A lot of you are really assuming too much. Who says the mugger makes his living doing this? What if he is a 15 year old kid who was forced into it because of an abusive father? You people are stereotyping, and that is always a bad thing. You can (probably) admit stereotyping or racism is bad, yet the majority do it here.

MasterShake brings up more good points.

I look at it this way, in the context of the poll question we are given two options.

Of the two options, which would I consider (lacking more appealing options)?

I for one choose death.....for the mugger.

I certainly can't stand by and let myself be victimized and if the death of the mugger is the only available option--so be it--the mugger made the choice, not me.

Extremism in any form is dangerous, but this survery doesn't go to extremes, you simply have to be prepared to make the choice before the time is there. This is something that fortunately, most of us will never face, but I think your personality dictates what you will do. I choose to walk away, he won't.

What about the commandment "Thou shall not kill!" ? So you can kill, but just as long as the person you're killing deserves it? Is that it?

And still, I can't really argue on this. I'm just shocked that most people here would rather kill than receive a few bruises. It just blows my mind that there is so many willing to kill for something as pety. The emotional damage of killing someone will be a lot worse than the damage you get from a mugging. So you lose, no matter what .. the only difference is that you'll still have your pride.

And for those of you that believe in heaven and hell? What are you thinking? That you'll still go to heaven, because he had it coming to him?

My emotional side is already prepared to kill someone.

I forgot to include that I also thought that when I took my first ride out in a car, that I may kill someone.

All those things of being concerned about and understanding the responsibility I hold for someone's life isn't easy. You make it sound like there's been no thought at all, well for some there has been.

i really try to not have a problem with anyone, even if they are jerks.

but if someone has the balls to try something stupid on someone than they taking a chance at getting what they deserve.

for anyone else who is just skimming this, i would definately dissuade them from their course of action. as much as needed.

The two choices were take a mild to moderate beating and lose some posessions or kill the attacker. It's not a choice of his life or mine; that's not the choice presented in the poll. If that were the choice, I'd choose killing over dying.

But given these two exact options, I would suffer less harm by being a little bruised than I would at having to live with the knowledge of having killed someone.

I've had my purse snatched, being knocked down in the process, and recieved a few bruises and a very light sprain of my ankle. I lost some makeup, a brush, some life-savers, tampons, about $45 and my shoes, pantyhose and skirt were ruined in the process. That's pretty close to the first option--take some minor damage and lose some possessions.

Would I rather the boy who took my purse and knocked me down be dead instead to save me about $100 some abrasions, and walking with a limp for a week? I don't know enough about him to say that his life is worth less than my $100 and a few minor inconveniences.

If I'd had a gun, it'd have been in my purse, and the purse snatcher would have had it and I'd have been in the same situation, but now out the cost of the gun also.

You misquote.

It's "Thou shalt not commit murder".

Killing in self defense is not murder.

And who are you to say that taking a beating imparts "less emotional damage" than defending yourself?

As to the "heaven and hell" part, if you are somehow trying to put in "eternal damnation" for killing someone, even if it is "murder" (which I don't believe it is), murderers can enter heaven...if they are repentant. If they couldn't, then we are all screwed that way.

I have been thinking about this question for a few days now. I know that I would not allow myself to be beaten, I would defend myself. In real life I would go for disabling my attacker, not really killing him unless there was no way to disable him without killing him. If I new that defending myself would result in my attacker's death (as the question assumes) I think I would still defend myself. The starkness of the example is what gave me pause.

I guess, worded as it is, I would allow myself to be attacked and suffer minor physical injury. The only reason that that is what I chose is because Strange specifically states that I knew that these were my two choices - with nothing in between.

If this question was worded a bit differently and those were the two outcomes, but we didn't "know" the outcomes ahead of time, it's likely (given the choices, anyway) that I would kill the attacker.

Interestingly enough, if you were to replace me with my S/O, I would kill them (again, given these choices) either way - I would to everything in my power to keep my girlfriend free from harm, no matter how minor it is.

For those of you questioning the attacker's motives, I can't say I really agree - nor does it really matter what the motives are. If someone were to walk up to you and begin assaulting/robbing you, typically the victims thoughts aren't something along the lines of "hmm... I wonder if he is mistaking me for someone else, or maybe he's just trying to eat..." You have very little time to think, much less ponder the reasoning behind the attack, I'd imagine. If the situation ever come up and the attackers intentions weren't to kill me or my S/O, but I felt they were, I would do everything in my power to survive. To Kill or Be Killed is not much a philisophical question in my mind - I know which I would chose.

Strange Famous,

I love your threads. You always seem to get to the core of all of us.

Now to answer your question, I normally try to take peace not pieces. I don't think that hurting someone is worth anything.

However in the heat of being beaten I would probably strike back. The pain would get to me, and the more the attacker hit, the more I would build my rage (kinda like a pokemon") and eventually take out my car keys and stab the guy in the eye.

I would not want to kill the person, but my natural instincts may say something different.

