0 votes

Shoot unarmed men? Or no?

At We the Armed, Thernlund banned me for posting the following (and, admittedly, somewhat sarcastic) reply to JesseL:

JesseL writes:

I'm not old or weak, but I have absolutely no reason in the world to engage in fistfight... I'll cheat and shoot him until he stops fighting.

I reply:

My mistake! In fact, this conversation takes place all the time in American courtrooms:

Defendant: But your honor, I had to shoot him. He punched me in the nose! What else could I do but blow his brains out?

Judge: Oh my! With his fist? Right on the nose? Goodness! Of course you were justified in killing him. Bailiff, give this valiant young man his gun back and send him home. Why are you wasting my time with frivolous cases like this?

;) Seriously guys, you can't throw down on somebody every time you find yourself wiping a bloody nose. Just hit him back.

My question to Daily Paul discussants:

Apparently Thernlund agrees with JesseL that, after cheating a man and/or insulting him to the point that he would hit you, it is appropriate to backpedal out of fisticuffs range and then assassinate him with one's pistol, standing off at a safe distance of five or ten yards.

As libertarians, what do you guys think? Which of these statements do you agree with?

JesseL writes:

I'm not old or weak, but I have absolutely no reason in the world to engage in fistfight... I'll cheat and shoot him until he stops fighting.

I write:

Seriously guys, you can't throw down on somebody every time you find yourself wiping a bloody nose. Just hit him back.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

well

Fortune Favors the Bold

I've heard this argument, about degree of force, and I think its bogus. The reality is, if someone attacks you, you don't know what degree of force they intend to use, or if they are competent enough to limit themselves to that degree of force. It is not particularly difficult to kill someone with your bare hands, especially if their is a significant size/strength difference. Furthermore, the burden of assesment shouldn't be on the person who is potentially facing a life threatening siuation.

In light of that, I think that almost any initiation of force has to be assumed to be potentially deadly.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Unless of course you have other data to go on i.e.-

-brawl with friends
-drunken brawl in bar (with semi-friends)

you get the idea. and yeah, I agree.

CHA-CHING!

Unless of course you have other data to go on i.e.-

-brawl with friends
-drunken brawl in bar (with semi-friends)

you get the idea. and yeah, I agree.

CHA-CHING!

Don't worry...

The "men" will be armed. I am afraid that they will be heavily armed.

Better look up

the "equal force" laws..I think that's what they're called.

I'm well familiar with the "equal force laws"..

However, it is virtually impossible to prove intent if you grab the arm of throwing someone throwing a punch and jerk it straight back. Further, it generally takes less than 20 pounds of force to "accidentally" break someone's collarbone. Even civil juries tend to be sympathetic when such "accidents" happen.

Well, Shaka, I've never been in that situation...

as I've never stiffed anyone on a debt. I've also always been able to recover any money loaned to me without resorting to anything more than moral or legal persuasion.

I understand you dilemma, though I think a better solution is to be more careful to whom you loan money or services. That being said, if someone in your situation ever laid a hand on me, I'd make sure it was a long time before you could use the offending appendage again. I've never started a fight in my life, but I've done than my share of finishing them, using violence only in self-defense, but making sure the attacker decided the "cost of doing business" was too high.

BTW, for those of you who suggest "walking away," fine, if that works for you. The only thing it ever got me (besides the humiliation) was hit in the back of the head.

It's the nature of my business...

It's the nature of my business that the work is done first and then they pay me. That is the way it is with all small businesses, though sometimes one can ask the customer to pay for the parts up front if the cost of the job is mostly parts and relatively little labor.

About half my business is in people's homes and half out in public places. At a person's home I will take their check and, in twelve years of doing business, I've never been in a violent confrontation with anyone. Sometimes their checks bounce but a phone call is usually all that it takes to get them to make it good.

The primary precaution is to write their address on the check and inspect it carefully - I've had people try to pull a fast one on me by making their check illegible, "accidentally" putting my name and the amount on the wrong line, writing different amounts in the digits area and where they write the amount out in words, etc.

It's the jobs in parking lots (especially nightclub parking lots) or on the side of the road that go violent. Obviously, I don't take checks or bill people that I meet in a parking lot or on the side of the road at midnight. When they say, "well, you're going to have to bill me," that's when I hit them.

You write:

"If someone in your situation ever laid a hand on me, I'd make sure it was a long time before you could use the offending appendage again. I've never started a fight in my life, but I've done than my share of finishing them."

