Understand...it is not "your decision"

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

Many things in life are the product of a decision we make, fail to make, or hesitate to make.

This is Frisco's First Law Of Thermodynamics: Most situations in which an adult finds themselves are the direct result of their own decisions, good, bad, or indifferent.

"It's not my fault" is a mantra of those who live without taking personal responsibility for their actions or their bad decisions. We have all heard them. "I was drunk! It's not my fault, it was the booze!" Really? Who made the decision to drink ALL the booze in the place?

"It's not his fault, I did something to make him beat me" - Oh really? Who made the decision to throw that first blow? How many officers here have heard the abused woman say that? It is NOT your fault, it is his and his alone. You are a victim until you decide not to be.

"Please don't take him to jail! He won't hit me no more! I love him!" - Oh really? Then why have we been here five times before when he beat you? He WILL decide to do it again, and until you can make the decision not to be a victim any longer, he will keep doing it. Your decision to stay is not the same as his decision to beat you, but one plays into the other. Decide to get help. Decide not to be his victim any longer. After that, the decision is his and his alone, you are merely implementing action in order not to be his punching bag.

If we accept the former as being true, then the decision to employ force in defense of yourself or your family is not yours to make. You are being forced to take defensive action by the bad decision of those who would seek to cause you harm. You are merely reacting to a decision made by a potential predator.

The only decision you had to make, was the decision not to be a victim. That decision should have been made the moment you chose to arm yourself with the knowledge, training, and implements of your own defense regardless of what it might be. In a defensive situation, all you are doing is hitting the GO button.

After many years as an LEO, and trainer the one thing I heard from many people, especially women, was "I don't know if I could kill anyone" when they first came to grips with the reality that the world is not made of cotton candy, lollipops, and bubble wrap.

I would counter that with "And that merely means you are a human being with a conscience. No one who lives with a belief in general decency wants to kill anyone. But remember, your decision not to be a victim is not a decision to kill, it is just a decision to act in your own defense and stop an attack upon yourself or your family".

If you are left alone to live your life, you will not "decide" to hurt anyone. You will go about your life as peacefully as you are allowed to, doing as little harm as you can along the way. If attacked, you will react and stop a threat that someone else decided to pose to you or your family.

The catalyst to your action will be the decision made by a predator. You won't decide in the moment to kill anyone. You have long since made the decision not to be a victim. The byproduct of the decision made by the predator may result in their death, but you didn't choose it...they chose it. They made the decision to accept whatever consequences that may accompany their action.

If someone decides to attack you or your family, and they end up on a slab with holes in their meat sack...they made the decision.

This may seem like semantics, but it is not. The responsibility for anything that happens to them as a result of their bad decision is theirs and theirs alone.

 

[Sam1911]

Beautifully written.

It is important, though, in capturing the essence of the self-defense mindset, to help people to understand that this is one of empowerment, not confinement. Of strength, not limitations. Of options, not requirements.

You still DECIDE. You always still decide. And you have both the ability, the duty, and the legal obligation to choose how you react to a potential, developing, or actual violent encounter.

The "refuse to be a victim" mantra is a healthy opening into the capability of any person to see themselves as worthy and capable of defending him or herself against violence.

Unfortunately, that's often where the conversation stops. And that's dangerously misleading. Refusing to be a victim does not mean using a gun anytime you're threatened. (Or for that matter, when you feel threatened.) Refusing to be a victim does not constrain you to act in a blatantly self-destructive way when confronted by a violent assailant. Refusing to be a victim does not mean dying when you could have chosen to live, for yourself and for your loved ones who need you.

"Refuse to be a victim" means I prepare my habits, I prepare my observational capacity and awareness, I am armed, I train, I practice, I prepare mentally for violence should it visit me. I give myself options. A violent encounter is a dark, dangerous place. There may (not "will" ... MAY) be a path through it to life on the other side. Being prepared opens more potential paths through that dark place to safety on the other side.

Our decisions will be what sees us walk a path to safety, or to any of various extremely bad results.

