• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Deadly force in response to domestic violence

What's your opinion on deadly force in response to domestice violence?

  • Yes, deadly force should be legal

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • No, deadly force should be illegal

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • I haven't decided/I don't know

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

RyanO

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Ames, Iowa
WCA
2008OLSO01
Dene you have very little concept of what kind of wound it takes to incapacitate/kill someone. Also, in the chaos of the moment it's hard to be accurate with a weapon especially if there is a struggle. In many situations it boils down to kill or be killed.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the scenario that you seem to be advocating for is:

Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Man attacks woman. Woman does nothing, or maybe throws a few wimpy punches or kicks. Man brutaly beats woman to death.

How is that better than using lethal force for self defense?
 

fanwuq

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,831
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So what you're saying is this:

Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Woman has access to gun (poor choice for the man to choose to attack her, don't you think?) Only choice is for her to shoot in the head or chest? I think not. I'm sure a shot or two to the mid-section would suffice to stop him or slow him down considerably, and is much less likely to be fatal.
Alternatively:
Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Woman has access to large knife (more plausible than a gun at the very least, and there is actually evidence that the most common weapon used by a woman to kill a man is a kitchen knife). Where do you think it is the most plausible place to stab him? I would say the mid-section again. It is the softest place, and the biggest. Perhaps it would not immediately stop him, but unless she cut off his head completely, nothing would immediately stop him any faster.
That doesn't make a difference. There's a chance of death no matter where you shoot or stab.
The original question doesn't even make any sense. If somebody tries to kill you, try your hardest to survive; it doesn't if it's legal or not. A situation like this can only be evaluated individually.
 

aronpm

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
2,010
I would advocate deadly force even if the intruder was entering the property with intent to steal, because you, as the person in the house, don't know if they are carrying weapons. If you're robbing a house at night you would certainly carry a weapon. Too many robberies turn into murder because the house owner confronted the robber and the robber pulled out a weapon and killed them.

It's not like you have to call the police and say "Yeah I just killed someone who tried to rob my house". And it's not like the robber's wife/spouse/whatever would call the police and say "My partner has gone missing. The last time I saw him was when he went to rob somebody's house." Just hide the body. :p

Lets assume I'm a father with a wife and children. If there is somebody in my house holding a gun, I wouldn't give a **** if they were intending to use it. The mere presence of a gun in my house would be enough to cause possible injury or death to my family (I'm hoping Dene will agree with me on the danger of a gun in a house). I would not wait for him to go to a child's bedroom and murder my child before I kill him. That's ****ing stupid. I would kill him as soon as possible, preferably with a knife to the back of the neck.


I don't really understand Dene's point. The way I see it, it's kill or be killed. If you kill them, there is one less horrible person in the world. If you're killed, there is one (or more) less (potentially ;)) innocent person in the world and a horrible killer remains free.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Dene you have very little concept of what kind of wound it takes to incapacitate/kill someone. Also, in the chaos of the moment it's hard to be accurate with a weapon especially if there is a struggle. In many situations it boils down to kill or be killed.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the scenario that you seem to be advocating for is:

Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Man attacks woman. Woman does nothing, or maybe throws a few wimpy punches or kicks. Man brutaly beats woman to death.

How is that better than using lethal force for self defense?

I never proposed for a second that the woman should do nothing. I am curious as to how the woman manages to get a hold of a knife capable of killing, or a gun though. Does this not seem susipcious to you at all; like the wife secretly wanted to kill anyway? I mean, let us be realistic. If I wanted to kill my wife, I would do it when she was asleep, or in the bedroom where she couldn't get access to a weapon. I wouldn't come up to her in the kitchen or when she's standing next to a gun and make it clear that I had intent to kill. That would be silly.
What you are proposing is not only extremely unrealistic, but it doesn't add up. Do you honestly think that if someone cut open your midsection with a knife that you would be ok and be able to continue to kill your wife with your bare hands? I mean, if you were going to use a gun you would have shot her from a distance, and if you were going to use a knife surely you would have caught her by surprise and stabbed her before she even realised what was going on. Therefore I'm assuming that this is being done only with the hands.