Good for you. But those are fights that gradually escalated up through raised voices, pushing and eventually squaring off. I skip over all that. Honestly, nobody ever hits me back - they just go down.

Of course, it's also true that I pick my fights. If there are several of them and/or they look too tough, I just leave without getting paid. It's not an adventure, it's a job. I try not to take really absurd risks. ;)

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

____________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.axiomaticeconomics.com

Are you a wrecker driver?

If so, I salute you for the "clients" you are forced to put up with, to make a living.

- -
Get your own "Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary" bumper sticker at
http://www.cafepress.com/thirdparty08

RP2012!

that explains a lot

It's kind of hard to bill someone when the work is performed on the side of the road and you know nothing about them for sure.

Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio

I probably should have made that point...

I probably should have made that point at the top of the thread.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

____________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.axiomaticeconomics.com

I was reluctant to weigh in

I was reluctant to weigh in on this however I think if a person is unarmed there are very few reason to shoot them. But then again no reason to let someone beat on you especially if he is capable of kicking your ass.

If someone breaks in my house armed or unarmed they are leaving in a body bag.

However on the street probably the biggest concern is the legal troubles that will follow if you shoot someone unarmed even if they deserved it. So I would do all I can to avoid shooting someone unarmed.

I am a martial artist for many years so am not afraid to get in fist- a-cuffs but I still try to avoid that mainly out of not wanting any legal troubles. One thing I recommend to people is to carry pepper spray. That way if you want to use non lethal force then if it ends up in court you look much better at not wanting to fight etc. However about 1-2 percent of the population are immune to pepper spray so you never know. You could also use a taser.

I would recommend pepper spray or taser to women instead of those BS anti rape self defense classes that are sometimes offered. Best protection for women is a handgun though.

-----
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. H. L. Mencken

Get Prepared!

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

You're wrong.

You said...
"I write:
Seriously guys, you can't throw down on somebody every time you find yourself wiping a bloody nose. Just hit him back."

Thinking like that puts the people who do in the hospital or the morgue daily.

How many fist fights have you been in?

My gosh, I haven't found it necessary to slug anybody in 30 years, and I'm a pretty cantankerous guy. In fact, that aspect of my personality has kept me out of MANY fights, as most people aren't quite sure how much damage I would do just for sport. I've found just thinking about how much damage I would enjoy doing has been enough to discourage most fisticuffs. I'm only 5'9", and I've faced down a lot of bigger men and a few especially obnoxious women. However, to answer your question, you can kill somebody almost as easily with your hands as you can with a gun, so I'd recommend hitting only to deflect or stop a blow. It also gives you a fine excuse to dislocate a shoulder or break a collerbone.

My wife, who's 4'11" and rides a handicap scooter, carries a laser pointer. The standard red ones will temporarily blind and the strong red ones and green ones will do permanent damage. They don't require registration or a concealed-carry permit, at least in most states.

I average about one per quarter.

See my comment below, http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76326#comment-821436

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

____________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.axiomaticeconomics.com

Women are all too frequently

Women are all too frequently killed by having organs ruptured by the punches you describe. Under such an assault, I would feel that my life was being threatened and I would be more than justified in shooting.

Pat

BOHICA!!

Pat

BOHICA!!

There are two confusing aspects here.

One, you haven't explained the circumstances of the "fistfight". The 'old and weak' part is kinda irrelevant. What's all the business about 'cheating'? Also, the morality of it all depends not on the size of the people involved but on how well they know each other. One friend shooting another friend over a squabble is obviously heinous. A perfect stranger shooting a criminal assailant attacking him is obviously justified.

Two, and I think this is highly relevant, is that one should never assume that a person who resorts to violent aggression is not armed, or that they cannot kill you. If you think you can determine that using a judgment call, you may wind up dead. "Shoot--Don't shoot" is an exercise for armored cops with sidearms, tasers, and pepper spray to make, not citizens.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

background on JesseL's comment

There is a "sticky" (e.g. a post that stays at the top) at We the Armed and just about every other gun-related forum (it's very popular) titled "Why I Am Armed." It begins:

"My old grandpa said to me son,' there comes a time in every mans life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'.

"I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed."

I replied to this post (my reply was deleted and the thread is now closed as well as sticky) that the term "ass whoopin" does not denote lethal force. At the worst it means a broken rib or nose and, realistically, the great majority of the time this term means nothing more than a bloody nose and some bruises.