So I think in the long run I think its kill or be killed. It that guy is going to beat me to death, I'm going to meet the one eyed bastard in hell.

If I know ahead of time that this is all that will come of it, sure. I wouldn't bother fighting back. All these things are replaceable. Bruises heal. Not only does this guy not deserve to die for this, I don't need a death on my conscience for the rest of my life. I'm a little surprised that I am against the majority on this one, actually.

I'm asking for clarifications.

Apparently I can reliably use deadly force on the opponent with certainty, and they can't stop me from killing them.

1> Can I project the threat of deadly force to the mugger?
2> Can the mugger pre-empt my deadly force threat with a first strike?
3> Is the mugger using a threat of deadly force against me?
4> Can the mugger execute their threat of deadly force against me?

If the answers are true, false, true, false (as in that rich-man case seemingly), I believe I would threaten deadly force, and then follow through if the threat is ignored.

If the answer is true, true, true, true (you have a gun trained on him, but he doesn't know it, and he has a gun trained on you), then I believe I would strike first.

If the answer is false, true, false, irrelivent, I want to know how this man is going to take my possessions without even the threat of deadly force? However, in this strange case, they are welcome to my paultry possessions.

If the answer is false, false, false, irrelivent, I would threaten deadly force and follow through if required.

One final question: how in the hell do you know the consequences? Even in the rich-man case, the difference between being beaten and being killed is a fine line.

I place importance with an honestly stated threat: I will play the position game. Instead of accepting the game (kill mugger or give mugger stuff) that the mugger is placing on me, I will give the mugger a game with my own set rules (go away or die). It changes the rules from being about how I value life, to being how the mugger values his own life.

Yes, of course, you would certainly have less time to think it through on the street. But that's part of the point of asking these questions, so you can determine the moral or legal questions involved ahead of time and have some guide to how you should react if it were to happen.

Anybody seen the Korean film Oldboy? I just caught it this past weekend and it brings up some excellent ideas about revenge, vengeance, the futility of violence, etc. That person attacking you might very well be justified in attacking you. Are you still entitled to self-defense at that point?

Some posters seem to suggest that it's allright to kill the mugger once he/she starts the actual mugging. Does the mugger still have a right to self-defense from you even after he/she caused the situation?

Would you be justified in shooting a cop who was trying to shoot you even if you started the situation by shooting somebody else, etc.?

Even Hobbes allowed the individual the right to self-defense against the sovereign.

I know SiNais avatar would kick some tail. Look at that guy. He walks around with his shirt off so he can sport his scars or tatoo or what ever those are. I bet he can bench more than any other avatar. He probably trains like 8 hours a day with sacred tae bo masters. Nobody is going steal that dudes gym membership card.

Someday I will have an avatar like that. Someday.................................

I wouldn't kill someone to avoid a few bruises and a loss of some possessions.

This is scary and saddening. Who here could say they have never hurt someone mentally or physically. What if the robber had children and was at wits end. I wouldn't agree with his methods, but he is not going to kill and probably won't maim you. What exactly are you protecting you money, you pride? I like "willRavel" have taken a significant amount of martial arts and consider sparring much like dancing. I personally am secure that I can survive with whatever belongings I carry on my person and could continue quite well without them. Where do people get off assuming that someone who is mugging you is a life criminal and probably is going to become a psycho murderer?

If I was uncertain of my safety or more importantly others then I may use force to phase him and would try not to kill him, however if it came down to him or me or him and someone else, I would unfortunately have to put him to rest.

As a 'victim' of armed robbery, how I reacted is probably why I am still here. I let them take what they wanted and get the hell out.
It's easy to say 'kill him' when you aren't in the scene. In my case, it was two men, one very large and the other brandishing a knife pointed at my face. The choice was instant and apparently right.

The fore knowledge of the end results is pretty limiting for discussion. Obviously a reasonable person wouldn't want somebody dead over a few material possessions. That's why this question is ridiculous, why can I only respond with killing the person or taking a beating? Why can't I just crack his ass? If someone tries to rob me and in the process they start beating me, you better believe I am going to start throwing thunder; if he's smart he'll get the picture and won't stick around, if he's stronger he'll fend me off and beat my ass and get what he came for, if he's stupid he'll keep going at me and I will have no problem beating him to the point of incapcitation or death. We are only animals and the most basic instinction is self preservation, problem is I don't like running from situations like this.

This is not a problem for me. Seriously. Given the two choices, there is nothing immoral or unethical about killing an attacker in self-defense.

In real life, you don't have time to think and moralize about all of this...
If it was just a theft of my stuff... here take it.
If it was to be followed by a beating of course I would defend myself. That said, I would not wish to kill anyone.


If given the time to ponder the situation, and only given the two choices, I would take the beating. I have no need to take someone's life.

I would kill the attacker with no further thought or consideration. I act. I don't consider the ethics of my actions because I have no reference for that category of thought.

