Poll: When do you feel lethal force is justified?

[ccw9mm]

Those choosing to carry a firearm or other tool have agreed to accept the responsibility of deciding when to apply lethal force to the commission of crimes we witness. Irrespective of the laws that may apply to you, consider the following ...

Question: Using the rough scale of crimes noted above, at what point would you feel that your use of lethal force would be justified in order to stop the situation from going any further?

Responses may vary quite a bit, based on your experiences, training, how you were raised. Please attempt to answer without regard to the legality of actions you may perform. This poll is intended to see what people think, irrespective of what the State deems appropriate.

Note that the responses are private. If you feel like expanding on your answer, feel free to comment below.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Packman73]

Where's the poll?

[chiboxer]

Not to be too technical but the following is the justification for the use of deadly force in WI: too prevent death and/or great bodily harm to you or another person. Great bodily harm is defined as the permanent loss of function of a major limb, eye, etc.

[OfClanMcnab]

The answer, of course, is "disrespectful glance, speech, or behavior."

[OPFOR]

IMO, no crime (in and of itself) warrants deadly force. Unless the crime is happening TO YOU, RIGHT NOW, and has reasonably put you in fear for your life/grave bodily injury, then you shouldn't kill. The State, after determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is the only entity that can kill AFTER the crime. (Or am I misunderstanding the question?)

[press1280]

Bodily harm to myself or others. However,brandishing if people are stealing my stuff is OK with me. If they then come after me,then of course,bodily harm to myself or others. Some states,though,will tell you a gun pretty much has to be pointed at your head before you can even draw.

[ENSANE1970]

Wow, that's alot of options. Except for the verbal options, I'll just choose to be in condition Orange/Red as usual and hope to make the right decision.

[bandit383]

IMO, no crime (in and of itself) warrants deadly force. Unless the crime is happening TO YOU, RIGHT NOW, and has reasonably put you in fear for your life/grave bodily injury, then you shouldn't kill.

Agreed...that's the part that invariably gets adjudicated (bold)...the main thrust of concealed carry (vice home/business protection).

Rick

[DrSal]

When you or your family are in danger of death/rape/assault...or when there is any unwelcomed intruder in your home/vehicle. Property is not worth life in many states and you WILL be prosecuted.

[ccw9mm]

... am I misunderstanding the question?

The question simply asks folks to specify at what point one feels justified to employ lethal force to stop a crime. Of course, there's leveraging the threat of lethal force (ie, drawing), and there's the actual use of it (ie, shooting). The primary point of the question is to explore what people think WITHOUT the state's limitations being any guideline or factor.

[HotGuns]

When I fear for my life.

You didnt put that up there.

[blueyedevil]

Right before I hear "BANG".

[SEMO Shooter]

You may personally feel that many of those poll selections were reason to use lethal force. In Missouri you better be able to convince the prosecutor or jury that you reasonably believed you or another were in imminent fear of severe injury, death, rape, sodomy, kidnapping, or severe injury from robbery, burglary or arson. If not there is a high probability that you will be prosecuted.

[dang.45]

"Assault & battery against someone else" was my vote - my assumption is that the "someone else" is a loved one. I assume most who voted for "assault & battery against you" would agree if the person being attacked were your spouse/child/parent/etc...

[Supertac45]

Depends on too much to post.