# Deadly force in response to domestic violence



## koreancuber (Apr 1, 2010)

Here's another debate. I'm getting ready to do the BDI (a comp at my debate class) and I've seen very many logical reasons on the abortion one. I'm decided to do deadly force in response to domestic violence or abortion.
So, the question is: Do you think deadly force in response to domestic violence should be legal?


----------



## Muesli (Apr 1, 2010)

I think the law is fine as it stands. If you kill someone inadvertently then it is manslaughter. I'd say defending yourself and accidentally killing your attacker in the process shouldn't count as murder, unless the killing turns malicious.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 1, 2010)

If the person in question is at risk of killing one or more people, I see no reason why they shouldn't try to stop him/her by any means necessary.


----------



## koreancuber (Apr 1, 2010)

What about self-defense rights? (I haven't read them) doesn't it back up the deadly force usage?


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 1, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> What about self-defense rights? (I haven't read them) doesn't it back up the deadly force usage?



Pretty sure it varies between the states. I could be wrong.


----------



## LewisJ (Apr 1, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> What about self-defense rights? (I haven't read them) doesn't it back up the deadly force usage?



Basically all states say if someone makes a very obvious threat to your life then you can do what you need to to defend yourself provided you can explain why you did it and show why you felt threatened - where states differ is in defense of others and defense of property.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Apr 1, 2010)

I don't know. I live in Portland and there have been many policemen shooting people recently. There is some serious backlash but people don't understand that things can really get out of hand. This becomes even more of a grey area without public officials to make the decisions. So, I don't know.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 1, 2010)

I don't like the idea of deliberately using a defense that you know is likely to kill someone. If you defend yourself and someone ends up dead by accident, it's not really your fault, but if you know something might kill someone it isn't right to use it. I think I'd say that using force that you know is deadly is only acceptable if someone's life was clearly at risk.


----------



## LewisJ (Apr 1, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I don't like the idea of deliberately using a defense that you know is likely to kill someone. If you defend yourself and someone ends up dead by accident, it's not really your fault, but if you know something might kill someone it isn't right to use it. I think I'd say that using force that you know is deadly is only acceptable if someone's life was clearly at risk.



How would you differentiate between someone just wanting to kick the **** out of you and wanting to kill you when you feel threatened and are in such a situation? If they have a knife in their hand are they trying to kill you? If they're choking you? How do you tell the difference and how much risk do you take to find that difference before taking action? It's a really iffy line that you're seeming to make black and white....


----------



## Edward (Apr 1, 2010)

I'd use 4Chan's pic, but it jsut wouldn't feel the same coming from me.

The poll is too umm, "yes, no" "black, white". My basic opinion is yes, but also a bit of no. I guess i'll be undecided.


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the idea of deliberately using a defense that you know is likely to kill someone. If you defend yourself and someone ends up dead by accident, it's not really your fault, but if you know something might kill someone it isn't right to use it. I think I'd say that using force that you know is deadly is only acceptable if someone's life was clearly at risk.
> ...



What can you do to defend yourself by killing the person threatening you that couldn't also be used to maim them without killing them? I can honestly think of absolutely nothing.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 1, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> How would you differentiate between someone just wanting to kick the **** out of you and wanting to kill you when you feel threatened and are in such a situation? If they have a knife in their hand are they trying to kill you? If they're choking you? How do you tell the difference and how much risk do you take to find that difference before taking action? It's a really iffy line that you're seeming to make black and white....


It's obviously up to the judgment of the person involved, but it seems like a pretty clear line to me. If someone is holding a weapon and they're acting aggressively, fine. If someone is choking you, obviously fine. But if you've got someone who's unarmed and running away, or who has punched their spouse, you can't make the argument that someone's life was in real danger, and it's not OK to kill them. I don't think an objective person could necessarily look at a situation and decide whether someone's life is in danger, but it's all about the policemen or whatever on the scene at the time - if they truly felt like they were in danger then deadly force is reasonable, but if they were trying to seriously hurt someone out of boredom, annoyance, or racism, you've got a problem.


----------



## LewisJ (Apr 1, 2010)

Dene said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



What can you do to a person intent on killing you that will disable them to the point that you can be SURE that they no longer are a threat to you short of killing them? Give me a few examples from your side because I really don't see any.


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2010)

LewisJ said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > LewisJ said:
> ...



