Support NeoGAF

[4 is a cutie]

It's impossible to be able to deter every threat with dialogue. Although its impossible to avoid violent people forever with any method, we often take measures to make it more likely that threats are dissuaded. Some people build up their bodies and learn ways to fight. Those who aren't able may carry weapons like knifes or bats. People who want to avoid close confrontations altogether may get guns to scare others off. If superpowers were real, people would probably look into ways to buy web-shooters or manifest their chakra or something lol. Anyways, in the pursuit of ways to defend yourself on the streets or at home, do you believe that. morally, there are limits on what one can do?

 

[Fulminator]

Just don't inflict greater harm than necessary i guess

 

[Wag]

Not in Florida.

 

[KHarvey16]

Proportionality always governs.

 

[Platy]

Don't feel like Judge Dread

 

[Draft]

Not if master forgives you.

 

[redfox088]

It’s all a very grey area...depends on the situation.

 

[Raven117]

No not really, within the realm of reason.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

It depends entirely on the situation.

 

[ArgyleReptile]

Proportionality always governs.

.

 

[hiredhand]

It depends on whether you are in America or in a civilized country.

 

[HellforLeather]

It should be proportional to the threat but this usually isnt realistic to determine in self defense scenarios.

For example: Someone breaks into your house at night while you are at home. The criminal is unarmed and poses no physical threat, hes just looking for something to swipe and didnt know you were home.

As the homeowner, you have no way of knowing that this guy has no intention of physical harm, or is unarmed. All you know, is a stranger has broken into your home and could potentially pose some kind of threat to you. I would find no fault of the homeowner if they shot this person in self defense. The person breaking in has elevated the situation to where its more than reasonable for a person to come to the conclusion that their life may be in danger and well within their rights to defend themselves.

 

[br3wnor]

It should be proportional to the threat but this usually isnt realistic to determine in self defense scenarios.

For example: Someone breaks into your house at night while you are at home. The criminal is unarmed and poses no physical threat, hes just looking for something to swipe and didnt know you were home.

As the homeowner, you have no way of knowing that this guy has no intention of physical harm, or is unarmed. All you know, is a stranger has broken into your home and could potentially pose some kind of threat to you. I would find no fault of the homeowner if they shot this person in self defense. The person breaking in has elevated the situation to where its more than reasonable for a person to come to the conclusion that their life may be in danger and well within their rights to defend themselves.

Pretty much. I’ll never have a gun but if someone broke into my house and I beat them w/ my handy crowbar and they died, I’d feel absolutely awful but also morally ok with myself given that I can’t gauge their intentions.

 

[Duxxy3]

Like fighting for my life self-defense? I'd say no moral limit.

 

[Steel]

Well, one limit is if someone pulls a gun on you and you try to resist with any type of weapon including a gun, you will more likely than not die. Your attacker will always have the upper-hand, period bottomline because they acted first, unless of course they're attacking you barehanded(In which case carrying mace would be the best defense).

Best defense against a burglarly is an alarm.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Proportional to the threat. Minimize harm. Prioritize flight once it's safe to flee.

 

[xBladeM6x]

I'll go with Gul Dukat on this: "A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness. "

Spoiler

/s

 

[norm9]

Did you just watch Con-Air?

 

[Nivash]

As much as is necessary to avert the immediate threat. Anything beyond that is reprehensible overkill. If you punch me, I’m allowed to hold you down or punch you back to get you to stop - I’m not licensed to blow your head off.

 

[sixteen-bit]

those nuts are getting kicked, sorry

 

[Sparkedglory]

I mean yeah depending on the situation. i mean you don't have to kill you attacker if it can be helped, but I understand how some situations can escalate to that level. Just use as much force as needed.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Don't seek a threat.

If you're not in your home or on your property (i.e. car/yard) you should be obligated to retreat.

Once the threat is over, stop.

Call the cops asap.

Best defense against a burglary is a TV on a timer if you're not home and a dog if you are.

FTFY.

 

[HellforLeather]

Well, one limit is if someone pulls a gun on you and you try to resist with any type of weapon including a gun, you will more likely than not die. Your attacker will always have the upper-hand, period bottomline because they acted first, unless of course they're attacking you barehanded(In which case carrying mace would be the best defense).

I disagree with this as well. People can and are killed in fist fights. What happens when a guy knocks you out and you are unable to defend yourself at all? You are totally at their mercy.

What happens when you get punched and you hit the curb with your head and end up with a traumatic brain injury?