You say "it's hard to be accurate with the weapon" and yet, you manage to obtain the accuracy to inflict a fatal blow? Which is harder than attacking the midsection, which is far less likely to kill? You seriously make no sense. It appears to me that you simply seem to think that killing is alright and that people should do it more often.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't really understand Dene's point. The way I see it, it's kill or be killed. If you kill them, there is one less horrible person in the world. If you're killed, there is one (or more) less (potentially ;)) innocent person in the world and a horrible killer remains free.

So you don't see "lock yourself in the bathroom" or "hide" as a viable option? And how do you propose that you go about getting a weapon before the robber has the chance to back you into a corner such that you no longer can get the weapon? And why not just leave the robber to go about his business, then immediately call the police to avoid not only any death, but any injury at all? This is not a kill or be killed situation. You guys are just blind to other plausible options.
 

aronpm

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
2,010
So you don't see "lock yourself in the bathroom" or "hide" as a viable option? And how do you propose that you go about getting a weapon before the robber has the chance to back you into a corner such that you no longer can get the weapon? And why not just leave the robber to go about his business, then immediately call the police to avoid not only any death, but any injury at all? This is not a kill or be killed situation. You guys are just blind to other plausible options.

Their entry into the house might awaken you, and you might sneak out. They don't have to know that you're there.

Why not just leave the robber to do his 'business'? Because he is intruding on my property and stealing my possessions. That is why. I shouldn't have to stand by idly while somebody takes my stuff from my house.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So suddenly that justifies killing them?

It seems that the situation is no longer kill or be killed, but kill or let someone steal my possessions. Maybe it's just me, but I highly doubt that a single person on the forum would agree with you, other than some redneck southern American. (Evidence shows that "cultures of honour" such as those in the south of the US feel that violence is acceptable when one's honour has been brought into question). Of course, no one else agrees with this because it's stupid.
 

aronpm

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
2,010
I feel that my possessions (that I would assume I worked hard to attain) are much more valuable then a life of the scum would who break into people's houses to steal things.
 

Chapuunka

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
879
Location
USA
WCA
2010JUDD01
Unfortunately, the police nor a jury nor a judge would see things the same way that you do.

I'd like to think modern courts would be understanding enough for today's citizens, especially with all the guns available to the public. Then again, I've never had to be in a court setting so I wouldn't really know.
 

RyanO

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Ames, Iowa
WCA
2008OLSO01
Dene said:
let us be realistic. If I wanted to kill my wife, I would do it when she was asleep, or in the bedroom where she couldn't get access to a weapon. I wouldn't come up to her in the kitchen or when she's standing next to a gun and make it clear that I had intent to kill. That would be silly.
What you are proposing is not only extremely unrealistic, but it doesn't add up. Do you honestly think that if someone cut open your midsection with a knife that you would be ok and be able to continue to kill your wife with your bare hands? I mean, if you were going to use a gun you would have shot her from a distance, and if you were going to use a knife surely you would have caught her by surprise and stabbed her before she even realised what was going on. Therefore I'm assuming that this is being done only with the hands.

Assuming that all situations are going to fit into the nice little scenario you've created is far more unrealistic then what I have proposed. Consider a situation where a woman says something to make her drunk husband mad and he starts to beat the hell out of her. She's fearful for her life and grabs the gun she keeps in her purse and shoots him. We're not talking about premeditated murder here. Do you really think the woman should be charged with a crime?

Unfortunately, the police nor a jury nor a judge would see things the same way that you do.

False. Individuals that kill intruders often face no legal ramifications whatsoever.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Unfortunately, the police nor a jury nor a judge would see things the same way that you do.

False. Individuals that kill intruders often face no legal ramifications whatsoever.

Let's not take my post out of context please.

Assuming that all situations are going to fit into the nice little scenario you've created is far more unrealistic then what I have proposed. Consider a situation where a woman says something to make her drunk husband mad and he starts to beat the hell out of her. She's fearful for her life and grabs the gun she keeps in her purse and shoots him. We're not talking about premeditated murder here. Do you really think the woman should be charged with a crime?