Well, if hand to hand combat is the question, simply knocking them out would suffice. It would sure as hell be easier to knock them out than to kill them bare handed.

If knife to knife combat was the question, cutting off their hand or stabbing them many times in the legs should suffice to bring them down enough for you to get out of harms way.

If it was gun to gun combat, I would first wonder why two people managed to get a hold of guns if they didn't both have intent to kill, but supposing this situation: Nutty guy comes into your house with two guns, he gives you one and says "kill me, or I'll kill you". A shot to the hand, or even better, the balls, should surely withhold them for long enough. If not, more shots to the legs or arms would do. 

I simply cannot see why killing would be the only practical solution.


----------



## LewisJ (Apr 1, 2010)

qqwref said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > How would you differentiate between someone just wanting to kick the **** out of you and wanting to kill you when you feel threatened and are in such a situation? If they have a knife in their hand are they trying to kill you? If they're choking you? How do you tell the difference and how much risk do you take to find that difference before taking action? It's a really iffy line that you're seeming to make black and white....
> ...



Someone who is unarmed and running away isn't even trying to hurt you, there's no line to be made, it's quite clear. The line I say isn't clear that your previous post seemed to say was clear was the line determining when you think someone's life is at risk such that it is OK to use deadly force. A punch can easily turn into more; weapons can easily be used only for intimidation but it can be hard to tell; if someone punches you and then grabs a knife, do you wait to see what they do with it or are you over the line yet? It's EXTREMELY situation-based and I think it's nearly impossible to generalize as this thread seems to want to. Sure, there is the general condition of "when your life is in danger you can use deadly force to defend it" - but that condition has two more poorly defined conditions.



Dene said:


> LewisJ said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



Obviously with hand to hand or knife to knife it makes a lot more sense to disable and get the hell away; I agree with this notion. What if it is knife-gun in an open field such that running away is a pretty bad looking option, and you are presented with an opportunity at their neck and know how to things with such an opportunity; the other options are trying to get the gun out of their hands (something only the most skilled will be able to do with personal survival odds near that of option 1), and running away which will likely get you shot (lowest survival odds); at this point it is a 2-player game and we can use simple gametheory principles to say that you take the choice with the best expected outcome for yourself. 

And your last paragraph makes me seriously wonder - have you ever used a firearm? You seem to be under a misconception that shooting someone in the balls or hand - small and hard to identify areas - is easy fast business. Another factor is - a bullet wound in the arm isn't the all-disabling thing many people think it is, people don't instantly become unable to fire a gun when you shoot em in the arm/hand/nuts/leg. Also - having a gun doesn't imply intent to kill, just as having a knife doesn't. Do convenience store clerks with a shotgun under the counter intend to kill people? Now what if a guy walks in with a gun to rob the place? The clerk's intent is to defend, not to kill; do you want him to throw the shotgun on the floor and pull out a baseball bat instead since the shotgun has too high a chance of killing the robber? That severely hurts his ability to defend.


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2010)

I firstly want to say: Of course I have never used a fire arm! I have never touched a gun, nor will I ever in my whole life. I find guns to be among the most morally repugnant things that exist on the face of the earth and I would consider it a moral degradation to myself to even go near one.

Of course I know that I recommended shooting in hard-to-hit places, but in my scenario the person had the opportunity to take careful aim. I honestly cannot think of another situation where one would happen to have a gun in one's hand while there is someone coming at them with intent to shoot; surely they would have shot straight away, and especially before one had the chance to access a gun, load, ****, aim, and shoot. 

I find your "knife to gun" scenario unrealistic. Why has the person not already shot you if they intend to kill? How did you get the knife, and get so close to the person that you can attack their neck?? Why did you position yourself so that you could attack their neck, and not position yourself so that you could attack somewhere else?
I get the feeling that you are coming into this discussion with a pre-bias towards "the-need-to-kill". I think you need to step back and consider all the options.

btw, if someone has a gun and they allow you to get so close as to knife them in the neck, they either can't have intent to kill, or are so obscenely stupid that I can't see cutting off their hand as an unrealistic option.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 1, 2010)

What if the attacker has the knife and the only weapon easily reachable is a gun? It's pretty hard to bring someone down with a gun without a considerable risk of killing them.

