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?When there's no clear and present danger to justify actually taking someone's life.

So you are saying that when it becomes a matter of survival, everything else flies out the window?Yeah, pretty much. If I ever thought that a situation became Me or You or My Family or You, you're as good as cat food. And I actually like you. But yes, if I ever thought that you represented a life or death threat to me or anyone I care deeply about, I'd cut your throat or snap your neck without even thinking twice. I'd never feel guilty, I'd never weep for the loved ones you left behind, and I'd never lose a single night's sleep over killing you. I'd have done what I had to do, and that would be the end of it.

My question posed to you is this, how far do you go before it changes from defense and becomes murder?

If it staves off imminent danger, it's defense.

@Mace, that's certainly an interesting example.

If it staves off imminent danger, it's defense.

@Mace, that's certainly an interesting example.

When you have kids, somehow a little switch gets implanted in you if you're not normally the aggressive type. It's the 'Kill and Maim if They Mess With My Kids' switch. Normally I'm of the same opinion of my TKD master--'the best way not to get hit is to not be there'. I'd rather talk someone down or walk away than fight them, and I don't care if it means a drunk gets away with calling me an a--hole at a bar. So they were stupid and called me a name. Big fat hairy deal. It's not worth a fight.

Now, if someone tries to mess with my kids, the switch gets flipped, and I've found myself in a couple of people's faces with the 'You want a piece of me?!?' attitude almost before I realized what was happening. It was a surreal experience. What was really crazy is that both times they were men who were taller than me, and they were the ones that backed down. I don't know if it's because I looked crazy or scary or outweighed them or a combo of that or what, but as long as my kids were safe, I don't really care what they thought of me. If my _only_ choice was my children dying or the attacker dying, the attacker would be dead as quickly as I could make him.

Usually, though, it's not the only choice; there are oftentimes alternatives.

I can understand the switch on the need to protect the kids. I'm 21 and my mom still protects me. I can see that the use of violence can be used as a means to do defend oneself. Thankfully I haven't had the need to do so yet.
As to the moral question I asked earlier the reason being was that I was thinking of a scenario that was portrayed on CSI with the airliner and all the passengers in first class killed that one guy. Grissom pointed something out interesting though, no one stopped to ask if the guy was all right. I can justify using violence to bring down someone enough so that you can get away but to keep at it and eventually end up killing them, that I think crosses a line.

Here in Colorado we have a "make my day law" where if you are on your own property and have been threatened, and feel that your life is in danger you are legally allowed to use whatever force is necessary to subdue your assailant, even deadly.

Now, if someone tries to mess with my kids, the switch gets flipped, and I've found myself in a couple of people's faces with the 'You want a piece of me?!?' attitude almost before I realized what was happening. It was a surreal experience. What was really crazy is that both times they were men who were taller than me, and they were the ones that backed down.

Not surprising. Natural instincts are quite strong. I've read some stories about what mothers can do for their kids, (such as lifting up a car) and it's quite extraordinary.

I'd actually beeen refering to how Mace was using JM12 in his example, btw. :)

Oh I guess I better hide then if Mace wants to do that if I became a threat to his survival. Nice to see that you like me Mace. I am sorry if I am being persistent on the moral factor because you all are quick to say yes I will use violence to protect myself if necessary. Sometimes the need to stop and think about what you are about to do is a necessary. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that maybe you should stop and really think about it. It would be something that you would have to live with for the rest of your life.

Oh yes. When someone slams you with a baseball bat and then lifts it up to give you another blow, that's not exactly the perfect time to start contemplating the mysteries of life. I agree that we should use judgement, but every person has a right to protect himself. If you beat the guy and he starts running or is knocked out, then call the police.

That was not my intention Dark Lady. I meant in terms of your response here on this thread. As to the rest of your post, I agree that you should exert enough force to get away and then get help.

We are discussing deadly force here, aren't we.

Whacking a person with a bat is hardly deadly, unless you're Albert Pujols or Robert Deniro in " The Untouchables".

This would be more about weapons wouldn't it?

You're dseperately trying to stave off an abduction in a parking lot or your dark garage and you have one brief opportunity to reach your pistola and in a moment of emminent peril, you fire and kill him.
That's self defense.

A group of hooded figures spooks you while walking alone on a dark night and you whip out and start firing...
That's something different.