Its highly situational though, no self defense scenario happens in a vacuum and there is no set rule for it, but just because fists are involved doesnt necessarily rule out justified deadly force.

EDIT: I would also agree with others stating that retreat should be your first response in this scenario.

 

[Akuun]

I think so. It's fine to defend yourself, but if the person is clearly no longer a threat, it would be wrong to continue to inflict harm on them.

See the guy who lured kids into his house specifically to enact some sort of murder fantasy on them. The kids were definitely wrong for breaking into the house repeatedly, but they didn't deserve to be executed for it.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

My view on self-defense is the following.

1. If you can run away. Do it. First thing my Boxing Coach taught me.

2. If you can't run you Wo/Man up. Don't lie there. You kick and punch and jab at whatever you can get at. Outside of a ring you have no idea what the person attacking you is going to do, so you do what ever you have to to stop them.

3. If you have to. Put them on the fucking ground. Don't kill them, but don;'t just let them yell uncle. If you have to, break a leg an arm or more.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Proportionality should always be a guideline to self-defense.

 

[PSqueak]

It depends on each individual.

And by that i mean the individual defending themselves.

Personally i always think about how if i was attempted to be mugged and by some chance i managed to overpower my attacker i'd rob them.

Not for morality, not for justice, but for the cosmic irony.

 

[TripleBee]

Well, it's a tricky question - because once you cross that moral line I feel like it's no longer self-defense.

Basically the moment it is no longer about defending yourself, and becomes merely causing damage to the other person.

 

[Kthulhu]

Like fighting for my life self-defense? I'd say no moral limit.

.

If we're talking about petty theft or something, then yeah there's a limit.

 

[Duxxy3]

.

If we're talking about petty theft or something, then yeah there's a limit.

Sure. If someone grabs my wallet while out in public, I'm not going to kill them. If they come into my home in the middle of the night though... sorry, I'm not taking chances.

 

[Dynomutt]

Like fighting for my life self-defense? I'd say no moral limit.

Yeah as a kid with general fisticuffs maybe. As an adult if any person is coming at me in a way to attack me or put hands on me I am assuming without a doubt that they wish to inflict bodily harm.

I will defend myself justly. Actually this is why I don't understand how those prank YouTube videos never end in stacked bodies (they're all fake). It's 2017 ain't got time for games.

 

[mullet2000]

If I genuinely think my life is at risk, I'm going to do what I need to do.

I'm not going to hold back hoping that some guy wont concuss me "too badly" if they're swinging punches at me.

 

[SliceSabre]

Depends on the situation.

That said there is sometimes a point where the other person is no longer a threat. If you beat up a person who tried to rob/harm you and they're KO'd on the ground and you decide to start crubstombing their head in, then you need to be arrested.

There's a line where self-defense simply becomes revenge.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Actual self defense, no. No moral limits whatsoever.

 

[Violence Jack]

If they attack and you can't get away, neutralize the threat, run to a safe place, call police.

My teachers over the years through a few disciplines have said this, and I've always took it to heart.

But no moral limits. Your safety is priority.

 

[DBT85]

Anyways, in the pursuit of ways to defend yourself on the streets or at home, do you believe that. morally, there are limits on what one can do?

In the cool calm light with no adrenaline pumping through my veins, were I to ever defend myself I would like to think I would do so to a point at which the popo could deal with them afterwards.

With the red mist descended, adrenaline pumping and someone threatening maybe my wife or my child? I honestly don't know. Knees and elbows really are so fragile aren't they?

 

[Angry Grimace]

Disproportionate retribution is bad in all circumstances. The problem is that people are kind of dark inside and I don't even know that it's reason to not expect someone to inflict more harm than was coming their way because people perceive greater danger than maybe actually exists a lot of the time.

 

[Kain-Nosgoth]

if someone broke into my house, i would try to leave without him noticing and then calling the police... or locking myself in my room and calling the police

no way i would try to kill him unless he attacks me, i don't want to kill anyone, i'd rather loose some money or a TV than kill a burglar

that remind me of this case that someone posted on an other gaf thread.... there were people defending this fucker... even if he had just shot once, it wouldn't be self defense IMO :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings
Byron Smith - Home Audio From Night Of Killings (Warning: Graphic)

 

[Zaphod]

if someone broke into my house, i would try to leave without him noticing and then calling the police... or locking myself in my room and calling the police

no way i would try to kill him unless he attacks me, i don't want to kill anyone, i'd rather loose some money or a TV than kill a burglar

Yeh, I can't even imagine murdering someone to protect my TV, even if it is an amazing Pioneer plasma. The people that get off on the fantasy of gunning down a home intruder creep me out.

