Question I have on the Innocence of a Victim

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GuyWithQuestions

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
451
I figured that since this is more of a philosophical question than a legal question, it would fit better in this forum than the "Legal" one. I know that this may seem like a dumb question to some, but the other day I had a conversation with an acquaintance about guns. In my conversation with him, a scenario was brought up and he said that the victim in the situation would not be an innocent victim. I didn't quite agree with his reasoning and wanted to let this out somehow, and if I was wrong then you can help me out. The scenario that was brought up is: You're in a house with a few friends and relatives. A gang of 200 guys show up surrounding the home with guns, a lot of them rifles. They then pound down the door to the home you're in. They swarm in. You happen to be in an interior room inside the home. They then locate where you're at and start shooting through the interior door and try pushing it open. One of your relatives tries to hold the door closed but then a bullet travels right through the door and kills him. Then a bunch of them start swarming in the door firing their guns. You happen to have a pistol on you so you pull it out and start shooting a few. Then of course since you're out numbered and many of them have rifles instead of pistols, you go down and die. When this scenario was discussed with this guy, he said that you wouldn't be an innocent victim because you died in a "gun fight" and that this fits the definition of "gun fight". I'm not sure if I quite agree with all of this, but I'm just curious what all of you would say and what arguments you would have used in this conversation.

I'm sorry if it sounds like a dumb question. This acquaintance really insisted that you wouldn't really be an innocent victim because your death would have been in a gun fight.
 
Apparently he thinks fighting back destroys your claim to innocence. It is pointless to argue with people who have that mindset.
 
I gotta concur with the previous thoughts. To put it diplomaticaly, I don't think your friend is properly grounded in the reality that we all live everyday. I mean, I can't even come up with a rational way to answer that given your friends mindset and the absurdity of it all. I guess, with the best straight face I could muster, I would ask this friend what the parties inside the house were doing. Nothing? Then he needs to clarify why the *victim* of the *aggressive* behavior is not so innocent.

Thinking about this a little more, I can understand the rationale a bit. You take someplace like New Jersey. Law enforcement doesn't encourage you to stand up for yourself, rather, to back down and call for help. So if he seriously believes in that line of thought, then his scenario makes a little bit more sense, but the bottom line is still the same.
 
You didn't die in a gun fight.
You died defending yourself. It makes no difference what object you used to defend yourself.

This is just a scenario that's used by liberals to try and prove that anyone that defends themselves are not Innocent victims but are themselves aggressors if they choose to not let themselves be killed without a fight.

The use of a gun is immaterial.
By that perverted way of thinking the victim is not a victim if they take ANY action to protect their life.

That's just a BS argument that's been used by the left for many many years.
 
A gang of 200 guys show up surrounding the home with guns, a lot of them rifles
Click to expand...
ummm...
ahhhh.
welllll...You lived your life in an "interesting way" to say the least.

Why did they "show up"?

But to answer the question, if you were not an innocent victim, it had nothing to do with shooting back.
 
Last edited:
@ GuyWithQuestions

Don't try to argue with your friend. Instead, just print one of these: :rolleyes: as big as you can and give it to him.
That's all he needs for now.
 
I suppose you might not be so innocent if you did something to bring on that massive of an invasion! But aside from that, defending yourself doesn't mean you are no longer innocent. Sounds like your friend drank the brady kool-aid and believes anyone using a certain tool to defend themselves is inherently evil.
 
It was a gun fight if opposing parties were shooting at one another. It was a "shooting" if only one side was firing.

Where the aforementioned "idiot" friend may be making a point is that the guy who died wasn't an innocent victim in the sense that he was an actor in the fight. Whether or not it was a gun fight really isn't material. Some folks associate the concept of being innocent as being non-associated in some way. So you have innocent victims who were killed as noncombatants or bystanders and regular victims were were unjustly acted against, but who were involved in the conflict. It is a hokey concept, but that is how some folks see it.
 
would that scenario even be considered being in a gun fight?
Click to expand...
About as much as me trying to defend myself against Mike Tyson barehanded would be considered a fistfight.

I think the first response nailed it

What is that saying about a dead rape victim being morally superior to a woman who defends herself

Somebody here knows it
 
Sounds like the same kind of person that tried to have my nephew (who had never before had a single "discipline issue") ejected from school for fighting after he defended himself against a bully (who strangely enough had a long history of picking fights).

Clipper said it best
Your acquaintance is an idiot.
Click to expand...
 
???

In your friend"s scenario, just what would you be guilty of? Fighting back?

Does this, in his opinion, make you a victim, but not an innocent victim? What about the guy shot through the door and killed as he was holding it closed? Does his holding the door closed against attackers (who are NOT identified as the police) make him a victim, and not an innocent victim?

To me, your friend needs to explain just what it is that he considers "innocent".
 
Reduce the gang size to 2 gang members, and your acquaintance is still an idiot. Also, if you're NOT an innocent victim, it has nothing to do with shooting back. In other words, you were likely (but not necessarily) involved in some other illegal activity to cause 200 gang members to show up at your house.
 
Last edited:
200 gangbangers coming through a door? Just need more ammo.

"When a cat is at the mousehole, 10,000 mice cannot prevail."

Some smart dead guy said that.

Biker
 
Like most liberaistic views on someone defending their self or their family, Its not even worthwhile to entertain the thought of being the victim turned vigilante for defending yourself.

All I can say is......

When the time for action has come...The time for preperation has past!
Abraham Lincoln

Just be ready when 200 liberals show up to take your guns!
 
With "friends" like the one described who needs enemies. Time to shop for a
friend with a little more upstairs besides a socialist knee jerk substituting for intellect.
 
That scenario sounds like a ridiculous one to begin a reasoned discussion from. Its not surprising the conclusions reached are just as ridiculous.


Find better scenarios to ponder and have discussions over. If he can't have reasoned discussions, then avoid having any with him altogether.
 
That scenario sounds like a ridiculous one to begin a reasoned discussion from. Its not surprising the conclusions reached are just as ridiculous.
Click to expand...

That's what I figure. I've had people say that civilians shouldn't have guns because that would be taking on the responsibilites of the police and mocking their powers. It's just that this discussion was a little over board. So I just brought it here to find some good arguments for him, which I've found a few from this thread.
 
Sometimes considering an absurdly extreme distortion of a problem can provide useful insights. But I don't think this is one of those times. As was pointed out above, it makes no difference whether the number is 200 or 2.

But for I'm trying to understand the intended argument as it was noted that it has been used for a long time. No, I'm not suggesting that I agree with any of these interpretations. Is it that...

1. Not "innocent" because shooting someone is unacceptable even if you are in imminent danger of losing your life, i.e. self-defense is wrong under any circumstances?

2. Not "innocent" because the 200 bad guys were going to get you anyway so shooting any of them will not accomplish anything, i.e. self defense may be ok but revenge is not?

3. Not "innocent" because it was a gunfight and guns are evil (the argument in the original post) regardless of the reasons for their use, i.e. if the victim fought back using other methods with the same results, it would have been ok?

...or something else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Nation of Victims
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
coelacanth
C
R
  • Locked
  • Poll
Another Poll About Drawing your Firearm
Replies
17
Views
883
Grizzly Adams
G
L
  • Locked
Victim Shoots Robber-VA
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
DelayedReaction
D
P
  • Locked
Guns in the Home
Replies
7
Views
748
akodo
A
R
  • Locked
CCW holders. Would you protect a stranger...
2 3
Replies
70
Views
2K
herohog
herohog
Back
Top