Of coures for Jae, this is different.
Her hands and feet are registered in Madison as lethal weapons. :ninja2:

Yes it is right to use force to kill somebody in self-defense and for me also when its not in self defense >:D.

Is it moral? Nah, but as far has i'm concerned, is anything but breathing moral? And I don't really think morality is such a big deal.

and no, it does make you better than the attacker if you actually defeat him. It proves your more powerfull than him.

The strongest survives in this dog eat dog world! If you think i'm mean then you wouldn't last long in star wars universe

If your life is not in any danger, then you're walking a fine line between victim and vigilante, and then the morality of your choices is in question. But if it's a case of your your life or your attackers, then you have to say yes, it is acceptable (not only acceptable but necessary).

Victims of physical abuse / violence, I would say have the right to use any means at their disposal. It's a no-brainer really. As long as it's self defense, and not an eye for an eye.

Sorry if I sounded snappy, JediMaster12, nothing personal. I just grew up in a rotten neighborhood, so I've had friends who were severely injured by this kind of stuff, and I was attacked once myself. I have a tendency to go overboard on self-defense issues. And, Cygnus, whacking somone with a baseball bat can be deadly, especially if you do it again, and again, and again.

I see no reason why anyone would be against the use of deadly force.

Should it be first reaction in defense? Certainly not.
But, if death is the only means to prevent someone from doing you (or those you care about) harm, I see no issue.

No harm Dark Lady. I went to a school where I witnessed fights at lunch that were not deadly but very harmful. My brother went to a school where they sent all the juve kids. Dog eat world if you ask me. The only way to distinuish us as people who try to do right from those that revel in harming is morals. Yes I would defend myself, it's what I was taught. I was taught to hurt them enough to get away and call for help. If it has to I probably would pull the trigger if they were still coming at me.

Don't get me wrong M'Lady. I'm not defending attackers.

I think the subject has grey area because there is a grey area between our perception of life threatening and whether it is actually life threatening.

Somethings start out non-life threatening and then esculate into a more serious situation.

Of course, if you're the one under attack it becomes much more difficult to assess this. In this arena, it's better to err on the side of caution.

Probably you are right Cygnus. I am just in the habit of asking those questions that are overlook or persist to get a real answer. This really is a shade of grey because it is based on perception and most of us know that truth is relative.

Yes Master, you are excellent at pulling the core of the idea out of us.
Sometimes persisting on a topic or playing Devil's Advocate adds greatly to the conversation.

You truly are a master.

I didn't want Dark Lady to think I was insensitive to her opinion.
I was just eluding to the fact that a gun and a bat are two different weapons.

But, she's right, both can be deadly.

Well not a master...yet. I am still four maybe 6 years away from obtaining masterhood (Ph.D). Right now I am just a padawan.
I don't think you insensitive to opinions. Everyone has them. It is just a matter of tact when presenting it. I believe the other topic concerning religion is a good practice because it is a sensitive subject.

As to your comment, yes both can be deadly. In fact anything can be turned into a weapon. Just last night on the news there was a report about someone being arrested for assault with a deadly weapon when a customer flung a cup of hot coffee at the cashier at a fast food place. I think it was McDonalds. Yes a deadly weapon since that coffee is heated to approximately 170-180 degrees Farenhiet (excuse spelling). That is enough to cause serious injury. I have been burnt by the hot water that is the same temp and used for tea and hot chocolate at my weekend job at Burger King.

I'd say, yeah. If someone thinks they can keep beating you with impunity than you may have to use deadly force the next time they attack you. However, how many times have they done so? If they were sober, then perhaps they never intended to kill you. If so, is it then moral to kill them when you could just maim/incapcitate them and run like hell? If a battered person killed someone while in the process of being beaten by them (yet again), I wouldn't think twice about mitigating circumstances being allowable. If, on the other hand, they waited till the assailant was asleep or in the tub (man, electrocution burns...), that's different.

No. Well, I mean you should strike back, but in non-lethal way. The Constitution states if person who thinks his or her life is in danger, he/she could use any means to immobilize, but not to kill the abuser, in other words, person should eliminate the abuser as a threat for him/her, but not to kill the abuser. Of course, call 911 first and do your best to immobilize the abuser as the cop is on the way.

I don't think the constitution says that. We have the right to bear arms but that was added in a time when your best friends were the Bible and a gun (Revolutionary times). Maybe a statute says something along those lines but really the constitution outlines the powers of the federal government and the police powers of the states.

