Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

I was doing my dishes, a drunk redneck screamed at me through the window that he wanted to cut through my yard, and my refusal angered him so much he tried to force my door down screaming about how he was going to beat me to death for the insult.


Pepper spray doesn't stop somebody like that. Tasers often don't. Had he gotten through the door, or been smart enough to try a window, it would have been a "one of us is going to walk away from this, and the other's going in a body bag" situation.  If that happens again, I'm much more comfortable with a gun or three feet of steel than I am anything else.

Going by precedent, it would not count as self defence for you to shoot the guy in Sweden, and possibly not Finland either unless they're more reasonable than us (bringing Finland up because iirc voliol is from there).

[MaxTheFox]

Killing in self-defense is justified IMO if you don't have a good way of safely (for you) incapacitating them. I'd rather kill than die myself, especially since anyone trying to kill or rob me is most likely an evil person anyways.

For the record, I'm pretty sure Kyle was actively trying to get into trouble which renders self-defense null, doesn't it?

[delphonso]

The question is, though, if you go to a bar looking for a fight, get in a fight, then shoot the guy - is that self defense?

[MaxTheFox]

The question is, though, if you go to a bar looking for a fight, get in a fight, then shoot the guy - is that self defense?

See the second part of my post. No. You played a stupid game and got a stupid prize.

[voliol]

I was doing my dishes, a drunk redneck screamed at me through the window that he wanted to cut through my yard, and my refusal angered him so much he tried to force my door down screaming about how he was going to beat me to death for the insult.
Pepper spray doesn't stop somebody like that. Tasers often don't. Had he gotten through the door, or been smart enough to try a window, it would have been a "one of us is going to walk away from this, and the other's going in a body bag" situation.  If that happens again, I'm much more comfortable with a gun or three feet of steel than I am anything else.

Going by precedent, it would not count as self defence for you to shoot the guy in Sweden, and possibly not Finland either unless they're more reasonable than us (bringing Finland up because iirc voliol is from there).

I’m from Sweden too, so the same laws are the ones I have internalized (not that I think law makes right of course, but be are all affected by surroundings of where we are brought up). Perhaps I am unreasonable, but I don’t think you have a right to kill under assault, at least not intentionally. The end result is that a person dies, and another is left with having killed another human. That’s in both cases, the difference lies in who dies. Is the life of an assaulter worth less than that of a single victim? Is it okay if the eviler person died? Murder/manslaughter most consider more grave than assault and non-lethal bodily damage, so how do balance that with the risk of causing death, and in what cases can you make sure you are about to be murdered and not ”just” be beat? In what cases can others? Especially in a court it doesn’t help if the original assaulter is dead.
Of course, to what degree the situation allows for escape should matter, and you can’t expect people not to defend themselves, that’s asinine. This is why I think the wrongs* (should they be punished by law, or just taken as points for some kind of intent) lie in preparation of ”self-defense” measures.

I don’t think I have all the answers here, or even any of them, but it is worth discussing and drawing a line somewhere, because the lack of one is why Rittenhouse is able to bring a semi-automatic rifle to a place where he knows people will have beef with him, and then the following events get summed up as ”self-defence”.

*or at least some wrongs, there is also the case of over-violence where the situation is turned, and your actions are not done to defend youself. You can’t beat someone to the ground because they punched you once.

[scriver]

The precedent I am referencing was the case from 2015 where a man shot and killed two intruders as they, after having repeatedly threatened to kill the man for dating their mother, was breaking down his door, masked and armed with knives and pipes, shouting that they are going to kill him, and was sentenced to four years for manslaughter in the thingsright and reprieved to two years in the courtright.