In the hand to hand scenario there are obvious flaws with your argument. A 100 pound female doesn't stand much of a chance against a larger, stronger masculine attacker. The weaker victim is going to have a lot of trouble putting down the stronger attacker without using lethal force.

It's certainly possible to kill someone bare handed, so there is never going to be a time where you can rule out the possibility that the victim is fearful for their life.


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2010)

Hang on. So you're proposing that it would be easier for the female to _kill_ him than to knock him out, or anything else? How _exactly_ do you propose she does this?


----------



## RyanO (Apr 1, 2010)

It would be much easier to kill him with a weapon than knock him out with her bare hands. Try knocking someone out with a gun or knife... it doesn't really work that way. 

If she doesn't have a weapon she could try to incapacitate him with hand to hand combat, but she will have little chance of success. If she was correct in her fears that the attacker intended to kill her, she will most likely die.


----------



## Dene (Apr 1, 2010)

So what you're saying is this:

Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Woman has access to gun (poor choice for the man to choose to attack her, don't you think?) Only choice is for her to shoot in the head or chest? I think not. I'm sure a shot or two to the mid-section would suffice to stop him or slow him down considerably, and is much less likely to be fatal.
Alternatively:
Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Woman has access to large knife (more plausible than a gun at the very least, and there is actually evidence that the most common weapon used by a woman to kill a man is a kitchen knife). Where do you think it is the most plausible place to stab him? I would say the mid-section again. It is the softest place, and the biggest. Perhaps it would not immediately stop him, but unless she cut off his head completely, nothing would immediately stop him any faster.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 1, 2010)

Dene you have very little concept of what kind of wound it takes to incapacitate/kill someone. Also, in the chaos of the moment it's hard to be accurate with a weapon especially if there is a struggle. In many situations it boils down to kill or be killed.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the scenario that you seem to be advocating for is:

Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Man attacks woman. Woman does nothing, or maybe throws a few wimpy punches or kicks. Man brutaly beats woman to death.

How is that better than using lethal force for self defense?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 1, 2010)

Dene said:


> So what you're saying is this:
> 
> Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Woman has access to gun (poor choice for the man to choose to attack her, don't you think?) Only choice is for her to shoot in the head or chest? I think not. I'm sure a shot or two to the mid-section would suffice to stop him or slow him down considerably, and is much less likely to be fatal.
> Alternatively:
> Man comes into kitchen, with intent to kill. Woman has access to large knife (more plausible than a gun at the very least, and there is actually evidence that the most common weapon used by a woman to kill a man is a kitchen knife). Where do you think it is the most plausible place to stab him? I would say the mid-section again. It is the softest place, and the biggest. Perhaps it would not immediately stop him, but unless she cut off his head completely, nothing would immediately stop him any faster.


 That doesn't make a difference. There's a chance of death no matter where you shoot or stab.
The original question doesn't even make any sense. If somebody tries to kill you, try your hardest to survive; it doesn't if it's legal or not. A situation like this can only be evaluated individually.


----------



## sub_zero1983 (Apr 2, 2010)

Personally, I believe every person has the right to defend themselves and their family.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 2, 2010)

I would advocate deadly force even if the intruder was entering the property with intent to steal, because you, as the person in the house, don't know if they are carrying weapons. If you're robbing a house at night you would certainly carry a weapon. Too many robberies turn into murder because the house owner confronted the robber and the robber pulled out a weapon and killed them.

It's not like you have to call the police and say "Yeah I just killed someone who tried to rob my house". And it's not like the robber's wife/spouse/whatever would call the police and say "My partner has gone missing. The last time I saw him was when he went to rob somebody's house." Just hide the body. 

Lets assume I'm a father with a wife and children. If there is somebody in my house holding a gun, I wouldn't give a **** if they were intending to use it. The mere presence of a gun in my house would be enough to cause possible injury or death to my family (I'm hoping Dene will agree with me on the danger of a gun in a house). I would not wait for him to go to a child's bedroom and murder my child before I kill him. That's ****ing stupid. I would kill him as soon as possible, preferably with a knife to the back of the neck.


I don't really understand Dene's point. The way I see it, it's kill or be killed. If you kill them, there is one less horrible person in the world. If you're killed, there is one (or more) less (potentially ) innocent person in the world and a horrible killer remains free.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Dene you have very little concept of what kind of wound it takes to incapacitate/kill someone. Also, in the chaos of the moment it's hard to be accurate with a weapon especially if there is a struggle. In many situations it boils down to kill or be killed.
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the scenario that you seem to be advocating for is:
> ...



