Politics & News > War, Weapons, Battle

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Just so I am clear on some things...... If someone is under attack, it is acceptable to fight back by whatever means necessary.

Be it knife, sword, firearm, tank, attack helicopter, etc. Self defense is completely justified when under attack, am I right ??

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

HannibalAteMeOut · 22-25, F

Yes and I also believe the same about chronically abused people, like victims of human trafficking or children of abusive homes, if they have the opportunity to escape and it goes as far as killing their abuser in cold blood, then so be it.

HootyTheNightOwl

No... you always use self defence in "reasonable proportion".

If a burglar breaks into your home tonight and doesn't see you sitting there on your sofa, so you startle him and he runs away - would it be reasonable for you to shoot him in the back as he runs??? No. He damaged your property when he made entry, he probably startled you, too... but, shooting him is not proportionate to the crime he committed in this case.

Let's say our burglar has a gun pointed at you... you believe that, if you don't shoot him, he's going to shoot and kill you. Would it be reasonable to shoot him or have another member of your household do so??? Absolutely - in this case, you feel that the threat to your life is significant enough that not taking action will lead to certain death.

TexChik · F

If someone is trying to physically attack me, my family , or break into my house … 2 in the chest and one in the head !

LunarOrbit · 56-60, M

@TexChik Mozambique style 😌

Slade · 56-60, M

If you off someone drag them in the house. It's also why you keep an unregistered throwdown weapon to place next the corpse! 👍

BlueVeins · 22-25

You can't apply [i]any[/i] level of force you want, but imo you should be allowed to escalate if you're the target. Shooting someone for throwing an empty plastic bottle is probably a little far, but you should 100% be allowed to clock someone in the mouth for pushing you or whatever.

joe438 · 61-69, M

People expect you to use appropriate measures as best you can. If you have a stuck and a flamethrower, and some comes at you with a knife, use the stick to knock it away first. If you start with the flamethrower you’ll get in trouble.

Why you had both of those for self defense raises questions though.

Miram · 31-35, F

Depends on their opponent. The means need to match the level of threat.

You say "necessary " but in reality, our perception of necessity can overlap with personal whims.

If a kitty scratches your leg and you chop its head, it is cruelty. Because there wasn't real life threat. It is easy to judge a person in that case. We can all agree it is crazy.

It is much more complicated than that when it is two people, one strong and the other is weak.

But in principle, everyone should have the right to defend themselves. Hopefully they just don't abuse that right and forget about compassion. There are certain situations where you just have to let it go because the person attacking you is ridiculous. Just punch or few slaps and that's enough.

SheCallsMeCrushDaddy · M

@Miram or in my case, the kitty scratches me, and i just give it more treats. my cat is spoiled, what can i say.

SheCallsMeCrushDaddy · M

what i have learned is that some believe that it is okay for me to send weapons to other people to defend themselves, but if someone tries to break into my home, i cant use a weapon to defend myself or the lives of my kids.

Miram · 31-35, F

@SheCallsMeCrushDaddy

When it comes to home invasions, things are more complex than some like to portray them.

Killing is never right but it can be less wrong. Wrongness is spectrum

Anyone who has a functioning moral compass will experience the guilt, because it is wrong to end a life.

Wrong can be necessary.

The level of wrongness would depend on many factors including the level of security where you live.

If you kill the invader, that is it, they are dead. What they lost is their own life. That is all they have to lose.

If they kill you and there are kids in the house, your wife..etc..who is to say they won't also harm and kill the rest of your loved ones?

So you will be met with a heavy decision, eliminating a threat.

They have little to lose, they choose to be there, they choose to risk their life, you don't.

In my opinion it is less wrong in that situation. And it can be necessary evil.

I have never had to shoot a thief but I had to fire warning shots to keep them away from the main property, while waiting for help. And it did keep them away

I don't like the idea of killing. Yet we all have to do what we must to survive violent situations. I get that people like to think about these things as hypothetical situations , ultimately no one knows what they would do when faced with similar circumstances.

SheCallsMeCrushDaddy · M

@Miram very good points. thank you.

SheCallsMeCrushDaddy · M

hopefully, i will never be in a situation to find out. if i am, then i am ready. but, i hope no one actually looks forward to killing another person. i have worked in a prison 32 years. i know guys who had to kill others inside for self defense. i have seen things that i hope others never have to see. and this is why i prefer peace to violence. because i have already seen enough of violence. you prepare for war, but you hope and pray for peace.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

GeistInTheMachine · 31-35, M

@jshm2 Like florida.

I say if someone invades your home, all bets are off. Do whatever to 'em. Make an example.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

GeistInTheMachine · 31-35, M

@jshm2 Morally and legally yes.

