elisheva

Another thread began sliding into a discussion of this - the topic a lot of people seemed to be focusing on was whether force was okay for self-defense. Lexis suggested creating a separate thread for this discussion, so here we are! There was definitely a lot going on in that debate, so switch over here so we can try and keep threads on topic.

Personally, I think you should definitely use whatever force necessary to defend yourself (e.g. if you're attacked on the street and you're able to defend yourself). The qualification I guess would be is "necessary"..and I do think it's important to take preventive steps so you never have to get to the point of using violence. But, if you need to, you should - you should fight to save your life or the lives of your family/friends, IMO.

Thoughts? Any strict pacifists lurking?

migamoo

I would do what I could to protect myself but I don't think I could bring myself to kill another person. I'm not saying I wouldn't if I were put in that situation but because I haven't, I'm just going to say I don't know.

UnsilentMajorty

Good topic, Elisheva

The question I asked on the other thread is do we as supposedly civilized human beings (living in what we consider advanced and progressive societies) want to make the use of deadly physical force justifiable if only property is at stake compared to a human life?

The reason this is relevant to this discussion is this the basis for which American laws governing the use of deadly physical force are based on and by which police and other law enforcement personnel are trained and operate under: The use of deadly physical force, I.E. using a firearm of other weapon that can potentially kill, is only restricted to the defense of life (their own, or civilians) as a last resort.

Contrary to popular crime dramas and movies, police just don't go in with guns blazing and shoot down the bad guys just because they are "bad".

In real life, even if there is overwhelming evidence a person is doing something illegal and potentially harmful to them self or others... Police are still trained to use non-lethal methods to subdue the criminal at all costs unless he/she leaves the officers no other choice. Not only is this because they want to bring this person to justice to stand trial for their crimes, but this also helps ensure the maximum safety of the officers involved and any civilians who may get caught up in the ensuing arrest.

The basis for which real law enforcement operates gets us back to the question I asked above and that is do you want to live in a society that authorizes the use of deadly physical force in the protection of property in addition to, or separate from human life?

Let's look at two extreme examples:

Under the current system, if someone is stealing your car and you are armed with a weapon of some kind, you have no right to do something that might result in the robber's death and then expect to be exonerated in a court of law because the use of deadly physical force is unjustified in this instance.

The robber was only stealing your car.

The robber was not assaulting you, or another person in the process.

There was no direct threat to human life. Yours, the robbers or a third-party.

Now, contrast this to if someone was stealing your car and this person had a weapon (firearm, knife, club, etc.) and came at you in the process. This changes the dynamic of the situation in terms of the legal implications as well as the obvious physical dynamics.

In the second example, you have a right to use any means necessary to protect yourself and if those actions did result in the unfortunate death of your attacker... It would be justified as self-defense and you would not have to serve any sentence because of it (assuming it was a justified act; investigation would have to prove you had no other choice).

The reason I cited these two examples as extremes for comparison is because a lot of states in the U.S. have passed what are called "Make My Day" laws -- coined after the phrase from Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) movies that he says this right before he blows the bad guys away -- Which authorizes the use of deadly physical force to protect not just life, but property as well.

Also, there are local statutes everyone must adhere to as well and these can differ from county to county, or district to district like the state laws differ from state to state.

Some local statutes say you can do whatever you want to protect yourself as long as the action physically takes place on your property and it will be considered self-defense, no questions asked. In addition, some counties in around the country have made it legal to carry a concealed weapon (firearm) for self-defense... Which throws another wrench into the basis of our legal system and that is who makes the judgment as to what is necessary physical force (and to what degree)? Is it the law makers... Or the citizens on the street?

My personal opinion is I am thankful we do have limitations on the amount of deadly physical force citizens and law enforcement can use and I do not believe in so-called "Make My Day" laws that allow the use of deadly physical force in the protection of property because I believe this is a slippery slope that has the potential to spiral out of control very fast and end up tragically in every sense of the word with people being killed when they should not be... Even criminals... As well as innocent persons being killed simply because laws like "Make My Day" open legal loopholes for mentally disturbed persons to commit "legal" murder and disguise it as defense of property or self-defense... Let alone more intelligent and sound persons who know how to manipulate the legal system as well.

Lexis

I agree with your assessment of the Make My Day laws UM.

I think my line in the sand is when there is no other option - so as you mentioned, someone stealing your car is annoying but not life threatening. When you are attacked and there's a shot at protecting yourself, I think you should be able to use it. But you shouldn't be trying to kill someone unless that is the absolute last resort.

UnsilentMajorty

As a further extension of this question...

Do you believe governments should be allowed to use military force in areas which would normally be for civilian law enforcement as a general policy?

For example, look at what is going on in Iraq.

Most of the U.S. soldiers who are there aren't there as soldiers any more. In cities like Baghdad, they are now acting like the local police force and carrying out what would normally be police duties like going house to house and mediating domestic fights; enforcing after-hours curfews; maintaining general public safety; etc. in addition to their normal duties of ferreting out insurgents and other undesirables.