I’m from Sweden too, so the same laws are the ones I have internalized (not that I think law makes right of course, but be are all affected by surroundings of where we are brought up). Perhaps I am unreasonable, but I don’t think you have a right to kill under assault, at least not intentionally. The end result is that a person dies, and another is left with having killed another human. That’s in both cases, the difference lies in who dies. Is the life of an assaulter worth less than that of a single victim? Is it okay if the eviler person died? Murder/manslaughter most consider more grave than assault and non-lethal bodily damage, so how do balance that with the risk of causing death, and in what cases can you make sure you are about to be murdered and not ”just” be beat? In what cases can others? Especially in a court it doesn’t help if the original assaulter is dead.
Of course, to what degree the situation allows for escape should matter, and you can’t expect people not to defend themselves, that’s asinine. This is why I think the wrongs* (should they be punished by law, or just taken as points for some kind of intent) lie in preparation of ”self-defense” measures.

It isn't about who is worth what or who is the most evil. It's about one part being the attacker and the other having to defend themselves. If you are in immediate danger, you have to be allowed to defend yourself with the means you have at hand without having to worry about it being "proportionate". People in mortal danger should not be expected to care more about their attacker's life than their own.

Sure, there are cases of over-violence. But that is when somebody's "self-defence" continues after the immediate danger have passed, and not applicable to if a person grabs a tool or gun to better defend themselves against the immediate danger.

edit: removed judgements

[LordBaal]

The precedent I am referencing was the case from 2015 where a man shot and killed two intruders as they, after having repeatedly threatened to kill the man for dating their mother, was breaking down his door, masked and armed with knives and pipes, shouting that they are going to kill him, and was sentenced to four years for manslaughter in the thingsright and reprieved to two years in the courtright.

For fuck's sake that's an stupid precedent. Sorry, but that's 100% self defense there.

[Dorsidwarf]

I’m from Sweden too, so the same laws are the ones I have internalized (not that I think law makes right of course, but be are all affected by surroundings of where we are brought up). Perhaps I am unreasonable, but I don’t think you have a right to kill under assault, at least not intentionally. The end result is that a person dies, and another is left with having killed another human. That’s in both cases, the difference lies in who dies. Is the life of an assaulter worth less than that of a single victim? Is it okay if the eviler person died? Murder/manslaughter most consider more grave than assault and non-lethal bodily damage, so how do balance that with the risk of causing death, and in what cases can you make sure you are about to be murdered and not ”just” be beat? In what cases can others? Especially in a court it doesn’t help if the original assaulter is dead.
Of course, to what degree the situation allows for escape should matter, and you can’t expect people not to defend themselves, that’s asinine. This is why I think the wrongs* (should they be punished by law, or just taken as points for some kind of intent) lie in preparation of ”self-defense” measures.

I don’t think I have all the answers here, or even any of them, but it is worth discussing and drawing a line somewhere, because the lack of one is why Rittenhouse is able to bring a semi-automatic rifle to a place where he knows people will have beef with him, and then the following events get summed up as ”self-defence”.

*or at least some wrongs, there is also the case of over-violence where the situation is turned, and your actions are not done to defend youself. You can’t beat someone to the ground because they punched you once.

Yes. Absolutely yes!! Are you crazy? What's wrong with you!?

[Vector]

I don't really think that someone who punches me or whatever forfeits their life either. Sorry.

[voliol]

That was uncalled for, please.

[Rolan7]

I'm actually not sure where I come down on that, beyond a lazy "it's complicated".

I don't agree with using lethal force to defend property until the theft would threaten someone's survival.  But that's not about "property" and "theft", is it?  It's recognizing that people have a right to use violence to survive, both in aggression and defense.  In a deserted island situation with three people, "ownership" ceases to matter.  Cooperation is probably the best outcome but violence may be inevitable and... moral?

Pulling back to the actual question, steel-manned: If I know someone will not kill me, can I use lethal force to stop them from assaulting me? 

I think the answer is no... but it's very hard to know whether someone will kill me or not.  They might do more harm than they intend to.  They might also ruin my life give me crippling medical debt - how does that balance against a bullet that they might survive?