I never proposed for a second that the woman should do nothing. I am curious as to how the woman manages to get a hold of a knife capable of killing, or a gun though. Does this not seem susipcious to you at all; like the wife secretly wanted to kill anyway? I mean, let us be realistic. If I wanted to kill my wife, I would do it when she was asleep, or in the bedroom where she couldn't get access to a weapon. I wouldn't come up to her in the kitchen or when she's standing next to a gun and make it clear that I had intent to kill. That would be silly.
What you are proposing is not only extremely unrealistic, but it doesn't add up. Do you honestly think that if someone cut open your midsection with a knife that you would be ok and be able to continue to kill your wife with your bare hands? I mean, if you were going to use a gun you would have shot her from a distance, and if you were going to use a knife surely you would have caught her by surprise and stabbed her before she even realised what was going on. Therefore I'm assuming that this is being done only with the hands. 

You say "it's hard to be accurate with the weapon" and yet, you manage to obtain the accuracy to inflict a fatal blow? Which is _harder_ than attacking the midsection, which is far less likely to kill? You seriously make no sense. It appears to me that you simply seem to think that killing is alright and that people should do it more often.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2010)

aronpm said:


> I don't really understand Dene's point. The way I see it, it's kill or be killed. If you kill them, there is one less horrible person in the world. If you're killed, there is one (or more) less (potentially ) innocent person in the world and a horrible killer remains free.



So you don't see "lock yourself in the bathroom" or "hide" as a viable option? And how do you propose that you go about getting a weapon before the robber has the chance to back you into a corner such that you no longer can get the weapon? And why not just leave the robber to go about his business, then immediately call the police to avoid not only any death, but any injury at all? This is _not _a kill or be killed situation. You guys are just blind to other plausible options.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> So you don't see "lock yourself in the bathroom" or "hide" as a viable option? And how do you propose that you go about getting a weapon before the robber has the chance to back you into a corner such that you no longer can get the weapon? And why not just leave the robber to go about his business, then immediately call the police to avoid not only any death, but any injury at all? This is _not _a kill or be killed situation. You guys are just blind to other plausible options.



Their entry into the house might awaken you, and you might sneak out. They don't have to know that you're there.

Why not just leave the robber to do his 'business'? Because he is intruding on my property and stealing my possessions. That is why. I shouldn't have to stand by idly while somebody takes _my_ stuff from _my_ house.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2010)

So suddenly that justifies killing them?

It seems that the situation is no longer kill or be killed, but kill or let someone steal my possessions. Maybe it's just me, but I highly doubt that a single person on the forum would agree with you, other than some redneck southern American. (Evidence shows that "cultures of honour" such as those in the south of the US feel that violence is acceptable when one's honour has been brought into question). Of course, no one else agrees with this because it's stupid.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 2, 2010)

I feel that my possessions (that I would assume I worked hard to attain) are much more valuable then a life of the scum would who break into people's houses to steal things.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2010)

Unfortunately, the police nor a jury nor a judge would see things the same way that you do.


----------



## Chapuunka (Apr 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> Unfortunately, the police nor a jury nor a judge would see things the same way that you do.



I'd like to think modern courts would be understanding enough for today's citizens, especially with all the guns available to the public. Then again, I've never had to be in a court setting so I wouldn't really know.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 2, 2010)

Dene said:


> let us be realistic. If I wanted to kill my wife, I would do it when she was asleep, or in the bedroom where she couldn't get access to a weapon. I wouldn't come up to her in the kitchen or when she's standing next to a gun and make it clear that I had intent to kill. That would be silly.
> What you are proposing is not only extremely unrealistic, but it doesn't add up. Do you honestly think that if someone cut open your midsection with a knife that you would be ok and be able to continue to kill your wife with your bare hands? I mean, if you were going to use a gun you would have shot her from a distance, and if you were going to use a knife surely you would have caught her by surprise and stabbed her before she even realised what was going on. Therefore I'm assuming that this is being done only with the hands.



