ethically (and legally) appropriate application of deadly force

mak2 said:
If the guy was wearing a tee shirt, shorts and slippers, weighted 100 lbs, was obviously not armed and demanded my Rolex, the appropriate response would be to tell him to beat it. If he had a knife, shoot him. A 220lber in very athletic shape, well that might tip the scales toward firing sooner, he might not need a weapon to legitimately put you in fear for your life. . Of course there is that whole spectrum between to consider.
Click to expand...

And how are you going to know he's "obviously not armed"??

What would be obvious?
 
mak2 said:
Simplistic huh? That scenario was used to demonstrate unethical use of deadly force. Glad you caught it. Now try to follow along.
Click to expand...

But aren't "ethics" subjective; because you can't apply your description of "ethics" to fit everyone else.
 
mak2 said:
I know this is a mistake, but here goes. If you follow someone with an intent to cause a confrontation and end up shooting the person you were following you should be charged with and convicted of murder. I never said I was in VN in 62, idiot.
Click to expand...

So what proof would be needed to show the intent was to cause a confrontation?
 
mak2 said:
IF: On Saturday night I get dressed up, put on my Rolex and drive my Prius to near West side Indy or out on the East side in the real bad neighborhoods. Let's say I just walk around the hookers and crackheads, maybe have a $100 bill sticking out of my shirt pocket, completely minding my own buisness. When (not if) someone tries to take the bill and the Rolex I just shoot them. Is that appropriate use of deadly force?
Click to expand...

IF: From the lily pad a frog jump onto dry land would he hit his butt if he had wings?
 
Jack said:
I think Police 'bait' people. They used to have a show on called 'Bait Car', they would park a car with the keys in the ignition and just wait for someone to steal it.
Click to expand...

And? Does having the keys in the ignition make taking something that isn't yours OK?
 
mak2 said:
His judgment was very questionable at best. The dispatcher's advice to stay in the SUV certainly was not legally binding but it was good judgment. Z intentionally put himself in a situation that he had to kill someone that night when there was no reason to. It is just that simple. He was found not guilty, not innocent.
Click to expand...

The end result is the same. Ask OJ.
 
mak2 said:
Which brings up more nuance. Is $100 worth killing a man over? If I thought he would shoot me anyway, unquestionably shoot him, if I thought he would take the money and leave...?
Click to expand...

Why does the amount matter if someone is trying to steal something from you? Strange how you focus on how much rather than what. I don't care if it's a penny. Someone trying to steal what isn't theirs has shown me that penny is worth more than their miserable life.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Corporate for profit prisons with corporate for profit convict labor leasing will only promote more of this stuff.
Click to expand...

There's an easy solution if you don't like the prison system. Convince the criminals there to stop committing crimes. Interesting how you place the effect before the cause.
 
mak2 said:
Just curious, what would be your standards for using deadly force?
Click to expand...

For me, it would be if I thought that my life or someone else's was in danger from the actions of someone else.

I see you failed to answer the question and decided to just ask your own.

And how are you going to know he's "obviously not armed"??

What would be obvious?
 
mak2 said:
IF: On Saturday night I get dressed up, put on my Rolex and drive my Prius to near West side Indy or out on the East side in the real bad neighborhoods. Let's say I just walk around the hookers and crackheads, maybe have a $100 bill sticking out of my shirt pocket, completely minding my own buisness. When (not if) someone tries to take the bill and the Rolex I just shoot them. Is that appropriate use of deadly force?
Click to expand...

mak, they would laughing so hard at the Prius you would have nothing to worry about......
 
Jack said:
"Death Wish (1974 film)"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Death Wish is a 1974 American vigilante action film, loosely based on the 1972 novel of the same title by Brian Garfield. The film was directed by Michael Winner and stars Charles Bronson as Paul Kersey, an architect who becomes a vigilante after his wife is murdered and his daughter sexually assaulted during a home invasion. It was the first of the Death Wish film franchise."

"At the time of release, the film was attacked by many film critics due to its support of vigilantism and advocating unlimited punishment of criminals.[4] The novel denounced vigilantism, whereas the film embraced the notion. The film was a commercial success and resonated with the public in the United States, which was facing increasing crime rates during the 1970s.[5]"

I can tell ... you LOVED this Movie.
Click to expand...

It was ok. Production value seemed poor. Almost campy. But real men conservatives relate to a pock faced not handsome guy being a badass. Better than Johnny depp china doll faced kids Tokyo drifting and cgi action sequences all the time.
 
The scenario was designed to demonstrate a small guy obviously unarmed. OF course he could pull a firearm out of his ass...Geeze.
USFREEDOM911 said:
For me, it would be if I thought that my life or someone else's was in danger from the actions of someone else.

I see you failed to answer the question and decided to just ask your own.

And how are you going to know he's "obviously not armed"??

What would be obvious?
Click to expand...
 
Sailor said:
mak, they would laughing so hard at the Prius you would have nothing to worry about......
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

flashy-toyota-prius-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top