The options chosen in any given situation may be 100% different depending on factors only discernible in that moment.

Some choices will be right with your sense of morals, right with your convictions, sound tactically, but wrong legally, and you come to the bad end of a felony conviction.

Some choices will be right morally and legally, but horrible tactically, and you end up dead. There is no such thing as valor. You're just dead.

Some choices will be wrong to your sense of morals and convictions, but right tactically and legally, and could see you through to safety.

As a wise man quotes in his sig line: "Sometimes run. Sometimes fight. Sometimes do nothing."

The goal as one who "refuses to be a victim" is not to stand up to bullies, not to live up to a standard, not to take a bad guy off the street, not to prove yourself, not to shine up your halo, not to protect property or wealth. The whole and total purpose is to live beyond that moment, with as little damage as possible, for yourself, for your loved ones.

You CANNOT abdicate your decisions.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

^ Even more beautifully written Sam.


There's always a decision and we own every one we make.

 

[Sam1911]

I thought about this more last night because it is such a deep and complex matter to try to fully grasp. There are ways it is true and vital and crucial to internalize as part of your self-defense mindset. And there are ways it is misleading and even wrong. Not a simple matter at all.

If we accept the former as being true, then the decision to employ force in defense of yourself or your family is not yours to make. You are being forced to take defensive action by the bad decision of those who would seek to cause you harm. You are merely reacting to a decision made by a potential predator.

YES: This is an important part of the legal concept of "justifiable" use of force: e.g. how the law may set aside your guilt for using force and/or lethal force against someone, because they were attacking you.
You do not act of your own will to harm them, and the decision about whether they live or die is not yours to make under any circumstances. It is not a matter of your choosing of your own free will to act with violence against someone. Your hand was forced, you had no choice but to use force to stop them from hurting and possibly killing you or someone else. This is the basis of how the state accepts a defense claim of "self defense" to a possible charge of assault or manslaughter against YOU, the defender. Yes, using lethal force against someone is a crime, however the state can set that aside because your circumstances are agreed upon as having met the definition of self defense under your state's law.

NO: Yet, you are not a machine with a "START" button and a pre-programmed action. When the assailant confronts you, you are not divested entirely of reason and choice. Taken to an extreme, (one that we do here expressed here from time to time), that could mean there's some trigger event that sets in motion an inevitable and unstoppable reaction in you that's somehow out of your control and no longer your responsibility. "If my gun clears leather, I'm shooting!" "If he 'X', it's draw and two shots center mass..." Based on the circumstances in that moment of (in your mind) perfect justification you may choose to react with violence and you may not. You may choose to draw a weapon, and you may not. You may choose to fire, you may not.

The only decision you had to make, was the decision not to be a victim. That decision should have been made the moment you chose to arm yourself with the knowledge, training, and implements of your own defense regardless of what it might be. In a defensive situation, all you are doing is hitting the GO button.

YES: When you decide not to be a victim you are deciding that if an attacker dies from your shots, that is acceptable to you and your moral code. That you aren't going to be trying to decide an ethical or moral quandary about rights and the sanctity of life in the moment when you need to be saving your own and that of your loved ones.

NO: You are not a boulder on a cliff face with a pebble keeping it from tumbling downhill. Your attacker is not just yanking the pebble away and unleashing nature to take its course, flattening everything in its path. You do not get to revert to an out-of-body trance-like set of pre-programmed actions and then claim, "Well, your Honor, he pushed my GO button and when the smoke cleared, my gun was empty ..." As though you have no responsibility for what happens if somebody pushes your "GO" button. You absolutely do bear that responsibility. Legally speaking, if you press your counter-attack too far (after your assailant has tried to break contact, for example ... or pulling a Jerome Ersland execution) you cannot claim you were just running on your pre-programming that the bad guy triggered. Similarly, if your shots go wild and harm others, you don't get to pass the buck.

