It sounds reasonable. Not sure about the website's agenda.
This is a discussion on Victim v Badguys within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Victim v. Bad Guy: The Morality of Lethal Force It'd be interesting to your take on this article....
Victim v. Bad Guy: The Morality of Lethal Force
It'd be interesting to your take on this article.
EN MI VIDA AL MAL NO TEMERÉ, POR QUE EN MI CORAZÓN Y MIS DOS .38 SUPER COLT.
It sounds reasonable. Not sure about the website's agenda.
I shoot with a pistol and a Canon. We must all hang together amigos, or we will all hang separately. NRA life member.
IMO a good article. Some of the things you hear sometimes from the criminal's family are he was only taking the stereo or he had a toy gun and he did not have to die for. My response is if that stereo was not worth dieing for then why did they risk their life trying to steal it?
On a lighter side I do disagree with the girl selling cookies is a manageable threat to your wallet. Obviously whoever wrote the article has not bought girl scout cookies in a while.
The whole point of cc is to accept responsibility for your own safety. I have no sympathy for those that have chosen to victimize others for their own gain, and I feel this article does a good job articulating this stance.
They think they don't need firearms because they never have needed them.
"God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal (more or less)."
Practice makes perfect.
I can think of a few folks that shold read that.
probably won't, may not change their attitude even if.
Beans, Bullets, and Bandages. The only thing better than being ready is not having to use it!
"First comes smiles. Then comes lies. Last is Gunfire."
Honestly, I dont know what to make of it. Seemed a bit "all over the place", to me.
The article articulates some concepts that are often discussed on DC. Specifically, a citizen can and should be justified in using lethal force if/when they are facing an imminent threat from a BG.
In my mind, it is irrelevant if a BG uses false pretense to establish the threat - if a GG 'thinks' that a deadly weapon is at play, they are justified in using lethal force. There is rarely time to stop and figure out if a gun or knife is real. If a BG 'pretends' to have a deadly weapon there is no way for a GG to know that the BG is lying until it is too late.
If any BG wants to play the game of threatening people, they get what they deserve and their families should get nothing in remuneration for their bad choice. We must preserve the right of free people to defend themselves from this type of attack.
My take is simple. If you only use deadly force to protect you and yours from death or severe injury there is no moral issue at all. If you only shoot because you have to shoot and not simply because you can shoot, there is no moral issue. If the choice is the BGs life or mine, there is no moral issue. I don't shoot over property, I don't shoot out of ego or anger, I don't shoot just because the law says I can shoot. No moral issue at all.
Last edited by David Armstrong; May 23rd, 2014 at 06:54 PM.
I had a client once who ... was really problems for this one town. He took off to parts unknown, then retained me to straighten up the mess of some unresolved charges that were still pending against him, from when he ran off.
One of the officers involved in those pending charges was still on the force, and most certainly remembered my client...and not in a "good" way. That officer, had been shook up for years because he almost killed/shot my client. And he resented my client for making him feel that way.
It all was a very unusual situation. Not how most cases go.
I went to speak to my client about it (btw, clients, DAs , lawyers and LE NEVER meet in the same room to "discuss" it all like they do on TV), and he looked a bit ashamed over it all, and said in a low voice 'The problem was that he (the cop), didnt do what I wanted him to do."
What my client meant, was that the cop did not kill him. My client wanted the cop to kill him. He was going for suicide by cop, and the cop was a good enough, wise enough, and lucky enough, guy not to grant him his wish.
By the time my client hired me, he had turned his life around, gotten counseling, treatment for addiction issues, etc. And owned up to how he had been in the past.
I went back to the officer, and told him what my client had told me. He sort of turned white. He told me that he was more scared after hearing that, than before.
Btw, in case any are taking this wrong; The cop I had a lot of respect & empathy for. I think he was a decent Joe.
In short order after all that, we were done, and my client off on his way. I have never seen or heard from any of the parties again. Which I think is probably good news.
"The dead or wounded criminals do not deserve our sympathy."
Sums it up pretty well, I think. Once one person chooses to victimize another, the degree of victimization is not relevant; the criminal and victim have now entered different moral realms. Contrary to a situation with two innocents, it becomes a case where the critical wounding and potential death of one person (the criminal) is morally preferable to the potentially less-severe injury of the other (the victim).
Of course, law and morality don't necessarily match up, but my vote would say: the more protection for the victim, the better, regardless of the cost to the criminal. Once you choose a victim, you get what you get.
...there is no arguing with such snivelling puppies, who allow superiors to kick them about deck at pleasure.
— Captain Bellamy
This is a very important lesson IMO about how we should train to fight. As a civilian you are really behind the 8 ball.....From the article...
The criminal sets the time, place and manner of their crime, while the victim is happy to break even and leave the scene intact. The criminals were in control of their actions. The criminals were the initial aggressors and initiated a lethal threat. Acting in self-defense, the citizen simply matched the criminal’s use of force.
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......
It comes down to choices and consequences. The BG chooses to commit evil. The GG chooses to stand against that evil. Both choices have consequences.
Morality doesn't come in to the equation after that choice.
I expect to be held accountable for my actions, always. I also hold others accountable for theirs. That's just the way I was raised.
If you have never broken your gun or bled on your gun in training, you're doing it wrong!
Train hard, live easy.
The one thing I see from the article is the author refers to police officers and victims, obviously meaning civilians.
Well, I'm here to remind everyone if you don't already understand it, police officers who are attacked, assaulted, shot at, killed, or whatever mechanics you can attach to events are victims, too. Merely because they are law enforcement personnel does not place them into a different category.
When some one approaches me with a weapon or look alike shouting threats he has made his intentions clear at that point I will make mine crystal clear and I will do what it takes to survive, that is a moral obligation to myself and family.