Poll: When do you feel lethal force is justified?

[BlackBear]

I voted rape.

This is the point at which I would employ lethal force. This doesn't mean that other levels of response are not justified for lesser crimes. lscurrier I agree with you that we shouldn't let thieves (or any criminals) get away with any crime, no matter the magnitude. That being said, I don't believe that all crimes are necessarily deserving of lethal force. The gun is only one tool in the toolbox. For the lesser crimes - well, that's why they make collapsible batons. (and sticks, and pens, and shoelaces, and paperweights shaped conspicuously like brass knuckles, and electrical cords, etc.)

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[BlackBear]

RAPE? Of oneself or of another?

Uh.....does it matter? I think the "of oneself answer" is pretty obvious. To me, the "of another answer" is pretty obvious too. If I happened upon a rape (and could ascertain that a rape was in fact in progress) then you're damned straight I would employ anything necessary, up to and including lethal force, to stop it.

Caveat: I would do this while adhering to any and all applicable laws, which at this time in my state to the best of my knowledge allows lethal force in defense of a rape. Damn the statutes and their cross-referencing. *grumbles off to double-check statutes*

[Echo_Four]

Won't vote because the poll doesn't work for me. Burglary with B&E is more than enough for me to decide to use deadly force if happens to be my home and I am home or come home while the criminal is in my home. Sorry, but if you've broken into my home I am going to assume you did so with the intent of doing great bodily harm to me and/or my family.

However, that is followed in the poll by threatening speech. You can say anything you want to me, until you take some sort of action towards me, I don't really care.

[Sticks]

Colorado's definition of "Bodily harm or Injury" is vague and changes the higher up the legal ladder you go depending on the view of the person making the decision at the time. I.E. The officer may agree that any injury sustained even a scratch constitutes bodily harm. The DA may disagree and file charges, then the Judge and or Jury then makes the decision what bodily harm is.

I did vote assault against me. I do not look for fights, and do what I can to avoid them. If they are dumb enough to continue to come at me after I clearly state my intention NOT to get into it, that they should walk away, and draw my weapon to emphasize the point, then I am in fear of my life. I have met the criteria of retreat to the wall.

As for situations NOT involving me, I stay out of it and dial 911. Even if I am there from the start, I still do not know of any history behind the subjects.

B&E into another's property, unless I know them REAL well, (close friend or neighbor, or have been specifically asked to watch the property by the owner), 911 and let the police deal with it.

[coffeecup]

The poll is flawed. We can only vote for one and here in Ky there are many options to choose from regarding the use of deadly force.

[ccw9mm]

The poll is flawed. We can only vote for one and here in Ky there are many options to choose from regarding the use of deadly force.

The question isn't about what your state allows. It's about what you think. It's about where you would draw the line, about specifying the point beyond which you would not allow a criminal to go.

In the same manner in which crimes and punishments are classified on a scale, essentially, as misdemanors or felonies, low-grade to violent/heinous, the structure of this poll follows that same basic layout, yes. It's based on the assumption that, when it comes down to it, most folks choose a point that represents the limit of what they'll allow a criminal to do.

[SammyIamToday]

I answered how I believe it should be - not what the laws of my state require.

I selected:

Theft, low-cost

as I believe it is unreasonable to require honest people to submit to the will of criminals. Must I let a thief take what is mine because it falls below a certain dollar value even as I stand armed before him and have the means to apprehend him - and if necessary hurt (kill) him if he resists.

I believe that by letting thieves get away with even the smallest of crimes we allow crime to happen rather than making a strong statement that crime is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

If a thief dies as a result of his actions then he has made the choice that got him what he received.

NOTE: I will follow the laws of the state that I am in, but this is how I feel.

Luke

I agree. It's shame the states don't recognize stealing as the infringement of your individual rights that it is.

[friesepferd]

i dont think these are quite in the right order:
Burglary, including B&E to get there.
Threatening speech or behavior.

i think B&E is more threatening then 'threatening speech'
heck, in most states if there is B&E you may use lethal force.
but defiantly not just because of behavior.

[Wolf357]

I couldn't vote in the poll because in my view lethal force is justified only against those immediately involved in the commission of a violent felony. Not before the fact. And not after the fact. But only during the commission.

If a home burglary transpires while the lawful resident is present, this constitutes the commission of a violent felony by the perpetrator... In other words, their hindquarters are mine!

[Rock and Glock]

I couldn't vote because I don't want to spend the time articulating the answers to make anyone, especially a prosecutor, "happy".

[Redneck Repairs]

I refuse to vote since the internet can and has come back to bite folks on the butt in court . Use of lethal force is a complex enough issue that no one answer will cover the vast number of scenarios where it may be justified and moral as well as legal . I will say that i will use the appropriate amount of force to protect myself, my family , and on occasion others . That level may range from a call to 911 all the way thro a shot taken to stop imminent threat .

[farronwolf]

After reading through the entire post, I went with Burglary. That being said it all depends on many factors.

I do believe there are lots of arguements being made over nothing as it relates to this poll. I believe that cw9mm was looking for our threshold for use of deadly force, not an aruement about what the state allows or which should come first in the poll.

All one has to do is look over this site to figure out there are a vast range of what people find as acceptable instances for use of deadly force. In not all instances will the same people agree. I have found that there are others here that think similarly to me on many issues, but then one will come up and we don't agree or someone that I usually don't agree with is taking a similar possition to me some time. I think this is what the poll is trying to get at, I might be wrong, but hey that wouldn't be the first time. We all have some minimum standard, some people's are pretty low, some peoples are pretty high. There is no right answer for everyone.

[Redneck Repairs]

I believe that cw9mm was looking for our threshold for use of deadly force, not an aruement about what the state allows or which should come first in the poll.

And that is exactly what i am unwilling to define online other than to say that mine is and will be in accordance with any and all laws .

[mousehunter]

I am reluctant to vote. I think it is acceptable if I feel myself or someone else's life is on the line. Sometimes that might be attempted murder, other times it could simply be armed burglary. Technically if authorized for a few other reasons in Texas (such as to stop a theft if no other means to recover the goods is possible - get insurance it is cheaper than defending yourself in court).

As for the rape issue - that is alway a possible risk of life.
---
As for Robbery, most often it will accompany a threat to ones life. Assault and battery is a bit more iffy for me - all boils down the a threat to ones life.

[mojust]

When I am afraid for my life, or when my loved ones, or an innocent, is afraid for their life.