After many years as an LEO, and trainer the one thing I heard from many people, especially women, was "I don't know if I could kill anyone" when they first came to grips with the reality that the world is not made of cotton candy, lollipops, and bubble wrap.

I would counter that with "And that merely means you are a human being with a conscience. No one who lives with a belief in general decency wants to kill anyone. But remember, your decision not to be a victim is not a decision to kill, it is just a decision to act in your own defense and stop an attack upon yourself or your family".

Most definitely YES: And perhaps in a more pointed way than suggested in that sentence. In fact, it is vitally important that a lawful defender understand that the decision over life and death is not his or hers to make, at any point, in any way. ALL one may do in defense is stop the attacker from injuring or killing. The way that is done is by some combination of threat of force and use of force. It is entirely possible that the attacker may die from that use of force -- and we the defender, and We the State, accept that possible outcome. But the defender is not seeking, and may not seek, strive for, or act to ensure the death of the attacker. If the threat ceases, that is all we have any justification to pursue by force. Not to execute, not to ensure the attacker doesn't go on to harm others, not to avenge. Just to stop.

If you are left alone to live your life, you will not "decide" to hurt anyone. You will go about your life as peacefully as you are allowed to, doing as little harm as you can along the way. If attacked, you will react and stop a threat that someone else decided to pose to you or your family. The catalyst to your action will be the decision made by a predator. You won't decide in the moment to kill anyone. You have long since made the decision not to be a victim. The byproduct of the decision made by the predator may result in their death, but you didn't choose it....

Very well put.

..they chose it. They made the decision to accept whatever consequences that may accompany their action.

Yes, but "whatever consequences" has a very hard (if perhaps occasionally indistinct) limit. They fully bear the consequences that if they attack you and you draw your gun and shoot, you may wound them and they may die. But the defender cannot see this as carte blanche to do anything and everything their fear and anger and outrage might encourage them to do. Stop the immediate threat, yes. Execute a downed (disabled, no longer threatening) attacker? No. Shoot the guy who was with the attacker but who didn't threaten you? No. Take vengeance at some later date? Obviously not.

This may seem like semantics, but it is not. The responsibility for anything that happens to them as a result of their bad decision is theirs and theirs alone.

Semantics gets a bad rap. Semantics is just the study of what words actually mean. And clearly defined, precise meaning is vitally important when discussing such an important matter as the taking of human life.

In this case "...anything that happens to them as a result..." is too broad. It is a convenient and pithy phrase, but it says too much that isn't true. Jerome Ersland certainty thought that the dudes that broke into his shop bore the full responsibility for "anything that happen[ed] to them." And he's now a convicted murderer.

If you're talking to people who are just starting to build a foundation of understanding how not to be a victim, you need to lay out these concepts in very precise terms. So this should perhaps be said, "The responsibility for injury or incidental death during the course of a victim fighting back is theirs and theirs alone."

 

[JeffG]

Many things in life are the product of a decision we make, fail to make, or hesitate to make.

This is Frisco's First Law Of Thermodynamics: Most situations in which an adult finds themselves are the direct result of their own decisions, good, bad, or indifferent.

"It's not my fault" is a mantra of those who live without taking personal responsibility for their actions or their bad decisions. We have all heard them. "I was drunk! It's not my fault, it was the booze!" Really? Who made the decision to drink ALL the booze in the place?

Good post! After decades as an LEO being expected to arrive and magically "fix" a human situation that has festered for years, it all boiled down to the decisions they had made.
I feel a large part of fight or flight is mindset. Either your going to cower, run, or fight. How many times have we heard, "I just want a gun to scare bad guys. " If you don't decide your likely action before an event occurs, you will degrade to "cower".

 

[stoky]

It would suck dying trying to recollect case law, when you should be focusing on your front sight.
It's way to easy to be ethically and morally right and legally wrong. Especially for non leo in large urban environs.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

Good post! After decades as an LEO being expected to arrive and magically "fix" a human situation that has festered for years, it all boiled down to the decisions they had made.
I feel a large part of fight or flight is mindset. Either your going to cower, run, or fight. How many times have we heard, "I just want a gun to scare bad guys. " If you don't decide your likely action before an event occurs, you will degrade to "cower".