There is an official Iraqi police force, but it is very scattered and ineffectual (for numerous reasons) in terms of its performance which is why the burden of what would normally be civilian police duties are now being done by U.S. soldiers... And a lot of these soldiers don't have the proper training to handle civil (or legal) matters like a proper police force does.

This presents an interesting dynamic that also mirrors what happened in Northern Ireland, in the late 1970s when the British government authorized the SAS (Special Air Service) to operate inside the UK in hopes of defeating the IRA (Irish Republican Army).

It also mirrors what happened in Vietnam with the U.S. in the 1960s and 70s as well: Soldiers trained for war are brought in to act as civil peace keepers, but they aren't trained for this kind of duty and are often handicapped by it because soldiers are used to "shoot first and ask questions" later and this is the exact opposite method police are trained to use, hence the conflict and handicaps.

What do you think?

chicah

This is a very interesting topic.

To continue Unsilent Majorty's post about burglars, I have to say I agree. The chance that a thief will enter your house when someone are home is about zero. Most thieves would know if a family is home before they enter their house, they aren't stupid enough to just hope that the family won't be home and then break in. Most burglars are also dependent on keeping a low profile. CSI and other series like that are made as pure entertainment. It doesn't mean it's like that at all.
And I think the only times I've seen one of the cops there shoot someone is Stella when she shot her boyfriend (and I would consider that self defense, although she possibly could've hit him unconcious and then run away) and the time when Danny was shot at and he shot, which is definately self defense.

I guess I am kind of pasifistic. I am quite violent to my friends some times (we are just kidding), and I like to put down first graders who try to throw snow balls at me. No one ever gets hurt and if they did, I would be the first to help. I am against violence, as far as I'm concerned violence just creates more violence, I don't believe that nothing good can ever come out of it.
There are always other options. When it comes to conflicts, negotiation works more often that weapons, because wars just lead to more wars, more deaths and more tragedies. My friends have always said that I care too much - that I think too much about the little girl watching her family getting shot, that I cry too much for the little boy who's killed in military operations, that I should focus on being a teenager, that it's impossible to help every one. But I can't. Every death is a tragedy. Even if it's so-called self defense, it'll just create more misery. Every time I see that someone killed a criminal, or even soldiers, I think about the family left behind. The wives, children, parents and so on of the dead. Things will never be the same for them and nothing can make up for it. People can be bad, they can do horrible things, and maybe some people would find it justifiable to kill them for what they've done, but everyone has someone who loves them that gets their life ruined.
Think about WW2 for instance. The nazi's were horrible and what they did altered this world. It'll never be forgotten and it never should. But lots of the people who fought for them didn't even know what they were fighting for, they were sent to the field to protect their country. What's important not to forget is that they had a family at home, they had people who loved them no matter what they did. So when they died, it was still a tragedy for those involved.
It's almost like I see all those people haunt me and I don't see how anyone could live with that. Knowing that the world is like this and still defend violence and war.

Lexis

I would rather they weren't needed in that manner but as you mention, the Iraqi police force is just not capable of carrying out these duties. There are numerous reports of them being infiltrated by militias and using the police's resources (as limited as they are) to carry out their own agenda.

I think when there is a threat on the scale of the IRA (or now from religious extremists) there is some call to use the best resources for the job. If that's the SAS or the intelligence agencies or the police, then that's what you use.

Although, a British newspaper reported the other day that American agents were operating in this country (they were fuzzy as to if they were operating with the UK's permission or not). If they are working with our guys, that's fine but it makes me uncomfortable to think that American agents (naturally working in US interest) could be operating here with nobody checking up on them.

UnsilentMajorty

This is basically the crux of why I suggested a separate thread from the Hussein Death Sentence one.

This question is basically the backbone of the war on terror in some respects and it has far reaching moral implications depending on your own point of view.

Do you believe in allowing forces specifically trained for war like the SAS, Delta Force, etc. to use those methods to solve problems that might also be solved in less violent means by civilian law enforcement?

A perfect example that demonstrates the moral gray area issues like this bring is from the violence between the IRA and SAS in Northen Ireland, like I mentioned before.

It has been rumored the SAS had orders to shoot to kill any suspected IRA members even if they didn't pose a direct threat to the SAS soldiers or other civilians.

This brings us back to the issue of authorizing the use of deadly physical force not only in defense of something other than human life, but based on the predication there is a perceived threat and not even a direct, or proven one.

A lot of former SAS veterans who served during that time said this was the most confusing tour of duty they ever served (similar to U.S. Vietnam Veterans) because things weren't as black and white as they were used to dealing with in the sense they are soldiers who are trained to shoot first and not worry about any legal (or moral) ramifications due to the inherent differences between peace keeping duties and open battlefield ROE (Rules of Engagement).

I believe special forces (and regular soldiers in general) should be restricted to the theaters they are most specialized in which usually means open battlefield warfare and special operations where they can do what they are trained to do, no questions asked.

However, this doesn't mean I believe they should have Carte Blanche to just kill and murder anyone they want, either. There is a saying that goes "even in war, murder is still murder" and I believe they should still be held accountable to this standard... Or like Chica said, it just degenerates into a cycle of non-stop violence where the "good" guys aren't any better than the bad guys and may even end up worse considering most of the time the good guys have more resources and morale behind their actions compared to the terrorist, or freedom fighter.

