When is it okay to kill someone?

[HeyYou]

I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I'm with HeyYou on this , I have zero problem with the use of deadly force if the situation mandates protection of what is near and dear to me.

 

You might be surprised but I agree with you on this one. When a guy runs towards me with a deadly weapons, it is no time for moralization. If I have the means, I will defend myself. If I'm not mistaken, you were a pilot. Obviously, you would not have been suitable for that role if you had been unable to make life and death decisions as the situation demanded. The trouble in this world is, we seldom enjoy the "luxury" of clear-cut situations.

I think the real tick is not to enjoy it or be too overly introspectively analytical about what transpired , crisis moments rarely have the added luxury of pre reflective time available. However you have to survive to think about it one way or the other.

 

Oh ..and the Air Force has pilots, the Navy has aviators..most any trained individual can land on an fixed unmoving runway.. :whistling:

 

I wouldn't be overly sure of that...... I have seen some of the air force flyboys do some pretty silly things with some awfully large aircraft........(whattaya mean the runway is 40 feet to the right?) Of course, I must also say I have never seen a naval (that just doesn't sound right....) "aviator" flying anything that can go to russia, and back.... on a single fill up either. :D

I should have known that there would be repercussions from some Air Force personnel, just friendly rivalry..no offense meant.

 

Of course. :D None taken, either. But hey, if I can poke at ya with something like this, and get a smile out of ya, that works for me. :D

[RZ1029]

I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I'm with HeyYou on this , I have zero problem with the use of deadly force if the situation mandates protection of what is near and dear to me.

Me, my family, my friends and any innocent bystanders are worth defending with lethal force, in my opinion. I have acted on such opinion once before in my life, with what I could argue were fairly favorable results, despite spending a night in jail.

[Pyrosocial]

When the person you intend to kill would harm an innocent. Or, if killing the one person would save the lives of others.

 

"Destroy those who would destroy everything else."

[RatB0Y68]

Having never been in a survival situation myself, I honestly cannot say how I would react to a threat to my wellbeing. I think though in such a situation, self-preservation should be the highest consideration.

When the adrenaline is flowing and instinct takes over I do not believe I would have ample opportunity to make moral considerations and try to incapacitate the target, nor would I wish to. This person is after all, threatening my life, it is much more reliable to simply kill them, and nullify the threat entirely.

[HeyYou]

Having never been in a survival situation myself, I honestly cannot say how I would react to a threat to my wellbeing. I think though in such a situation, self-preservation should be the highest consideration.

When the adrenaline is flowing and instinct takes over I do not believe I would have ample opportunity to make moral considerations and try to incapacitate the target, nor would I wish to. This person is after all, threatening my life, it is much more reliable to simply kill them, and nullify the threat entirely.

 

Continue firing, until you are SURE your target is no longer a threat. :D

[Aurielius]

Having never been in a survival situation myself, I honestly cannot say how I would react to a threat to my wellbeing. I think though in such a situation, self-preservation should be the highest consideration.

When the adrenaline is flowing and instinct takes over I do not believe I would have ample opportunity to make moral considerations and try to incapacitate the target, nor would I wish to. This person is after all, threatening my life, it is much more reliable to simply kill them, and nullify the threat entirely.

 

Continue firing, until you are SURE your target is no longer a threat. :D

Never leave a bogey on your six that you could have splashed. :whistling:

[HeyYou]

Having never been in a survival situation myself, I honestly cannot say how I would react to a threat to my wellbeing. I think though in such a situation, self-preservation should be the highest consideration.

When the adrenaline is flowing and instinct takes over I do not believe I would have ample opportunity to make moral considerations and try to incapacitate the target, nor would I wish to. This person is after all, threatening my life, it is much more reliable to simply kill them, and nullify the threat entirely.

 

Continue firing, until you are SURE your target is no longer a threat. :D

Never leave a bogey on your six that you could have splashed. :whistling:

 

Translating for the stick and rudder boys? :laugh:

[marharth]

To be serious, its a better idea for you to shoot to disable, not shoot to kill.

 

Take note that you might get in legal trouble if you shoot to kill. Better off to shoot someone simply to make them fall down and stop being a threat, then call 911 and explain the situation.

 

You might of been joking though, and I just woke up so sorry if you were.

[HeyYou]

To be serious, its a better idea for you to shoot to disable, not shoot to kill.

 

Take note that you might get in legal trouble if you shoot to kill. Better off to shoot someone simply to make them fall down and stop being a threat, then call 911 and explain the situation.

 

You might of been joking though, and I just woke up so sorry if you were.

 

No it isn't. A disabled target can still shoot back. If I am defending myself against an armed opponent, I am going to make REAL sure he isn't a threat, just as quickly as I can. The whole idea behind shooting him in the arm, or shooting the gun out of his hand, is reserved for movies, not real life. If you are in a position that you feel you need to fire your weapon, shoot to kill. If you don't, chances are good, you will be the one that ends up dead instead.

 

Here in the states, self defense IS a viable reason for killing.

[Ghogiel]

 

No it isn't. A disabled target can still shoot back. If I am defending myself against an armed opponent, I am going to make REAL sure he isn't a threat, just as quickly as I can. The whole idea behind shooting him in the arm, or shooting the gun out of his hand, is reserved for movies, not real life. If you are in a position that you feel you need to fire your weapon, shoot to kill. If you don't, chances are good, you will be the one that ends up dead instead.

 

Here in the states, self defense IS a viable reason for killing.

Even as someone who abhors violence, even I would have to agree with that. If you have already gone there, you've gone there. It would be a rare luxury to have time, skill and luck to disable. I'm no hero, and certainly not superman. I consider it my moral duty to stay alive, and do it as best I can. Violent resolution would be the absolute worse course of action to deal with a situation. But well... s*** happens.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Ghogiel