Assuming that all situations are going to fit into the nice little scenario you've created is far more unrealistic then what I have proposed. Consider a situation where a woman says something to make her drunk husband mad and he starts to beat the hell out of her. She's fearful for her life and grabs the gun she keeps in her purse and shoots him. We're not talking about premeditated murder here. Do you really think the woman should be charged with a crime?



Dene said:


> Unfortunately, the police nor a jury nor a judge would see things the same way that you do.



False. Individuals that kill intruders often face no legal ramifications whatsoever.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, the police nor a jury nor a judge would see things the same way that you do.
> ...



Let's not take my post out of context please.



RyanO said:


> Assuming that all situations are going to fit into the nice little scenario you've created is far more unrealistic then what I have proposed. Consider a situation where a woman says something to make her drunk husband mad and he starts to beat the hell out of her. She's fearful for her life and grabs the gun she keeps in her purse and shoots him. We're not talking about premeditated murder here. Do you really think the woman should be charged with a crime?



Wowza, girls walk around with guns in their purses in the States? That is really sad, and tells you something about the culture that you live in. Regardless, I'll give you this scenario, despite the fact that it doesn't change anything. The reason for this is because you still refuse to give sufficient reason why the shot that she makes has to be lethal. I mean sure, perhaps she doesn't think and take aim, just points the gun in roughly the right direction and shoots and it happens to kill. (I may as well point out that this is _not_ a kill or be killed situation, but nevermind I will go along with yet another change in tack). But to be honest I still don't see how it is even remotely plausible that the shot would be accurate enough to kill simply _by accident_ (because she just pointed and shot without taking clear aim). Most likely she is going to hit him somewhere it will not kill, as she would pretty much have to get him straight through the brain or the heart to kill, and these are by far not the biggest bulk of the body. It seems very unlikely to me that a lethal shot was done completely by accident. However if it was, I agree the person should be excused.


----------



## RyanO (Apr 2, 2010)

A gunshot wound doesn't need to be in the brain or heart to kill. There are plenty of places in your midsection that will result in a lethal wound if you are shot there, the liver for instance. Getting shot in the gut is actually a pretty bad spot to be hit. A shot to one of the limbs is unlikely to actually incapacitate your attacker, that's why pretty much any gun class will teach you to always aim for a kill shot in a scenario where you are forced to use a firearm in self defense.

I'm not a gun advocate by any means. In fact, I feel pretty much the same way you do about them. I would never own a weapon that is only usefull for killing people. I think a non lethal weapon like a taser or pepper spray is a much better choice for self defense, however, lethal weapons are currently legal so it seems unreasonable to criminalize their use in self defense. Whether or not lethal weapons should be legal is another debate entirely. Obviously you couldn't make all lethal weapons illegal since you can kill someone with pretty much anything.


----------



## Dene (Apr 2, 2010)

Yea tasers are ftw.


----------



## DaBear (Apr 2, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> Here's another debate. I'm getting ready to do the BDI (a comp at my debate class) and I've seen very many logical reasons on the abortion one. I'm decided to do deadly force in response to domestic violence or abortion.
> So, the question is: Do you think deadly force in response to domestic violence should be legal?




wait....did you just say your OK with someone using deadly force to stop an abortion?

oh and on topic:
Only if it is a kill or be killed scenario, and even then if given the opportunity it should be used to suppress the person, not kill them. But it is also perfectly acceptable to use the _threat_ of deadly force if you fear it may escalate to a kill or be killed scenario, ie. someone goes crazy and tries to beat the **** out of you, you are allowed to pull out and point a gun to stop them, but not fire at them, as soon as they begin to show intent to kill then firing the weapon is allowed


----------



## koreancuber (Apr 2, 2010)

DaBear said:


> koreancuber said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another debate. I'm getting ready to do the BDI (a comp at my debate class) and I've seen very many logical reasons on the abortion one. I'm decided to do deadly force in response to domestic violence or abortion.
> ...



I have no clue what your talking about. This thread is on domestic violence and the abortion thread is just another debate I am considering.


----------



## DaBear (Apr 2, 2010)

koreancuber said:


> DaBear said:
> 
> 
> > koreancuber said:
> ...



ok i was just confused with the wording of it, idk why, but it sounded like you were saying the topics you were considering were deadly force in response to both domesting violence and abortion, not abortion and deadly force in response to domestic violence


----------



## koreancuber (Apr 2, 2010)

Lol, sorry, my bad.


----------