Jacob1983

I think it's okay to use violence or serious physical force if your life is in danger or if someone you know is danger. I also think it's okay in times of war as long as you follow the "rules of engagement".

If someone tried to kill me, I would want to defend myself. I wouldn't want to kill them but if that was the only that I could save my life then I would. If I knew they probably weren't going to kill him, then I would just try to knock them out or knock them down.

I believe that people have the right to defend themselves and I think sometimes it is okay and understandable to have a gun in your house for protection.

UnsilentMajorty

It is well known fact a lot people (in the U.S.) have firearms in their homes.

The big(ger) question is are they properly trained to use that firearm in the event they need to?

And second, do they have the nerve to shoot and possibly kill another human being in order to defend themselves, or the life of another person in the process?

I think these two factors are very important to this discussion and we should not just breeze over them because I believe that as a society, Americans are desensitized to violence... Especially, gun violence... Because of how glorified and prevalent it is in mainstream entertainment from TV shows to major motion pictures.

There is a huge, HUGE world of difference between seeing someone shoot someone on TV and physically holding a three pound, semi-automatic pistol, being able to line up the sights using the front and rear posts, squeezing the trigger, feeling the recoil, hearing the blast and actually being able to hit something when it is all over.

Adrenaline can play a big role in life-or-death situations too, but on average, the regular person on the street would not know how to handle a firearm properly (most people don't even know there is a safety, for example) and is more likely to hurt themselves or the person they are trying to protect rather than the attacker who may be trying to do both of them harm AND who may wrestle the weapon away from them and who IS experienced in how it works.

However, we should also consider this example in its proper context as well.

The above example is a typical hypothetical which assumes at least one person (not the attacker) has a firearm on their person, or immediate access to one which is also a huge myth because while there are many homes with firearms in them... The majority of residences do not have firearms present statistically speaking. It varies from geographic region to region, but the majority of households do not have firearms in them overall, so this skews what would be a more realistic response to this hypothetical just because it makes a huge assumption for the sake of argument.

Dana_Lana

"The chance that a thief will enter your house when someone are home is about zero."

Zero? Really? wow.

That's just not true. It does happen. My godfather's home was broke into one night WITH them home. They took his laptop, tv, some other stuff..they never woke up. Had they, he said they would have been shot.
You don't break into homes. I don't own a gun, don't want to own a gun, but think people have the right to defend themselves and what is theirs from people WITH guns who think it's okay to take something that does not belong to them..

sum1

Our societies aren't advanced and progressive.

That is quite simply not true. Burglars often enter homes when they are aware that the inhabitants are at home.

The reality is there aren't always other options, reality isn't that easy. (Of course it is always essential to never use excessive force in a self-defence situation.)

Negoatiation can lead to war and wars can lead to peace.

elisheva

See, I wish I could believe things worked like that. But unfortunately, there are cases where negotiation is not an option - for example, you cannot negotiate with people who are so fanatically devoted to some idea that they will never ever entertain the tiniest compromise. (Foreign policy: If someone zealously wants to kill all infidels...what are you going to do, compromise at half the infidels? Domestic/social issues - how do you compromise with an abusive husband who won't allow his wife any freedom at all?) I'm not saying that where negotiation doesn't work, violence is the only way - there are alternate routes we should explore as long as they are viable/as long as we realistically can - but sometimes we do have to use force. It sucks. But .. sometimes it's needed.

The thing is that many people who defend certain wars are not doing so because they're totally okay with dead babies or ruined societies. They are doing so because they want the same end result as you do - they just disagree on the best method.

UM (sorry, I don't know your name!) - I agree with you about the potential sketchiness of the 'Make My Day' laws. I do think self-defence is a crucial right, but we have to consider what the best methods are. I've heard statistics that people with firearms for self-defence are actually more likely to get hurt (accidentally or in the case of an actual intrusion) - so I'm not sure I see how that's the best plan.

For some things, I guess you could say I think prevention is the best: if you live in a sketchy area, never walk alone at night and carry an umbrella and a cell phone; get a decent security system; explore other options before invasion. But if it comes to the point that you could reasonably say there's no other alternative, then do what you can to defend yourself.

In one of my classes today we were discussing a Canadian case (Lavallée vs. the Queen) of a battered woman who shot her husband after he hit her and threatened to do worse when they were alone. I haven't finished reading the case yet - but IMO, it seems like that shouldn't be dealt with as straight-up murder. Not excused completely, I think, although I could maybe be swayed otherwise, but certainly in a case like that I think violence for self-defence is occasionally the only way.

UnsilentMajorty

In your opinion.

It happens, but not as often as the media would like you to think.

No one said reality is "easy". Reality is what it is.

The means justify the end?

Tell me, you apparently live in Ireland. What are thoughts about the IRA?

S.A.S.H.A.

If I were placed in a kill or be killed scenario, I can assure you that I will fight to the death, and hopefully it won't be mine.

Sasha