When is lethal force acceptable?

Lethal force is acceptable only where there is a demostrably existent lethal threat.
 
A man who used a van as a battering ram to break into a garage, then knocked an off-duty police officer to the ground and kept driving .

Now with that kind of information that I found in your link I'd say the guy deserved to be shot for trying to run over and perhaps try to kill the officer.
 
Using a motor vehicle to attack a person is felony vehicular assault and assault with a deadly weapon. This due to the fact that the vehicle could kill the targeted person. That constitutes sufficient Probable Cause to use deadly force in self defense.

The rule of thumb here in the USA is that you can use deadly force: if the attacker has a weapon, if there is more than one attacker or if the attacker is in your home committing a home invasion and you fear for your life or the safety and well being of your family.

If you believe that the attacker has a weapon that he will use against you you can use deadly force. Here in Detroit we recently had a police officer shoot and kill a young man with a toy gun that he brandished at the cop. It was ruled justifiable, despite that the gun was plastic, as the officer had no way of knowing that beforehand.
 
Yea but this guy was in his house safe, he WENT outside and DROVE to the incident, thereby escalating a non violent situation into a violent one. Sounds abit iffy to me, and whose to say he didn't stand in front of their vehicle thereby even further adding to the incident itself which would never have occurred if he had called the police or stayed in his house? In my book he caused some of this himself if not all of it.
 
darksidZz said:
Yea but this guy was in his house safe, he WENT outside and DROVE to the incident, thereby escalating a non violent situation into a violent one. Sounds abit iffy to me, and whose to say he didn't stand in front of their vehicle thereby even further adding to the incident itself which would never have occurred if he had called the police or stayed in his house? In my book he caused some of this himself if not all of it.
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong. The man was a police officer it's his job to investigate situations such as described. When he got there he identified himself and ordered the perps to stop and be under arrest. They continued their assault, leaving the officer no other choice but to shoot. It was a good shoot, and I can't see any other way to call it. Who among us does not know we can be shot if we don't obey the command of a police officer?
 
The officer was at home about 7 a.m. when he and his wife heard a loud crashing sound behind their home, police said. An alarm also alerted them to something going on in the garage, Camden said.

The officer put on his police shirt, and he and his wife got into their car and drove around to the alley, Camden said. The officer went out back to see what was going on and found a man using a van to try to break into the garage by pushing open the garage door with the vehicle, police said.

The officer and his wife stopped their car behind the van...
Click to expand...

Not only did he put on his police shirt, be obviously also brought a gun. In other words, he approached the scene in an official capacity, with his wife.

This is the most troubling aspect of this story to me. What a fucking idiot.
 
Rav said:
Not only did he put on his police shirt, be obviously also brought a gun. In other words, he approached the scene in an official capacity, with his wife.

This is the most troubling aspect of this story to me. What a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...

Good point, I'd sure like to hear his explanation of that action? I'd tend to think a bad decision like that, being published would reflect badly on the police department as a whole, and they don't like that very much. Might be time for him to look for a new line of work?
 
In my PERSONAL opinion - you break into MY home with a weapon of ANY kind (knife, crowbar, bat, et al), you WILL get a single warning to leave, then the warnings are over. However, if you are holding a firearm of ANY sort... no. You won't GET the chance to hurt my family.

If I go to prison for defending my family, so be it - however, I will NOT risk harm coming to them, least of all from some delinquent that felt he could barge into our house and threaten us.
 
Several years back, a local kid who was high on acid climbed through a bedroom window and was shot dead by the home owner. No criminal charges were filed. I think you're at risk if you're not invited into the house.
 
Ironically this sort of attitude where the first response is to shoot first could lead to incidence like the one I herd about years ago. Don't know whether its true or an urban legend but a burglar breaks into a house and the women sleeping there grabs her gun and opens fire as hes entering her room. Problem is it was her husband home early. Now sure this MAYBE an urban legend but its quite conceivable. I've scared the life out of my partner when i have come home late from work and snuck into bed, even scared the dog a few times. Not to mention the time my sister in law came home late and scared both my partner AND the dog to the point she wouldn't settle back down (I was awake and the time and realised it was her coming home) and I can conceivably see that turning out to be a tragic situation if there weren't strict gun codes here. Not to mention the time my parents were woken up to the dogs barking and went outside to find the dog squad in there back yard chasing a criminal who was jumping fences. Again a "shoot first" attitude there could well have turned out tragic.
 
Asguard said:
Ironically this sort of attitude where the first response is to shoot first could lead to incidence like the one I herd about years ago. Don't know whether its true or an urban legend but a burglar breaks into a house and the women sleeping there grabs her gun and opens fire as hes entering her room. Problem is it was her husband home early. Now sure this MAYBE an urban legend but its quite conceivable. I've scared the life out of my partner when i have come home late from work and snuck into bed, even scared the dog a few times. Not to mention the time my sister in law came home late and scared both my partner AND the dog to the point she wouldn't settle back down (I was awake and the time and realized it was her coming home) and I can conceivably see that turning out to be a tragic situation if there weren't strict gun codes here. Not to mention the time my parents were woken up to the dogs barking and went outside to find the dog squad in there back yard chasing a criminal who was jumping fences. Again a "shoot first" attitude there could well have turned out tragic.
Click to expand...