If the ONLY consequences are as stated and there are no other repurcussions like having the the mugger stalk me (now knowing where I live) since I was such an easy target, then I would choose #2, loose my possessions and endure a few bruises.

In this hypothetical scenario, it comes down to this:
My wallet and bruises < Mugger's life

But without knowing all of this up front, I'd probably kill the bastard, while defending myself of course.

[B]The attacker basically makes his own choice. Why should I work hard for things to have them taken away by someone? And why should I be injured so he can have them?

I really dislike pain, besides, I'm not the one doing anything wrong, why should I be punished? I would never go out and kill anyone for the sheer pleasure of it, now, why, would I think there was pleasure in killing?
Just out and about, being the average, let's say, above average, Jane Doe, minding my own business, doing my thing, not bothering a soul - this person, going out, with the intent to cause harm and inflict pain, on whomever, could be a little old man, just because they think that they can, they are above the law, to hell with everyone and everything, no contest! They know the risks, probably part of the thrill for them.

I'd take a beating. Yes, it would suck to loose your stuff and also get your ass kicked, but my cell phone and credit card is not worth the life of another person, even a bad person.

[Full Metal Jacket reference]"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"[/Full Metal Jacket reference]

It's easy to rationalize. The mugging is an assault on my rights, my body and my property. To defend myself in such a situation is a matter of principle. In real life, I wouldn't kill the mugger unless he or she kept attacking me and I had no other choice, but I won't be a willing victim.

I'm an agnostic, myself. But hey; anyone who tries to commit a violent crime against me might end up in a position to tell me whether or not there's an afterlife. :thumbsup:

It would take a lot more than the risk of losing some stuff and getting a few bruises for me to actually kill someone. I'm not even sure I could kill someone intentionally ever.

i'd do it, no question.

Amusing. Kill. NO question, no regrets. He will simply have died as a result of his choices. Christian??? Replacable items? Bah. The most basic right we can have is the right to that which we produce. As soon as we are willing to surrender that to politically correct BS, we may as well sign ourselves over into slavery. I am prepared to die for the $4 in my wallet because it is MINE. I do not take from others, and I will not willingly allow another to take from me. The issue does not boil down to the lousy $4 (Or whatever) it boils down to whether or not I am willing to be victimized by another human being. I am not. I will not vicitimize anyone else.

I decided given those two choices that I would kill the attacker.
I prefer not to use violence, but I refuse to allow someone to threaten my life.
I am the only thing that I truely have so when someone attacks me in an attempt to injure me and destroy and aspect of my life ( by attacking me they have already partially succeed) I no longer consider them a human. They no longer have my tolerance. They no longer are apart of my love of humanity.

They are dead.

Human life IS precious, but if you attack me you have squandered that value. You have made a concious choise to endanger my life and as such you have endangered your own. Survival is a basic human instinct, and humans are dangerous animals.

I think people need to use common sense in situations like this. If I was attacked by one or two guys who weren't armed, I would definitely fight. If I was surrounded by 47 guys who were demanding my wallet, there wouldn't be any point in fighting. There is no way I could defend myself against that many people, so I would cooperate unless they physically attacked me and I had no choice.

I think it is great that a philosophical question about the value of another's life in relation to minor physical threat towards yourself has produced a resounding consensus - C. He doesn't want a piece of THIS!

Egos aside, in the example you know the two outcomes. If you chose to kill him knowing you are not in mortal danger, it is murder. You are willing to use unequal force to spare your wallet and bruises. It is interesting that Christians defend their right to kick ass:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” - Sermon on the Mount

That is between you and your bible, I know there a lot of interpretations but this one seems pretty straight forward for you all. In terms of the social responsibility, the disregard for human life is a much bigger concern than a mugging. Remember Bernard Goetz? From Court TV

I know some people think of Bernard Goetz as a hero, I disagree. If we don't insist on the high value of life consistently, people like Goetz will feel entitled to sit in judgment of anyone they want.

I guess this is a good representaion of why we have a war on our hands.

Goetz only sat in "judgment" after some punks starting after him with a screwdriver.

Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.

hmm, i haven't read anyones posts... cos well, theres too many!!

but, knowing that there was going to be no PERMANENT damage... i'd take the beating.. i wouldn't want to risk the psychological trauma that would be placed on my fagile little mind, if i knowingly killed someone for no real reason :)

if it was me or them. fuck. they'd die.

in reality, i'd prefer to just give them a fucking good beating, hopefully so they could realise that trying to steal things is wrong.

If I were attacked the first thing I would try to do is defend myself, but I don't think that I would ever kill someone, unless they were clearly trying to kill me. If someone is just mugging me and taking my wallet, then no, I would not kill someone for that. If people are shooting at me and I happen to have a gun in my hand, then yes, I will probably shoot back. I didn't vote because I don't like the options of either sitting idly as you get beaten or killing a person. Surely there is some middle ground.

burn mugger, burn...

if necessary the mugger dies, but hopefully I won't have to go to that extreme. He's not getting my stuff however unless I judge that the danger to me or others is too great if I fight back.