Wowza, girls walk around with guns in their purses in the States? That is really sad, and tells you something about the culture that you live in. Regardless, I'll give you this scenario, despite the fact that it doesn't change anything. The reason for this is because you still refuse to give sufficient reason why the shot that she makes has to be lethal. I mean sure, perhaps she doesn't think and take aim, just points the gun in roughly the right direction and shoots and it happens to kill. (I may as well point out that this is not a kill or be killed situation, but nevermind I will go along with yet another change in tack). But to be honest I still don't see how it is even remotely plausible that the shot would be accurate enough to kill simply by accident (because she just pointed and shot without taking clear aim). Most likely she is going to hit him somewhere it will not kill, as she would pretty much have to get him straight through the brain or the heart to kill, and these are by far not the biggest bulk of the body. It seems very unlikely to me that a lethal shot was done completely by accident. However if it was, I agree the person should be excused.
 
Last edited:

RyanO

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Ames, Iowa
WCA
2008OLSO01
A gunshot wound doesn't need to be in the brain or heart to kill. There are plenty of places in your midsection that will result in a lethal wound if you are shot there, the liver for instance. Getting shot in the gut is actually a pretty bad spot to be hit. A shot to one of the limbs is unlikely to actually incapacitate your attacker, that's why pretty much any gun class will teach you to always aim for a kill shot in a scenario where you are forced to use a firearm in self defense.

I'm not a gun advocate by any means. In fact, I feel pretty much the same way you do about them. I would never own a weapon that is only usefull for killing people. I think a non lethal weapon like a taser or pepper spray is a much better choice for self defense, however, lethal weapons are currently legal so it seems unreasonable to criminalize their use in self defense. Whether or not lethal weapons should be legal is another debate entirely. Obviously you couldn't make all lethal weapons illegal since you can kill someone with pretty much anything.
 

DaBear

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
172
Location
Raleigh, NC
Here's another debate. I'm getting ready to do the BDI (a comp at my debate class) and I've seen very many logical reasons on the abortion one. I'm decided to do deadly force in response to domestic violence or abortion.
So, the question is: Do you think deadly force in response to domestic violence should be legal?


wait....did you just say your OK with someone using deadly force to stop an abortion?

oh and on topic:
Only if it is a kill or be killed scenario, and even then if given the opportunity it should be used to suppress the person, not kill them. But it is also perfectly acceptable to use the threat of deadly force if you fear it may escalate to a kill or be killed scenario, ie. someone goes crazy and tries to beat the **** out of you, you are allowed to pull out and point a gun to stop them, but not fire at them, as soon as they begin to show intent to kill then firing the weapon is allowed
 

koreancuber

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
1,089
Location
Seoul, Korea, South Korea
YouTube
Visit Channel
Here's another debate. I'm getting ready to do the BDI (a comp at my debate class) and I've seen very many logical reasons on the abortion one. I'm decided to do deadly force in response to domestic violence or abortion.
So, the question is: Do you think deadly force in response to domestic violence should be legal?


wait....did you just say your OK with someone using deadly force to stop an abortion?

oh and on topic:
Only if it is a kill or be killed scenario, and even then if given the opportunity it should be used to suppress the person, not kill them. But it is also perfectly acceptable to use the threat of deadly force if you fear it may escalate to a kill or be killed scenario, ie. someone goes crazy and tries to beat the **** out of you, you are allowed to pull out and point a gun to stop them, but not fire at them, as soon as they begin to show intent to kill then firing the weapon is allowed

I have no clue what your talking about. This thread is on domestic violence and the abortion thread is just another debate I am considering.
 

DaBear

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
172
Location
Raleigh, NC
Here's another debate. I'm getting ready to do the BDI (a comp at my debate class) and I've seen very many logical reasons on the abortion one. I'm decided to do deadly force in response to domestic violence or abortion.
So, the question is: Do you think deadly force in response to domestic violence should be legal?


wait....did you just say your OK with someone using deadly force to stop an abortion?

oh and on topic:
Only if it is a kill or be killed scenario, and even then if given the opportunity it should be used to suppress the person, not kill them. But it is also perfectly acceptable to use the threat of deadly force if you fear it may escalate to a kill or be killed scenario, ie. someone goes crazy and tries to beat the **** out of you, you are allowed to pull out and point a gun to stop them, but not fire at them, as soon as they begin to show intent to kill then firing the weapon is allowed

I have no clue what your talking about. This thread is on domestic violence and the abortion thread is just another debate I am considering.

ok i was just confused with the wording of it, idk why, but it sounded like you were saying the topics you were considering were deadly force in response to both domesting violence and abortion, not abortion and deadly force in response to domestic violence
 
Top