A lot depends on the situation, but generally speaking whenever someone enters your home uninvited they don't have your best interest at heart. I'd say do your best not to shoot anybody, but if you have to make a quick choice, it's better to error on the side of protecting yourself and your family.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
A lot depends on the situation, but generally speaking whenever someone enters your home uninvited they don't have your best interest at heart. I'd say do your best not to shoot anybody, but if you have to make a quick choice, it's better to error on the side of protecting yourself and your family.
Click to expand...

unless the person you happen to shoot is your partner, your sister or your child
 
KilljoyKlown said:
A lot depends on the situation, but generally speaking whenever someone enters your home uninvited they don't have your best interest at heart. I'd say do your best not to shoot anybody, but if you have to make a quick choice, it's better to error on the side of protecting yourself and your family.
Click to expand...

Sure - but why not the shoulder or kneecap? Shoot to kill is not a sensible opition, shoot to disarm or incapacitate seems more rational.
 
I don't blame the officer for shooting in that case. But shooting someone for breaking into your house isn't something I'm comfortable with. Don't get me wrong, I understand the impulse, but it's not exactly a fitting punishment for the crime.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
A lot depends on the situation, but generally speaking whenever someone enters your home uninvited they don't have your best interest at heart. I'd say do your best not to shoot anybody, but if you have to make a quick choice, it's better to error on the side of protecting yourself and your family.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking, how many break and enters are there in a year? That number would have to be FAR less than the number of potential acidents that "shoot first" could cause. For instance someone gets drunk and forgets they invited someone home with them or kids come home late or early or partner or you just have a nervious person who forgets they just invited there partner to move in with them (we dont exactly work well when we first wake up). Your comment that assuming they are there to harm you because the probability is that they are is ass backwards. The probability suggests you invited them or they live with you and you simply didnt expect them then or forgot or any number of other situations.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Sure - but why not the shoulder or kneecap? Shoot to kill is not a sensible option, shoot to disarm or incapacitate seems more rational.
Click to expand...

It's not that you are shooting to kill. Most people that have a firearm for protection will very seldom go out and practice, and if you are not the best of shots the best area to aim for is the torso or the easiest place to make your shots count for something. If you have family members that might get in the way or just get mistaken for a bad guy, I would say don't own a gun. Look into non-lethal forms of protection. I like pepper spray, it's pretty disabling and mistakes can be recovered from. Another thing even if you kill someone in a good shoot, you can have years of legal problems. Also, more family members are shot and killed with the family gun through accidents that don't involve any bad guys at all. For most citizens the best option is not to own a firearm.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Sure - but why not the shoulder or kneecap? Shoot to kill is not a sensible opition, shoot to disarm or incapacitate seems more rational.
Click to expand...

Most folks couldn't hit the broad side of a bright red barn with a shotgun at close range in full daylight, let alone take out a kneecap with a pistol in the dark of right after waking up to an intruder.

Asguard said:
I've been thinking, how many break and enters are there in a year? That number would have to be FAR less than the number of potential acidents that "shoot first" could cause.
Click to expand...

Comparing the number of actual events of one kind to the number of potential events of another kind is comparing apples to oranges. :shrug: I recall that Arthur posted up the actual numbers here a while back to show that assumption to be false for a similar discussion. Here is that link:

http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm

Many persons in the US have had to use a firearm in self defense against an intruder.

Knowing who is in your house and having a solid knowledge of when your housemates are coming and going - especially late at night after everyone else is in bed - is part of being a responsible homeowner. If you own a firearm it is your responsibility to know how to store and use it properly. If you are going to shoot a firearm at someone it is your responsibility to know who it is that you are shooting at. Turning on the lights can help with that a lot. Keeping a dog can alert you to the intruder before they have even made it all of the way in the house. If you act irresponsibly you will get yourself into trouble, if you act responsibly you will do the right thing to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Rav said:
...he approached the scene in an official capacity, with his wife...
Click to expand...

Much more foolish to have gone to the scene of a crime being committed without backup - especially backup that very likely knew who to call and what to say to them. Sometimes you can't wait for another police officer to show up, you have to move now with what you have. As long as the person follows directions and uses common sense they will be OK.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
It's not that you are shooting to kill. Most people that have a firearm for protection will very seldom go out and practice, and if you are not the best of shots the best area to aim for is the torso or the easiest place to make your shots count for something.
Click to expand...

The more powerful the possession, the better the person must be with it. Other wise he is being irresponsible.

If you have family members that might get in the way or just get mistaken for a bad guy, I would say don't own a gun. Look into non-lethal forms of protection. I like pepper spray, it's pretty disabling and mistakes can be recovered from. Another thing even if you kill someone in a good shoot, you can have years of legal problems. Also, more family members are shot and killed with the family gun through accidents that don't involve any bad guys at all. For most citizens the best option is not to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Sure - but why not the shoulder or kneecap? Shoot to kill is not a sensible opition, shoot to disarm or incapacitate seems more rational.
Click to expand...

Thing is, if the person is armed with their own firearm, and you "shoot to incapacitate", they could very easily shoot back..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top