I just wish we didn't have to, is all. 😊

MarineBob · 56-60, M

I believe new york. Law says you must run away (retreat) from an aggressor first.

GeistInTheMachine · 31-35, M

@MarineBob Disgusting.

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

@MarineBob Even if true that only means that you have to give the attacker a second or two to change their mind and even then only if attempting to retreat doesn't put you in greater danger.
[quote]under New York law, a person may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that, with complete personal safety to himself and others, he may avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating or leaving the threatening situation.

However, there are limits on the duty to retreat. For example, an individual generally doesn’t have to retreat if he’s in his home and wasn’t the initial aggressor.[/quote]
https://thecrimereport.org/2016/06/16/the-limits-of-self-defense-as-a-legal-defense/

That is, you are only required to retreat if it is completely safe to do so for both you and others in the vicinity.

FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M

What if a frenemy invites you over to their place, kills you, then claims it was self defense?

SheCallsMeCrushDaddy · M

@FloorGenAdm i dont have any frenemies. i steer clear of the relationships like that. i aint got time for that kind of drama.

UnderLockDown · M

If someone tries to punch me I'm going full tilt!! Don't care if they have a weapon or not. Head injuries are devastating, why should I risk my well being in order to consider the safety of someone that clearly intends me harm?
I won't hang out and wait for the cops either, they have no intention of pursuing justice.

soar2newhighs

Those situations( being attacked by someone) does not come with a set of pre-conditions! It can easily come down to you or the other person surviving.
If you can disable your attacker, do so in a manner where their life will be permanently adversely affected. And if it’s your survival…take them out permanently.

Pretzel · 61-69, M

were I can live you can use force to defend yourself.

if a reasonable person would find your situation to be life threatening you can even use deadly force.

pretty much the same rationale involving warfare - and if you're the winner in a conflict you can even use nuclear weapons.

CopperCicada · M

Sure. If somebody is attacked, they have the right to use any skills and tools at their disposal to defend their life.

Then you have the guy who shoots somebody through their door because they feel they are under attack.

soar2newhighs

If you didn’t expect to be attacked, you better be prepared to realize you might not expect what comes next from your attacker(s). Drfend yourself!..by whatever means need to be used.

SheCallsMeCrushDaddy · M

And if I am under attack, I can call my neighbor and demand that he send some weapons over to assist me and if he doesn’t want to, I can guilt trip him, right ?? lol

GeistInTheMachine · 31-35, M

@SheCallsMeCrushDaddy Can you share your mini nukes with me sir?

I swear it's strictly for defense...

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

Yes up to the point that your reaction is very much out of proportion to the remaining threat. So no chasing the attacker and beating them to death.

stratosranger · M

Yes. Just don’t defend yourself in New Jersey

View 1 more replies »

joe438 · 61-69, M

@stratosranger do they prosecute you for self-defense? Even the boneheads here in MA understand that you need to protect your life, other lives and your property.

stratosranger · M

@joe438 Yes. NJ has some of the narrowest self defense laws in the country.

stratosranger · M

@SheCallsMeCrushDaddy Very good point. So long as the money laundering operations are intact and running

markansas

self defense is sometimes needed.. defending someone else is also sometimes needed. depends on what is happening at the time.. mark

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

hunkalove · 61-69, M

Only if you are rich. Then you can get away with anything.

hunkalove · 61-69, M

@hunkalove I read something a few years ago about a homeowner who shot an intruder. Didn't kill him but the homeowner was found liable for the thief's medical bills.

LeopoldBloom · M

Yes. This includes abortion which is a form of self defense.

Roundandroundwego · 61-69

Not really.
Ethics don't change with attacks, theoretical or real.

GeistInTheMachine · 31-35, M

If you're a normal nation or individual, yes.

MarineBob · 56-60, M

Then what does Ukraine need USA for?

BlueVeins · 22-25

@MarineBob supplies

RedBaron · M

Glad you're such an optimist.

NotSureAboutMyUserName · 31-35, M

What about self defence nukes?

Sweetpoison · 36-40, F

In Europe not 😒

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

@Sweetpoison What leads you to that conclusion? Use of any force required to avert the threat is certainly allowed in Norway and the UK. What is not allowed is that one continues beating the attacker with a cricket bat after the threat has been removed. I can't imagine that it is much different elsewhere in Europe.

Fungirlmmm · 51-55, F

I think you are right.

Budwick · 70-79, M

Yeah - I'm good with that.

UnderLockDown · M

Yes.

caesar7 · 61-69, M

Absolutely.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...