Deadly force in response to domestic violence

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussion' started by koreancuber, Apr 1, 2010.

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the forums!

Already a member? Login to stop seeing this message.
  1. Yes, deadly force should be legal

    10 vote(s)
    55.6%
  2. No, deadly force should be illegal

    4 vote(s)
    22.2%
  3. I haven't decided/I don't know

    4 vote(s)
    22.2%
  1. koreancuber

    koreancuber Member

    1,089
    0
    Jan 31, 2010
    Seoul, Korea, South Korea
    YouTube:
    kimcuber
    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?
     
  2. Muesli

    Muesli Premium Member

    1,714
    2
    Jun 29, 2009
    Sheffield, UK
    WCA:
    2009SMIT05
    YouTube:
    musli4brekkies
    I think the law is fine as it stands. If you kill someone inadvertently then it is manslaughter. I'd say defending yourself and accidentally killing your attacker in the process shouldn't count as murder, unless the killing turns malicious.
     
  3. Chapuunka

    Chapuunka Member

    880
    0
    Feb 4, 2010
    USA
    WCA:
    2010JUDD01
    If the person in question is at risk of killing one or more people, I see no reason why they shouldn't try to stop him/her by any means necessary.
     
  4. koreancuber

    koreancuber Member

    1,089
    0
    Jan 31, 2010
    Seoul, Korea, South Korea
    YouTube:
    kimcuber
    What about self-defense rights? (I haven't read them) doesn't it back up the deadly force usage?
     
  5. Chapuunka

    Chapuunka Member

    880
    0
    Feb 4, 2010
    USA
    WCA:
    2010JUDD01
    Pretty sure it varies between the states. I could be wrong.
     
  6. LewisJ

    LewisJ Member

    275
    0
    Nov 4, 2009
    Basically all states say if someone makes a very obvious threat to your life then you can do what you need to to defend yourself provided you can explain why you did it and show why you felt threatened - where states differ is in defense of others and defense of property.
     
  7. I don't know. I live in Portland and there have been many policemen shooting people recently. There is some serious backlash but people don't understand that things can really get out of hand. This becomes even more of a grey area without public officials to make the decisions. So, I don't know.
     
  8. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,824
    7
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    I don't like the idea of deliberately using a defense that you know is likely to kill someone. If you defend yourself and someone ends up dead by accident, it's not really your fault, but if you know something might kill someone it isn't right to use it. I think I'd say that using force that you know is deadly is only acceptable if someone's life was clearly at risk.
     
  9. LewisJ

    LewisJ Member

    275
    0
    Nov 4, 2009
    How would you differentiate between someone just wanting to kick the **** out of you and wanting to kill you when you feel threatened and are in such a situation? If they have a knife in their hand are they trying to kill you? If they're choking you? How do you tell the difference and how much risk do you take to find that difference before taking action? It's a really iffy line that you're seeming to make black and white....
     
  10. Edward

    Edward Member

    I'd use 4Chan's pic, but it jsut wouldn't feel the same coming from me.

    The poll is too umm, "yes, no" "black, white". My basic opinion is yes, but also a bit of no. I guess i'll be undecided.
     
  11. Dene

    Dene Premium Member

    6,896
    34
    Dec 5, 2007
    WCA:
    2009BEAR01
    YouTube:
    masterNZ
    What can you do to defend yourself by killing the person threatening you that couldn't also be used to maim them without killing them? I can honestly think of absolutely nothing.
     
  12. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,824
    7
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    It's obviously up to the judgment of the person involved, but it seems like a pretty clear line to me. If someone is holding a weapon and they're acting aggressively, fine. If someone is choking you, obviously fine. But if you've got someone who's unarmed and running away, or who has punched their spouse, you can't make the argument that someone's life was in real danger, and it's not OK to kill them. I don't think an objective person could necessarily look at a situation and decide whether someone's life is in danger, but it's all about the policemen or whatever on the scene at the time - if they truly felt like they were in danger then deadly force is reasonable, but if they were trying to seriously hurt someone out of boredom, annoyance, or racism, you've got a problem.
     
  13. LewisJ

    LewisJ Member

    275
    0
    Nov 4, 2009
    What can you do to a person intent on killing you that will disable them to the point that you can be SURE that they no longer are a threat to you short of killing them? Give me a few examples from your side because I really don't see any.
     
  14. Dene

    Dene Premium Member

    6,896
    34
    Dec 5, 2007
    WCA:
    2009BEAR01
    YouTube:
    masterNZ
    Well, if hand to hand combat is the question, simply knocking them out would suffice. It would sure as hell be easier to knock them out than to kill them bare handed.

    If knife to knife combat was the question, cutting off their hand or stabbing them many times in the legs should suffice to bring them down enough for you to get out of harms way.

    If it was gun to gun combat, I would first wonder why two people managed to get a hold of guns if they didn't both have intent to kill, but supposing this situation: Nutty guy comes into your house with two guns, he gives you one and says "kill me, or I'll kill you". A shot to the hand, or even better, the balls, should surely withhold them for long enough. If not, more shots to the legs or arms would do.