I don't think the constitution says that. We have the right to bear arms but that was added in a time when your best friends were the Bible and a gun (Revolutionary times). Maybe a statute says something along those lines but really the constitution outlines the powers of the federal government and the police powers of the states.

Yes, the Constitution stated that. It gave us the definition of Self-Defense. Go watch CSI: Miami, Season 3, Episode 4, "Under the Influence" for reference.

Why go to a TV show? CSI is cool but flawed. Why not just read the Constitution? It's not that long. It never actually mentions self-defense per se, but I'm sure it probably says something beyond the Second Amendment somewhere. Great... now I've got to check.

Thanks Dark Lady for saying that. I just think of TV mentioning the topic but I do the personal research myself. If you are talking about ammendments, is it in the Bill of Rights or the later ones?

Well, the Second Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) is the one that states we have "the right to keep and bear arms." I've been looking to see if it defines self-defense anywhere, but I can't find it. CSI, could you point me in the right direction?

I'm fairly certain I am well within my rights to defend myself. If some guy comes at me with a knife, I'll do whatever is necessary to neutralize him. If he dies from my poking his eyes out and bashing his throat in, oh well, the guy shouldn't have freakin' threatened me with a knife.

You use the Three Stooges style of fighting, Phreak? :D

Hey, they can't stab me if they can't see me.

Eyes and larynx (Adam's apple) are great places to gak someone. You can stop someone very quickly with little force by hitting either of those places.

There are quite a few places on the body that have this effect.

Special move one:
Grab attacker by the wrist with both hands. Bring the thumbs and middle fingers together as close as you can and with as much force as you can muster, wring the skin of the wrist like a dishrag, opposite hands going back and forth until attacker is subdued or screams "Uncle" really loud.

Special move two:
Grab attacker by the head and stuff his/her neck under your arm pit. While locking him in with one arm, use other hand (fist closed) and run knuckles rapidly from forehead to back of skull until subdued or cry of "Uncle" is heard.

Special move three:
Is a secret move and cant' be described here for safety reasons. But it involves pulling the attacker's underwear up from the back to squeeze the bass from his voice.

Jae, I'm sure with your training, you've encountered these basic moves along time ago.

There are quite a few places on the body that have this effect.
Jae, I'm sure with your training, you've encountered these basic moves along time ago.

As the oldest of 3 kids, I probably created some new special moves while I was at it. :dev7:

Do any include daring your older sister to cut the skin between the thumb and first finger? I did that but I didn't know better. :xp:

No, because I wasn't allowed to leave marks. But I did ask her to buy a Freudian slip for me at Sears one time.

Hehe. Well I have my own silly watch dog: my little brother. Even when he was five he stuck up for me and he does now. I have no need to defend myself. He does it for me. :lol:

Well, the Second Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) is the one that states we have "the right to keep and bear arms." I've been looking to see if it defines self-defense anywhere, but I can't find it. CSI, could you point me in the right direction?

No, "the right to keep and bear arms" is not same as "Self-Defense".

Well, I don't know where it is exactly, but I know somewhere it got to be mentioned, I think.

Took a look online at US Constitution and amendments. Nothing addressing the right to seld defense. Probably no need, then or now, to codify that concept into such a document. Ultimately, you are at the mercy of due process and your peers w/ regard to determining whether you acted in self defense or not.

Took a look online at US Constitution and amendments. Nothing addressing the right to seld defense. Probably no need, then or now, to codify that concept into such a document. Ultimately, you are at the mercy of due process and your peers w/ regard to determining whether you acted in self defense or not.

First, I'm sorry, I don't catch this phrase: "seld defense", what's it?

Second, you mean, common sense. But, I really don't think two attempted murders make the case solved, right? So at least you should just disarm the murderer, not to execute him/her back. If you do so, you will commit a felony, Murder. 25 Years to Life and it's just for starters.

"Seld" was just a typo, didn't catch it unfortunately.

Not sure about your second point exactly. Laws and statutes will define what constitutes justifiable self-defense from a legal standpoint. Your statement should probably say two attempted "killings", not murders, which is something that would be adjudicated in court. That's why I say "at the mercy". Either a judge or jury will make that final legal decision that could send you away for 25 to life.

Self defense is not in the constitution. the second amendment states that you have the right to own and bear arms, but nothing about the regulation of their use. that issue, as with most things, is left up to the states. the right to self defense is not universal in the US, in some states killing is illegal no matter what the conditions. In colorado, it is justified in only the slimmest of chances, fearing for your life on your own property. There is no federal right to defend yourself against your peers, only the right to own and bear arms.