 

[ahoyhoy]

It should be proportional to the threat but this usually isnt realistic to determine in self defense scenarios.

For example: Someone breaks into your house at night while you are at home. The criminal is unarmed and poses no physical threat, hes just looking for something to swipe and didnt know you were home.

As the homeowner, you have no way of knowing that this guy has no intention of physical harm, or is unarmed. All you know, is a stranger has broken into your home and could potentially pose some kind of threat to you. I would find no fault of the homeowner if they shot this person in self defense. The person breaking in has elevated the situation to where its more than reasonable for a person to come to the conclusion that their life may be in danger and well within their rights to defend themselves.

Can you extend that to situations outside the home? Is all that matters that you or your family feel threatened in a situation with unknown variables?

If, for instance, you were to get into a road rage-fueled car accident while driving with your family. Your car is incapacitated as a result but you and your family are unhurt. You see the driver of the other car exit and begin approaching you on foot with anger in their eyes and a hand on a bulge in their pocket.

It could be a gun that could threaten the life of you and your family, or it could be a wallet they're retrieving to exchange insurance. You yourself have a gun at your side.

Should you be allowed to shoot?

 

[Rygar 8 Bit]

.

 

[Rival]

.

 

[Mr Git]

Like fighting for my life self-defense? I'd say no moral limit.

It's such a weird one to think about, 'cause in reality even something like a punch or a shove can kill someone, even if that attacker didn't intend on murdering that person. So really you never know if someone swinging at you is going to be it.

 

[Rex Griswold]

If someone decides that they're gonna break into my house, I don't know what their intentions are. I don't know if they're carrying a knife or a gun. I don't know if they just want to take some stuff, or they feel like doing something worse.

It would be nice if when someone breaks in they'd just tell you 'hey I'm only really here to steal some stuff, I don't want to hurt anyone, like I'll run away instead of confronting anyone!", but that's not how it works.

I have a wife and a daughter. I'd rather not play criminal lottery and have to live the rest of my life knowing I could have prevented harm coming to them by handling it myself.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

self defense seems something totally misunderstood in our society. Far too many people seem to think that it gives you the right to beat the shit out of someone if they lay a finger on you, or kill/maim someone if they steal something from you. Want an interesting case study of this, find that thread on here about a woman that plowed into a guy with her SUV because he ran off with her purse. The number of psychos defending that shit was frightening.

 

[random25]

There's really no moral grounds when threat to life is present. When a person has the potential to kill you or your loved ones nearby, any means to protect that life become options, including killing the threat.

At the end of the day, it's a case-to-case and person-to-person basis. And the aftermath is judged by the court of law so it's not really that simple.

 

[HellforLeather]

Can you extend that to situations outside the home? Is all that matters that you or your family feel threatened in a situation with unknown variables?

If, for instance, you were to get into a road rage-fueled car accident while driving with your family. Your car is incapacitated as a result but you and your family are unhurt. You see the driver of the other car exit and begin approaching you on foot with anger in their eyes and a hand on a bulge in their pocket.

It could be a gun that could threaten the life of you and your family, or it could be a wallet they're retrieving to exchange insurance. You yourself have a gun at your side.

Should you be allowed to shoot?

Well this is where it descends into grey areas and all the details make the difference. Did the guy intentionally hit me or run me off the road? There is a difference in body language between someone who is upset about being in an accident vs. somebody angry and intending to do harm.

Most guns are too big to fit into a pocket so personally, I probably would not go for a firearm if at my disposal.

Spoiler

I own guns but they stay at home unless im driving to a range.

Legally however, this is where these issues become difficult situations.

 

[Bustanen]

I would carry a gun if it was legal but unfortunately isn't. Instead I keep a bat in my car and one in the house near the entrance.

I'm not going to take any chances with burglars and muggers and will swing away as hard as I can.

 

[Dan1984uk]

This is what I call self defence, sorry had to since someone mentioned Dredd.

In all seriousness I would do what ever is necessary to protect myself and nothing more, if I can run away first then I will try that if not then I will defend myself to the best of my ability.

 

[Bill R Boggess]

Yeh, I can't even imagine murdering someone to protect my TV, even if it is an amazing Pioneer plasma. The people that get off on the fantasy of gunning down a home intruder creep me out.

It's got nothing to do with protecting a TV.

Once somebody breaks into my home with my family at risk, all bets are off. I wouldn't intentionally kill anyone but they will be stopped and their threat nullified, regardless of what that requires.