The reason why I posted it is because I had a woman referred to me for training after she bought a gun. I made a mental bet with myself that she would, like many women, make that very statement...and she did (I owe myself a Cohiba by the way). I have found that the best explanation, the one that really gets through, is the one above.

"I bought a gun, but I don't know if I could kill anyone with it"

I have cut WAY back on the training because it's become a giant pain in the crotch. If I have one more goober call me and say "Dude, me and my buddies wanna learn some tactical team stuff and how to operate....how much does that cost?" I am going to vomit.

It seems rare (with some exceptions) that many people other than women want to learn solid, fundamental, defensive techniques anymore. They all want to learn the fist bumping BRO! yelling tacticool stuff they see on youtube. They recoil at the thought that they will never be "tactical" and "operatory", especially with what they could possibly learn over the course of a weekend long program and that learning skills like that takes a lot of time, dedication, training, training budget, and sweat. Most of the weekend hobby SEALs aren't willing to put in a tenth of what it takes to be competent, let alone "tactical". Their egos won't allow for the possibility (reality) that they won't know it all at the end of a single class.

Hell, I even hate the word tactical because it has become so overused to sell crap, and printed, emblazoned, and embroidered on everything from underwear to condoms (yes, I have seen them at a gun show). The word has lost its meaning and now it's a buzzword to attract a certain type of buyer. I tell people that I am older and slower now, and if I ever was allegedly tactical, I'm not anymore. I am just an older guy with bad knees who knows how to get home at the end of a day, and Aleve and strong coffee are my best friends.

Let me put it this way...I am glad I will never have to go through another dope house door on a high risk warrant, or take down a tweaker who just cut up his girlfriend, or some c.h.u.d. gang banger who just shot up "da hood". I will never have to run to the sound of gunfire outside a very narrow set of circumstances, and those circumstances all involve the survival of my family and myself. I am not getting paid to mind anyone else's business.

I am a burster of many bubbles because I am brutally honest about things like that. Yes, I could come up with a very salable and marketable "program" to cater to those guys, but I have zero interest in it because to me it's masturbation with gunfire. I'd rather impart skills, techniques, and knowledge onto people who truly want to become capable of defending themselves and their families effectively, efficiently, and legally, both in a critical incident and in court afterward. I feel like charging working folks money for BS is stealing, and there are a LOT of guys out there peddling bovine excrement.

I would rather hear from a mom or dad who used what I taught them to save their lives, or better yet, to avoid having to use the shooting skills I taught them to save their lives because they learned to look at the world in a new way, and to recognize the "boogeymen" before they could jump out of the closet because of the mindset skills I taught them.

Every bit of advice I give is based upon decades of learning and experience. My thinking has evolved over the years as I have picked up knowledge from many sources, including courts, on the job, training venues, and from training that is not (generally) accessible to anyone outside of LE. I won't get mired in dogma because it sounds or looks cool, or because I am a fanboy of some high profile ***alleged*** trainer. I prefer to think of myself as a teacher, but also as a student. If I find any bit of information that I can add to my toolbox, I will look at it...pick it apart...beat it up...test it...and use it.

Another question I was asked, that I liked was "What's the best advice you can give about a gun fight?"

My answer was "Avoid it, but if you can't...win".

"How do you win a gun fight?"

My answer was "Avoid it, but if you can't...get your effective hits first".

"That sounds too simple"

My answer "Yeah, but it is that simple once you learn how".

No one (it seems) wants to hear "avoid it" or "escape if you can do so safely". They all (it seems) want to hear "Lay it on Bro...engage engage engage!"

I can't get on board with that. They don't want to hear about fight or flight and that they may very well pee or crap their pants in a critical incident. They think it's all going to be a heroic "badass gunfight" engagement that could be in a movie script instead of the traumatic and sometimes shattering event that it is.

