, and a good ol' kick to the groin will bring down anyone, unless they have a metal groin. Which is unlikely. If that is the case, use a mallet :smash: .
But seriously, I would never strike to kill (I can't anyway, i'm 14 too) even if they did have a knife.
To kill no but sometimes it happens. What you do to get over trauma could mean the difference whether the abused becomes the abuser or not.
no. not the 1st time. 2nd time ftw.
Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally?
When left with no other alternative, make sure it's you who goes home alive at the end of the ordeal.
I don't think it's right for someone to use deadly force, unless his or her life is in danger. Otherwise, it's best to get the police involved instead so the situation can be resolved legally.
I'm with you there.
Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally?
Sure. Since they are the ones now being abused and the sides have switched. And as long as it works in with Syke's comment.
I'm a lover not a fighter.
But if somone won't back off, I say kick that guys a$$.
When left with no other alternative, make sure it's you who goes home alive at the end of the ordeal.
So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?
Hm.. and what happens when you miss that groin kick? Because the attacker is like, swift? :D
Then you die.
Related question: If the abuser now comes under attack from the abusee (who is defending themselves from abuse) and is using deadly force, does the abuser have the right to defend themselves equally?
No, by law they should have to sit by and get the living hell kicked out of them.
So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?
So are you saying that if it were a matter of survival, you would play by the rules?
Basically, what I am saying over all is that if I were in that position, the abuser would die, one way or the other. I do not have the trust in the legal system to "leave it to the police", "fight clean", or "allow for redemption", they abuse someone, they don't deserve to live. If it meant that for handing out my justice I spent the rest of my days in prison, I would be happy knowing that there was one less abuser in the world, one more murderor, but one less abuser.
But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser?
Hell yes it's right. You can stick your moral lectures up the darkest pit on Mustafar. :xp:
But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser?
No, because it's not murder, not really. It's self-defense. Murder is killing an innocent person. I know there's a legal definition, but we're talking moral here, right?
But surely the murder makes you (the murderer) as bad a person as the abuser?
Meh. Call me morally bankrupt, but if someone was abusing me to the point where I might die, I'd rather be a live murderer than a dead law-abiding citizen.
So survival is the key. Self preservation. We all do have a right to live and we have to defend it. You just have to know when you have gone too far.
I submit this to you for consideration on this topic: In the military we constantly go through training for use of deadly force. One of the things that is listed as justification for the use of deadly force is: " To prevent serious offenses against persons that involve an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (E.G. murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault)."
Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but to me repeated physical abuse is serious bodily harm. So, I would say that on the topic of abuse in most cases, not always, but in most cases the abuser is more powerful than the victim or holds power over the victim and if deadly force is the only way the victim can fight back, I think that it is more than justified.
So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?Doesn't it?
So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?
If it's a matter of my life being threatened,
YES, everything flies out the window, including the head of who's threatening me or my family.
It would certainly be the natural reaction.
I see that there is some agreement that it is a matter of survival when our lives are being threatened. My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?