My personal oppinion is, never kill anyone, not even in self defence. Instead learn to defend your self using nonlethal fighting techniques. Of course this is easy for me to say who live in a country where owning a gun is going to earn you a few years in jail. Also, to own a rifle you must have a (almost) clean record, and pass a test including an examination by a doctor. This means that in most cases the weapon used is going to be a knife, and with proper training or a dog, it is unlikely that someone is going to kill you. I can see that this is diferent in a country where everyone can have a gun, but I still think that proper training and a dog is going to get you trough most situations.

And something that I dont think everyone here have considered.
Most attacks/killings is done by a close relative or someone the victim knew.
So to those who would kill in self defence without hesitating, what if it where your girlfriend/boyfriend, a family member or your best friend.

As for myself, I know I wouldnt pull the trigger/ slit the throat of anyone, not even to save myself.

The problem as i see it, is that society as a whole is repusled by the idea, and would stop you if you tried to defend yourself. The Standard anti-handgun lobby answer is 'call the police and let them handle it', But in a normal city it takes anywhere from five minutes to an hour for thenm to show up. when we reported a stolwen shotgun they took 45 minutes, and spent the half hour they were here telling us that 'buying' a shotgun didn;t mean we had 'registered' it, and if we were so effing stupid it wouldn't have been stolen.

I myself prefer the sword. It's cheapm needs no ammunition, It is easy to learn the operation of the device, it always works, and just drawing it will, like a pump action shotgun being jacked, convince your attacker there are more imprtant places to be.

The argument usually given that states a criminal has rights as far as I am concerned is as follows. He had a right to invade my home, I have a right to defend it, and if he doesn;t beat feet this instant I will gladly bury him on my soil.

Let me toss in my perspective on this. This is a story my dad would always tell me (and yes, it does happen to unfortunately be true) when discussing the use of force. Paraphrased a little, but you'll get the idea.

"When I was 13, I was being taunted on my way home from school by the usual group that bullies everyone, blah blah, whatever. I shrugged it off. When I didn't respond, they got further and further in my face, and ended up running in front of me to do the tough guy, pengiun-style "beat chest, display manliness" kind of thing.

I tried to talk them into just letting me go, to no avail. I ended up tossing some rather vile insults in their faces and pushing past since it was a long walk home and I wanted to rest. The ringleader didn't take too nicely to these insults and pulled a knife on me.

I was scared, for obvious reasons, and I tried to talk him out of this, much more civily this time. He didn't take too kindly to it, and ended up slashing at me. At that moment, I didn't care that I was outnumbered 5 to 1, or that he had a knife, I wanted to make sure I got out of there alive."

To spare you the rest of the details, dad won the fight in about 10 seconds. He hospitalized the other person. There was somewhat of an outcry over why he did this, but it worked out okay in the end.

As an avid reader, I want to add my perspective on this. If someone threatens me in any way and they use physical force of any sort, I will not hesitate to beat them into a pulp. Not lethal, but certainly debilitating injuries that make sure they will NEVER want to hurt me again. Take the example of Ender Wiggin (Ender's Game series). Constantly threatened by other children, he uses force to make sure that none of them will ever hurt him again. Ever.

"The power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you."

"[why he attacked a boy who was down] "Knocking him down won the first fight. I wanted to win all the next ones too."

"Ender knew at this moment he might be able to walk out of the room and end the battle. But the battle would only be fought again. Again and again until the will to fight was finished. The only way to end things completely was to hurt Bonzo enough that his fear was stronger than his hate."

"It was just him and me. He fought with honor. If it weren't for his honor, he and the others would have beaten me together. They might have killed me, then. His sense of honor saved my life. I didn't fight with honor... I fought to win."

(bolded above quotes are courtesy of Ender Wiggin).

These pretty much sum up the way I feel about this. I will do my best to talk you out of trying to hurt me, but if you make an attempt on my life, so help me God, I will beat you so hard that you won't be able to/want to come after me again.

I understand the feeling. During my Junior year in HS, had made a comment that you didn't want to p--- a little guy off because he would fight to kill rather than to win. One of the seniors who outweighed me by about seventy pounds (Picture me as 5' nothing, 97 pounds soaking wet) who proceeded to try to egg me into a fight for the nest two weeks. Triooing me, slapping me out his way to get to a locker, throwing books at me in class.