If "old grandpa" could handle the threat of an "ass whoopin" in the recent past by "bustin knuckles," then why are these situations now justification for killing an unarmed man?

Also, I took umbrage at the phrase, "I don't carry a gun to kill people."

Of course he does. What else are guns used for? That is like saying, "I don't own a car to drive." One's killing may be just or unjust in the same way as one's road trip may deliver one to one's destination or leave one wandering around lost, but that is a seperate issue. Guns are for killing and cars are for driving.

So, to answer your question:

"You haven't explained the circumstances of the 'fistfight.' The 'old and weak' part is kinda irrelevant. What's all the business about 'cheating'?

JesseL was trying to differentiate himself from "old grandpa" when he said that he was not old and weak. IMO he is a weakling, but that is just my opinion.

I never said anything about cheating. That term originated in the quoted passage and JesseL even boldfaced the phrase, I'll cheat and shoot him until he stops fighting, to emphasize it.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

____________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.axiomaticeconomics.com

I don't own a car to drive.

I own a car to get from point A to point B.

CHA-CHING!

" Guns are for killing and

" Guns are for killing and cars are for driving."

Too bad cars kill far more then guns do...

-----
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. H. L. Mencken

Get Prepared!

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

you could always shoot

i understand your point of view, but you could always shoot your attacker in the leg or the arm or something, wound him and not kill him..

plus, i think that you have to realize that in life there is always the possibility that that you may be forced to kill to survive. animals and people alike have had to kill to survive all throughout the ages.

any rational person should accept that they at some point in their life may face a "kill or be killed" type of situation, and should be mentally and phyically prepared for that type of situation.

preparing for the worst is never a bad idea.

--------------
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

--------------
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

* * * * * * * NEW R3VOLUTION HIP HOP TRACKS!! * * * * * * *
Http://www.YouTube.com/mortisnoctu

Never shoot to wound...

or to kill....shoot to stop the threat.

--------------------------------
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood..."
-James Madis

...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul

The police I know have told

The police I know have told me that they are trained to only use their guns with the intent to KILL. What are your thoughts about that?

...

Intent to kill?

NEVER tell ANYONE that you shot with intent to kill.

You shoot to remove the threat and get away from the attacker. Said attackers death is only a result of your attempt to stop the threat to your life.

--------------------------------
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood..."
-James Madis

...let it not be said that we did nothing.
-Ron Paul

What about the use of rubber bullets?

If the use of guns to stop a threat was the idea, why not use a non-lethal ammo like rubber bullets that will put the man down but not kill them? Riot Control uses it all the time.

I agree: Never shoot to wound.

If you want to punish someone, then break their arm, as the shopkeeper did in the story I related here, http://www.dailypaul.com/node/76326#comment-821592

But shooting someone, no matter where the bullet strikes, is always going to be interpreted as an attempt on their life. And that's the way you, the shooter, should interpret it too.

If that shopkeeper had shot the shoplifter in the arm, nobody (including the police) would have seen that as anything but an attempt to kill the person that happened to miss a vital area.

He would not have gotten off scot-free, as he did after breaking the shoplifter's arm.

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

____________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.axiomaticeconomics.com

I concur...

Shoot to disable, not to kill... Aim center mass like you were trained & fill out the paperwork as you were trained.joking.

How do you know the person,

How do you know the person, that is attacking you, is unarmed?

If someone comes up to me and punches me in the face with ill intent and I have a firearm, I will god damn use it. As far as I'm concerned, he made a direct assault on my life and I will defend my life to the best of my means.

I would expect that of anyone.

It is uncontroversial...

It is uncontroversial to begin your scenario, "If someone comes up to me and punches me in the face..."

Of course, if you are minding your own business and someone just springs out of the bushes and launches an attack on you, then you should use whatever means are available to drop him and then leave him where he fell. He didn't give you any quarter, so there is no reason you should give him any.

The point of this thread is to ask, do all fistfights justify lethal force or should the motivation of the attacker be taken into consideration?

________________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.sniperflashcards.com

____________________________________

Shaka, you so crazy! www.axiomaticeconomics.com

Depends

From a moral perspective, I believe you are justified in using whatever force is reasonably necessary to stop someone from violating your rights. That includes shooting the burglar in the back as he runs away with your stereo.

But this is not the law in most places.