Oh well. Common sense is not so common anymore.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

It would suck dying trying to recollect case law, when you should be focusing on your front sight.
It's way to easy to be ethically and morally right and legally wrong. Especially for non leo in large urban environs.

Yeah, it would suck. Absolutely. I agree. But my contention is that once you have become a competent defender...or a person who lives a defensive lifestyle, the "why, when, and how" will take care of themselves because your mindset will have changed and you will not act out of "bare fear" but from a position of "strength through knowledge" where you won't have to formulate a "what if" plan on the fly, or think about "what do I do now?", it will be a part of your overall mentality and survival skillset. In fact, the chances of being an intended target will diminish drastically because your overall carriage will change and make you unattractive to the two legged predator. Not always, but certainly more often than not.

I would also say...that if you are "ethically and morally right" in most cases (granted, not all), you will be legally right as well, especially if you can articulate to the jury why you believed you were justified, knowing what you knew at the time, in the moment.

 

[boom boom]

I believe but cannot prove that the current generation has grown up on computer/console gaming and Hollywood fantasy. Many of those who like firearms for whatever reason gravitate toward first person shooter type games and toward the fantasized unrealistic violence portrayed in movies and tv. Then they probably expect you as an instructor to fulfill their wish in real life--sorta like fantasy baseball camp.

I know when teaching in my field, that students can hold a fantasized version of my subject matter as well although not derived from gaming but rather TV and movies. Increasingly, IMHO, society seems to relating to reality through visual images in media rather than through the written word.

Yeah, it would suck. Absolutely. I agree. But my contention is that once you have become a competent defender...or a person who lives a defensive lifestyle, the "why, when, and how" will take care of themselves because your mindset will have changed and you will not act out of "bare fear" but from a position of "strength through knowledge" where you won't have to formulate a "what if" plan on the fly, or think about "what do I do now?", it will be a part of your overall mentality and survival skillset. In fact, the chances of being an intended target will diminish drastically because your overall carriage will change and make you unattractive to the two legged predator. Not always, but certainly more often than not.

I would also say...that if you are "ethically and morally right" in most cases (granted, not all), you will be legally right as well, especially if you can articulate to the jury why you believed you were justified, knowing what you knew at the time, in the moment.

 

[Kendahl]

It would suck dying trying to recollect case law, when you should be focusing on your front sight.
It's way to easy to be ethically and morally right and legally wrong. Especially for non leo in large urban environs.

That's why you need legal training, too. Examples are Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defense (book and live classes) and Masaad Ayoob's MAG-20/Classroom.

 

[Sam1911]

I would also say...that if you are "ethically and morally right" in most cases (granted, not all), you will be legally right as well, especially if you can articulate to the jury why you believed you were justified, knowing what you knew at the time, in the moment.

I wish I could be that optimistic. However, each of us is wired with our own moral and ethical compass, and many of them don't quite align with the law in some important areas.

Like the guys who occasionally make the news "defending themselves" with a gun when someone snags "their" parking spot.
Or the police officer in Florida who killed a man in an argument in a movie theater, and tried to claim "Stand Your Ground."
Or the (many) folks here who express that their morals and ethics would permit ... maybe even require ... them to shoot someone they discover leaving their property with a stolen TV or car.
Or the guy in Denver who booby trapped his garage with a shotgun which then killed an intruder.
Or Jerome Ersland, who felt that he'd been victimized enough and making sure his wounded attacker was actually dead was the right choice.

It is VERY important to help folks new (and old, for that matter) to the mindset of self-defense understand what self defense is, and isn't.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

I wish I could be that optimistic. However, each of us is wired with our own moral and ethical compass, and many of them don't quite align with the law in some important areas.