On the 12th day he got his wish. I was irritaed about something, I don;t know what, and he picked me up and slammed me into my open locker. 'What does it take to get you mad?"

In the novel 'The Mirror of my Love, I described the feeling of what the Celts and Norse call Berserkergang, the berserk fury the Vikings are so known for. I wrote it not from experience, but from as the military would say, 'after action reports'.

Accroding to the witnesses, I sighed, set down my books, took his wrist as if I were going to lead him somehere, put his arm into my locker and said 'that will do'. At which point I slammed the locker on his arm four times breaking both of his forearm bones, picked him up with one hand, ran him into the opposite wall a foot off the ground, then as he began to collapsed locked my hands on his neck trying to rip his troat out. Three people finally pulled me off of him.

I didn't get punished. The teachers wanted to at least susspend me if not have me arrested but the guy I had almost killed and half a dozen witnesses told them what had happened for over a week, and they figured on letting it slide.

I wasn't bothered during my next two years.

I didn't get punished. The teachers wanted to at least susspend me if not have me arrested but the guy I had almost killed and half a dozen witnesses told them what had happened for over a week, and they figured on letting it slide.
You were lucky that you weren't arrested for assault mach. That didn't even constitute self defense. You had mitigating circumstances I would say that worked in your favor. I hope the bully's family didn't do anything.

You were lucky that you weren't arrested for assault mach. That didn't even constitute self defense. You had mitigating circumstances I would say that worked in your favor. I hope the bully's family didn't do anything.

Would you want to admit that you stuck your arm willingly into a tiger's cage and he bit it off? Besides, I could see the court room scene. This little guy with this huge hulking football jock saying, 'yes your honor, he beat me up'. It would have been downright embarrassing, since I didn't use any weapons.

It was a different time compared to now. If I had been known for a violent nature, they might have jailed me to deter any others, but i was a shy boy who read a lot, didn't have a lot of friends, no girlfriends. I was a mouse kicking a tiger in the balls. To get literary, I was the bojum he thought was a snark.

I see your point. I'm surprised that you could do something like that but I have heard of instances where the rush of adrenaline makes you capable of feats that you would have done under normal circumstances. I have never really gotten into a serious fight but I have seen the physical altercations during lunch hour and man it ain't pretty.

I see your point. I'm surprised that you could do something like that but I have heard of instances where the rush of adrenaline makes you capable of feats that you would have done under normal circumstances. I have never really gotten into a serious fight but I have seen the physical altercations during lunch hour and man it ain't pretty.

I know what you mean. I am now what I call a rational pacifist, which, if he were still alive, Robert Heinlien would applaud as a proper delicate balance for a human being.

He labeled a pacifist as someone that didn't deserve society because he was unwilling to protect it.

My version is I will not harm you, steal from you, force you to do anything, and I ask the same.

If you want a fight I will attempt reason but I will not back down or give you the satisfaction of running away or accepting your abuse. However if reason will not suffice, I will set down my book, stand up, beat you to within an inch of your life, and once you are no longer a threat, I will return to what I was doing.

It's worked for me.

For some reason verbal arguments work for me. I can lay down an argument and when the occassion calls for it be well articulated. I don't go fancy with all the language but people see my point.

My brother and I though would follow through with your philosphy but more out of family loyalty to each other should either of us get threatened.

For some reason verbal arguments work for me. I can lay down an argument and when the occassion calls for it be well articulated. I don't go fancy with all the language but people see my point.

My brother and I though would follow through with your philosphy but more out of family loyalty to each other should either of us get threatened.

As hot as any debate I have gotten into here, I have considered violence as an option of last resort only. Back about 12 years ago, I was teaching a class I created named 'Crime and Punishment' with a now defunct organization called "Workshop in the Woods' which took kids from schools and sent them to the site for a day. At one point some little girl (fifth grade I think) gave me the 'violence never solved anything!' argument. I out down my German designed Kattsbogger, walked over, and stood over her. I said 'I'm big, right?' She nodded. "If I were mean, I could hurt you, right?' She nodded again. Then I said 'If I looked at you mean, you'd do what I say just because I might hurt you, right?' She looked, now a bit alarmed.

'Then violence has done something.' UI finished. Then I knelt down as untreatening as possible. 'Little girls like you needs someone like me, because there are very mean people out ther'.