    I simply cannot see why killing would be the only practical solution.
     
  15. LewisJ

    LewisJ Member

    275
    0
    Nov 4, 2009
    Someone who is unarmed and running away isn't even trying to hurt you, there's no line to be made, it's quite clear. The line I say isn't clear that your previous post seemed to say was clear was the line determining when you think someone's life is at risk such that it is OK to use deadly force. A punch can easily turn into more; weapons can easily be used only for intimidation but it can be hard to tell; if someone punches you and then grabs a knife, do you wait to see what they do with it or are you over the line yet? It's EXTREMELY situation-based and I think it's nearly impossible to generalize as this thread seems to want to. Sure, there is the general condition of "when your life is in danger you can use deadly force to defend it" - but that condition has two more poorly defined conditions.

    Obviously with hand to hand or knife to knife it makes a lot more sense to disable and get the hell away; I agree with this notion. What if it is knife-gun in an open field such that running away is a pretty bad looking option, and you are presented with an opportunity at their neck and know how to things with such an opportunity; the other options are trying to get the gun out of their hands (something only the most skilled will be able to do with personal survival odds near that of option 1), and running away which will likely get you shot (lowest survival odds); at this point it is a 2-player game and we can use simple gametheory principles to say that you take the choice with the best expected outcome for yourself.

    And your last paragraph makes me seriously wonder - have you ever used a firearm? You seem to be under a misconception that shooting someone in the balls or hand - small and hard to identify areas - is easy fast business. Another factor is - a bullet wound in the arm isn't the all-disabling thing many people think it is, people don't instantly become unable to fire a gun when you shoot em in the arm/hand/nuts/leg. Also - having a gun doesn't imply intent to kill, just as having a knife doesn't. Do convenience store clerks with a shotgun under the counter intend to kill people? Now what if a guy walks in with a gun to rob the place? The clerk's intent is to defend, not to kill; do you want him to throw the shotgun on the floor and pull out a baseball bat instead since the shotgun has too high a chance of killing the robber? That severely hurts his ability to defend.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2010
  16. Dene

    Dene Premium Member

    6,896
    34
    Dec 5, 2007
    WCA:
    2009BEAR01
    YouTube:
    masterNZ
    I firstly want to say: Of course I have never used a fire arm! I have never touched a gun, nor will I ever in my whole life. I find guns to be among the most morally repugnant things that exist on the face of the earth and I would consider it a moral degradation to myself to even go near one.

    Of course I know that I recommended shooting in hard-to-hit places, but in my scenario the person had the opportunity to take careful aim. I honestly cannot think of another situation where one would happen to have a gun in one's hand while there is someone coming at them with intent to shoot; surely they would have shot straight away, and especially before one had the chance to access a gun, load, ****, aim, and shoot.

    I find your "knife to gun" scenario unrealistic. Why has the person not already shot you if they intend to kill? How did you get the knife, and get so close to the person that you can attack their neck?? Why did you position yourself so that you could attack their neck, and not position yourself so that you could attack somewhere else?
    I get the feeling that you are coming into this discussion with a pre-bias towards "the-need-to-kill". I think you need to step back and consider all the options.

    btw, if someone has a gun and they allow you to get so close as to knife them in the neck, they either can't have intent to kill, or are so obscenely stupid that I can't see cutting off their hand as an unrealistic option.
     
  17. RyanO

    RyanO Member

    266
    0
    Dec 18, 2009
    Ames, Iowa
    WCA:
    2008OLSO01
    What if the attacker has the knife and the only weapon easily reachable is a gun? It's pretty hard to bring someone down with a gun without a considerable risk of killing them.

    In the hand to hand scenario there are obvious flaws with your argument. A 100 pound female doesn't stand much of a chance against a larger, stronger masculine attacker. The weaker victim is going to have a lot of trouble putting down the stronger attacker without using lethal force.

    It's certainly possible to kill someone bare handed, so there is never going to be a time where you can rule out the possibility that the victim is fearful for their life.
     
  18. Dene

    Dene Premium Member

    6,896
    34
    Dec 5, 2007
    WCA:
    2009BEAR01
    YouTube:
    masterNZ
    Hang on. So you're proposing that it would be easier for the female to kill him than to knock him out, or anything else? How exactly do you propose she does this?
     
  19. RyanO

    RyanO Member

    266
    0
    Dec 18, 2009
    Ames, Iowa
    WCA:
    2008OLSO01
    It would be much easier to kill him with a weapon than knock him out with her bare hands. Try knocking someone out with a gun or knife... it doesn't really work that way.

    If she doesn't have a weapon she could try to incapacitate him with hand to hand combat, but she will have little chance of success. If she was correct in her fears that the attacker intended to kill her, she will most likely die.
     
  20. Dene

    Dene Premium Member

    6,896
    34
    Dec 5, 2007
    WCA:
    2009BEAR01
    YouTube:
    masterNZ
    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.
     

Share This Page