Like the guys who occasionally make the news "defending themselves" with a gun when someone snags "their" parking spot.
Or the police officer in Florida who killed a man in an argument in a movie theater, and tried to claim "Stand Your Ground."
Or the (many) folks here who express that their morals and ethics would permit ... maybe even require ... them to shoot someone they discover leaving their property with a stolen TV or car.
Or the guy in Denver who booby trapped his garage with a shotgun which then killed an intruder.
Or Jerome Ersland, who felt that he'd been victimized enough and making sure his wounded attacker was actually dead was the right choice.

It is VERY important to help folks new (and old, for that matter) to the mindset of self-defense understand what self defense is, and isn't.

I totally get what you're saying Sam, and I agree with you. I am talking about the "general moral compass" that most people would follow, or the ones who are in sync with it. That's why I put "in most cases" (granted, not all).

I can even add the dumbass who advocates shooting someone with the (flawed) rationale "He could punch me and I could fall and hit my head and die" when talking about someone of relative equal strength and size.

Or...the dumbass who threatened to shoot a gay man who touched his shoulder because he considered it a "sexual assault".

Yeah...I get it. But I have found the majority of people who seek honest training, with the simple personal mandate to "defend myself and my family" are the ones who will act by what you and I would consider to be a pretty well centered moral compass.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Creaky and Sam have been having a great discussion, deeply probing some troubling ideas. They are looking at various sides of the broad question of the place of violence in a civilized society.

In our increasingly urbanized world there are people, including many influential people, who oppose on principle the use of force in self defense.

See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various moral objections to the notion that one may be justified in defending himself.

Feminist Betty Friedan is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in some circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was their Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

While we don't agree, such views have some following. Note, for example that self defense is not considered in many countries to be a good reason to own a gun. Indeed in Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent study of the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002).

The point of the foregoing is that the universal acceptance of the ethics of self defense can not be taken for granted.

But then there's:

...It's way to easy to be ethically and morally right and legally wrong....

We've seen that sentiment expressed in these pages in various ways, but always as a "one-liner" -- essentially a slogan. I'd be interested in seeing that thought fleshed out -- with concrete definition of what the writer thinks would be ethically and morally correct but legally questionable as well as some real life examples of folks using force in a way the writer would find ethically and morally correct but leading to an unacceptable legal result.

I suspect that the ethical and moral standards relied upon would be at the outer edges of what is generally mainstream.

On the other hand, consider that the appropriateness of the use of force in self defense or the defense of others is generally recognized in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (footnotes omitted):

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."...

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.... ​

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility....

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

I tend to believe that I live in "the boring middle". Most of my views lean to the right, some to the far right, and on a few specific issues, I am a bed wetting liberal. I am an old fashioned conservative...think Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan.

I think that society lives in three distinct bubbles. There is the big, boring middle bubble where most of us live. You can be moving to the right side, or the left side of the "Boring Middle" bubble, depending upon the issue and your reasoned response to them. Then, there are the smaller bubbles on the left and the right, which are all extreme, all the time. No matter what the issue, common sense and logic will never be allowed to cloud the thinking of the dwellers in the smaller, extreme bubbles. In fairness, even those of us who live in the Boring Middle can pop in and out of the extreme bubbles from time to time, depending upon the issue and your visceral emotional response to them.

So, let me give my opinion on Frank's statement/question (which I think was great by the way):

We've seen that sentiment expressed in these pages in various ways, but always as a "one-liner" -- essentially a slogan. I'd be interested in seeing that thought fleshed out -- with concrete definition of what the writer thinks would be ethically and morally correct but legally questionable as well as some real life examples of folks using force in a way the writer would find ethically and morally correct but leading to an unacceptable legal result.

I suspect that the ethical and moral standards relied upon would be at the outer edges of what is generally mainstream.

To me, as one who has served an oath and kept that oath for my whole adult life, one specific case where I would believe someone would be "morally and ethically right, but legally wrong" stands out immediately.