It's "fun" to wonder about such things in the abstract.  But if I encountered a spree killer (by all appearances) I like to think I would try to take him (statistically a him, and also another young white alt-right child soldier) down.  It's been a long time since highschool brawls but I have tackled people down for screwing with me.  Sometimes you have to.

...I just remembered the much more recent fight I was in, which I lost.  Apparently my political opinions were too dangerous for a pin, I needed a stranglehold...  Fucking scumbag piece of shit, but at least I'm alive.
And I carried a knife readily-accessible for months after... I didn't give a shit about "escalation" then.

Whatever - I was trying to make some point about how defensive violence can be justified even if it escalates, but I guess that got lost in a mess of socialism and personal experience.  All I know is that this brainwashed racist child soldier wouldn't have fired on anyone ready to ACTUALLY fight back.  And that the people responsible for puppeting him into this situation never stood trial.

It's going to be worse next time, but EITHER result was going to inspire these wannabe hitler youth.  It was a win-win situation for fascist agitators.

[Frumple]

I mean, I'd probably fall to putting it simply: Killing someone in self-defense downgrades it some lesser form of manslaughter, probably involving some form of community service and mandatory therapy, depending of the circumstances (the shit that brought this up might get that, but also reckless endangerment and a smattering of other things related to illegal vigilantism, ferex).

There's other forms of relatively no-fault killing on the books that still involve consequences -- look to those and use them. Self defense should mitigate sentencing, not remove any and all legal consequence for killing someone. Too fucking easy to abuse, otherwise, as we've seen way too goddamn much in the US.

[Rolan7]

I mean, I'd probably fall to putting it simply: Killing someone in self-defense downgrades it some lesser form of manslaughter, probably involving some form of community service and mandatory therapy, depending of the circumstances (the shit that brought this up might get that, but also reckless endangerment and a smattering of other things related to illegal vigilantism, ferex).

I agree with the therapy!  Anyone forced to use violence in self-defense could probably benefit from some counseling, and *absolutely* if they took a life.
Requiring community service... That seems like a kind of therapy as well, and I think I like it.  Forcing someone to interact with normal people for a while might knock a few of the more dangerous ideas out their head.

"Community service for manslaughter" sounds like a joke but I like it.  Justice shouldn't be any more punitive than it needs to be, and you specified manslaughter not murder.

There's other forms of relatively no-fault killing on the books that still involve consequences -- look to those and use them. Self defense should mitigate sentencing, not remove any and all legal consequence for killing someone. Too fucking easy to abuse, otherwise, as we've seen way too goddamn much in the US.

This is an interesting idea.

So like - I felt threatened for my life, hence carrying the knife.  My plan was only to free myself with it if I was assaulted again.  But I was very aware that I might end up killing someone, if things went very wrong.
If I defended myself and that happened... I don't see why there should be zero consequences for me.  Especially rehabilitative, remain-in-society-and-even-be-immersed-in-it consequences.

[Vattic]

I mean, I'd probably fall to putting it simply: Killing someone in self-defense downgrades it some lesser form of manslaughter

This is kind of how it works in the UK in situations where the person defending themselves is deemed to have used excessive force ("unreasonable" force). Murder conviction reduced to manslaughter.

Reasonable is defined quite loosely too and is ultimately up to the discretion of the court, though there are guidelines. Interestingly the actual level of threat in retrospect does not determine reasonable force alone. What the person honestly believes is necessary in the heat of the moment is considered strong evidence that reasonable action was taken. Relative size/build, and disabilities leading a greater perceived risk is mentioned.

Edit: Basically you have to convince the jury you used reasonable force.

Worth keeping in mind that acquiring or carrying an object for the purposes of self defence is a crime in the UK. You can use objects as weapons, but there has to be an everyday reason for it to have been within reach.

[MrRoboto75]

Police escalate to lethal force for perceived threats all the time and they turn out okay :V