If my daughter or wife was sexually assaulted or molested, or anyone's child or wife for that matter, was the victim of a sexual predator...I would have no moral or ethical problem hunting them down and killing them. If they were caught, convicted, and incarcerated before I could get to them...I would be the last person they saw on the day of their release. Notice, I did not attach the appellation "murder". To me, it is not even a question of "Is it wrong or right?"...there is no "wrong" in it. People can counter with "That won't change what happened". No, it wouldn't change it, but the re-offending rate for child molesters is in the high 90s, which means closer to 100, and as such my child would know that monster will never come back...and no other child would be a victim.

Similarly, if I was on a jury hearing a case where a man or woman hunted down and killed the predator, I would be unable to render a guilty vote in deliberation and I would be a loud and vocal advocate for total acquittal. At least, I would hang the jury.

Leon Plauche killed Jeff Doucet, the predator who kidnapped and repeatedly molested his son, in 1984. Plauche waited at the airport until Doucet who had been extradited from California passed, and put a bullet through his head in front of detectives, and on camera. He received a 7-year sentence (suspended), 5 years probation, and 300 hours of community service. No jail time. Personally...I would have bought him a bottle of good whiskey to help calm his nerves and told him "well done". Am I conflicted as a retired officer? No. Am I conflicted as a father? No. Am I the least little bit morally, or ethically conflicted as a human being? Not in the least.

In the above case, a .38JHP served justice at the hands of a father who was, in my opinion, both morally and ethically correct in his actions...though legally, he was wrong. But, given that he served no time in jail, and the community spoke loud and clear that child molesters had an expiration date...I consider it a good outcome. Had I been president or governor...PARDON. Yes, I am in the extreme right bubble on that one.



Another instance I could think of:

You are in your home, and it has been invaded. You engage one attacker and "stop them" with however many rounds are needed to do so. He is down, not necessarily dead. There is another invader at the other end of the house and a loved one is screaming and under attack. You have to get to them right now. I have no problem with putting a bullet into the medulla of the downed attacker on my way by so as not to allow an attacker to "come back to life" behind me as I am dealing with the other immediate threat. Legally wrong? Yeah. Absolutely. Morally and ethically? No. My child or other loved one means a lot more to me than some c.h.u.d. who may or may not still be able to kill me from behind, and I don't have time to dick around. I have to get to my kid.

Are they extreme views? Yes, but to me....they are correct.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

While I will by no means argue with your "compass" Creaky, I would have never posted any of that in the digital world for all to forever see.


I don't know if we're getting slightly off track or not but Frank did sort of steer us there by asking his question, which Creaky somewhat answered.

 

[Creature]

This may seem like semantics, but it is not. The responsibility for anything that happens to them as a result of their bad decision is theirs and theirs alone.

Unfortunately, its the jury who decides.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

While I will by no means argue with your "compass" Creaky, I would have never posted any of that in the digital world for all to forever see.


I don't know if we're getting slightly off track or not but Frank did sort of steer us there by asking his question, which Creaky somewhat answered.

Like I said "I could see those" as situations that answered Frank's question.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Like I said "I could see those" as situations that answered Frank's question.

And as I suggested they seem to reflect ethical and moral standards at the outer edge of mainstream, if not beyond the outer edge.

We can certainly understand the extreme visceral reaction compelling one to impose "rough justice" on someone who has injured a loved one, especially when through sexual predation. Such an affront cries out for a personal revenge. But that's not necessarily how we do things in our society. And although we might understand someone thus "taking the law into his own hands" and be sympathetic, that's not the same as accepting the action as ethical or moral.

Let's remember that we already live in a world in which many have difficulty distinguishing "legitimate self defense" from "vigilante justice."

In Shaw's Major Barbara, Andrew Undershaft (the millionaire maker of cannon) is in conversation with his son, Stephen:

... STEPHEN [rising and looking at him steadily] I know the difference between right and wrong.

UNDERSHAFT [hugely tickled] You don't say so! What! no capacity for business, no knowledge of law, no sympathy with art, no pretension to philosophy; only a simple knowledge of the secret that has puzzled all the philosophers, baffled all the lawyers, muddled all the men of business, and ruined most of the artists: the secret of right and wrong. Why, man, you're a genius, master of masters, a god! At twenty-four, too!...

Since the dawn of civilization, and probably before, people everywhere have been continually struggling to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong." They are generally unsuccessful, except with regard to the most extreme circumstances. Sure, murder is off the table; but when does killing someone morph from murder to justifiable homicide. We can generally agree that it is wrong to steal the property of another; but what about a man stealing bread to feed his starving child.

That's where law comes in. While people are struggling unsuccessfully to reach a common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", we still need a way to resolve disputes without tearing the fabric of society asunder. We might not all be able to reach agreement on "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong", except on occasion at certain crossing points, but in the real world we must still be able to get on with life.

Perhaps a true common understanding of "justice", "morality", "love", "right and wrong" will come to us in Heaven. But in the meantime we'll need to try to get along as best we can with the tools we have.

 

[1911 guy]

Perhaps a bit simplistic, but my statement in general agreement would be this:
A rational person with a conscience does not "decide" to shoot someone. However, that same person (rational and with conscience) can make the decision to shoot someone if that someone offers them no other options to escape harm.

Comment regarding the sometime disparity between "legal" and "moral" is the comment
Quote:
We can certainly understand the extreme visceral reaction compelling one to impose "rough justice" on someone who has injured a loved one, especially when through sexual predation. Such an affront cries out for a personal revenge. But that's not necessarily how we do things in our society. And although we might understand someone thus "taking the law into his own hands" and be sympathetic, that's not the same as accepting the action as ethical or moral.

Having seen first hand what sexual assault does to lives, relationships, etc, there is a great disparity between "legal" punishment and "just" punishment. Western civilization and law has assigned greater penalty to greater crimes, lesser penalty to lesser crimes. In this regard, we are as screwed up as a football bat. Rape should be a capital crime. The legal system has some catching up to do if it wants to wear the mantle of moral and ethical on this topic.

 

[Frank Ettin]

..... there is a great disparity between "legal" punishment and "just" punishment. Western civilization and law has assigned greater penalty to greater crimes, lesser penalty to lesser crimes. In this regard, we are as screwed up as a football bat. Rape should be a capital crime. The legal system has some catching up to do if it wants to wear the mantle of moral and ethical on this topic.

That is easily remedied, if you can get enough people to go along with you. It's first a matter of enacting laws setting the punishments for crimes.

If crimes aren't being punished as severely as some folks think they should, there is not enough political support for tougher penalties. That's how things work in a representative democracy.

 

[Leanwolf]

" ... Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was their Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense) ...

I find it ironic and highly hypocritical of the Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church (and several other denominations) to rant against gun ownership and self defense because it is "morally wrong" for any person to kill an attacker in self defense, yet advocate the confiscation of guns by the police wherein there would most definitely be citizens killed by the State who resisted having their lawful property confiscated.

I have little use for these highly politicized denominations that have become advocates for destroying our Constitution. (And just for the record, I was born and raised a Methodist as was my mother an her people, and my father was born and raised a Presbyterian, as was his mother, father, and their people. These religious organizations need to stay out of politics!)

L.W.

 

[bullseye308]

As I have said and told people for years, if I ever have to draw my gun and/or use it, it won't be by my choice, it will be in response to someone's actions other than my own. Good Lord willing that day for me will never come.

I have spoken with many people over the years that have pulled the trigger and am aware of the physical, mental, and financial results that will have to be dealt with. I do try and read up on legal forums like this one, and use of force incidents and learn what I can and have started getting training towards those ends both on the range and off. I believe myself to be a fair, just, and moral person, and pray that if I'm ever put to the test I will remain fair,must, and moral.

 

[bullseye308]

I'd rather impart skills, techniques, and knowledge onto people who truly want to become capable of defending themselves and their families effectively, efficiently, and legally, both in a critical incident and in court afterward.

That is what I'm after. None of the fluff or tacticool crap, just a solid foundation to build on and add to. Wish I was closer to Arizona.