xddga

this is honestly a tough one. I value all life, even if it is someone who is inherently evil. there is no justification for taking another's life even if it IS in self-defense. and i'm also a firm believer in kharma, and violence never solving anything and only breeding more violence. I wouldn't attack even if I thought the chance of me dying would be high. Nor do I believe I could live w/ the guilt of having to take someone elses life regardless of the circumstances...

about the notion "Killing in self defense is not murder", IMO, killing is still killing no matter how you try to justify it to yourself. you still took the life of someone else regardless of the situation. you may have been driven into the circumstance where it was kill or be killed, but your still a murder. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, like I said it's my opinion and philosophy and apoligize if you took offense in that statement...

HOWEVER, if there was someone else with me, I'd do what I could to protect them, even if it meant my own life. but as far as if I needed to go as far as killing someone else in order to do that, I honestly have no idea what I would do. I'd like to say I wouldn't kill them or cause them any pain, but never being in that sort of situation there's no way I could really answer that question. at least in the end I hope i wouldn't...

monkeysugar

I responded that I would kill the attacker, because it was the closest option to the answer I have.

Basically, I would defend myself. If the attacker wanted my wallet, they can have it. But if they start roughing me up, I would not hesitate to give them a taste of their own medicine. If I am ever in the situation where I fear for my life because of the aggressive actions of another person, I will not hesitate to preserve my life at the cost of theirs. While there may be socio-economic factors or mental conditions that influence their decisions, I frankly do not give a flying fuck. If someone is trying to kill me, or someone I care about, I will do everything I can, using anything I can, to kill them first. End of story.

If it is murder, then I'll go to jail. And I'll still be alive.

__________________
I've got the love of my life and a job that I enjoy most of the time. Life is good.

Lasereth

The situation is setup and worded very badly. There's not enough information given on the situation, and the actual situation would likely never happen.

If someone attacked me, I would do EVERYTHING in my own will to defend myself, even if that means knocking him unconscious and possibly taking his life. I would not "try" to kill him, but if he kept atttacking me and I kept fighting and it didn't end until he was dead, then that's what he'll get. Sitting there and taking it to prevent own further physical harm is not a good choice. It seems today that the "cool" and "ghetto, brave" thing to do is just go ahead and kill instead of just mug. I'm not gonna take that chance.

Now, the actual question/situation posted: I would of course let him beat me up. Killing someone when they did not threaten your life is against the law. <B>In the original poster's situation, killing the attacker would send you to jail</B> because he did not threaten your life. Hell, the situation even states that you would be mildly injured. The question makes no sense and the situation would never happen.

Those that are answering "kill" are changing the situation into my first paragraph..basically whether to defend yourself or not. In the original poster's description, there are only two options: KILL the attacker and suffer no damage, or barely take any damage yourself and let the attacker get away. The obvious choice is to let the attacker get away, else you'd literally go to jail.

Is the original poster trying to set up a personal defense question, or is the question trying to manipulate people into agreeing they'd kill over money? I think it needs to be explained waay better.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Killconey

While I agree with others that this could have been worded better, it is always better to give that to receive. So why would you be content with receiving a beating when you can do the honors yourself?

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

Johnny Pyro

Kill em. One less piece of shit in the world!

__________________
"From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell

djflish

I didn't vote for either of them.
If I am attacked, I will defend myself no matter what. But I wouldn't kill the attacker.
There would be too much paper work involved

__________________
Europes two great narcotics, Alcohol and Christianity.
I know which one I prefer.

WarriorBuddha

I wouldn't just sit by and let myself get robbed, but I wouldn't go for the kill instantly either. If it came down to him or me though, it wouldn't be me that dies. If I have anything to say about it anyway.

__________________
Thockmorton knew if he were ever to break wind in the echo chamber, he would never hear the end of it.

simonrex22

I was in my garage one time late at night with the door open. I was working with an exacto knife. I thought i heard someone behind me. I was surprised to see how fast I turned around and raised the razor blade, ready to plunge it into someones neck who might be intent on hurting me. If the situation was right, im sorry to say the sorry sack of crap would be lying on the ground taking his las breaths as i walk away with my wallet still im my back pocket.

moosenose

No doubt that I'd open fire. To do any less would be to fail at a basic civic duty to remove the douchebag from society so that he cannot attack somebody else. And you can't know that the attacker would stop at a moderate beating. If you go around physically attacking people in violation of the law, you have to expect that people will not stand still for it, and that the cost may be your life.

As for "what point would you kill?" The answer is as soon as it's legally justified. Early Bird gets the Worm, and all that. As soon as the person puts you or your loved ones in danger, you MUST act, lest you lose the chance to act at all.

moosenose

This varies from locality to locality. Here, if the person puts you in danger of grievous bodily harm, you can legally kill them. That can mean many things...I had a judge once tell me that getting kicked would qualify, since he felt that getting stomped to death was a very bad way to die. Personally, I operate on the "malicious wounding" scale. If you are at risk of injury that would require bones to be set, or sutures to repair, or any kind of surgery to repair the injury (like knocked out teeth), or the potential loss of an eye, that's grievous bodily harm.

moosenose

So, let's say that you don't act, he robs you, and gets away. You've just managed to teach him that attacking people pays pretty well. So next time he goes out, he's going to do it again. Or do you think that once he gets your wallet and stomps on you a while, he's going to discover Jesus and stop robbing people? What happens when you didn't act to stop him, and he kills somebody? Now their blood is on your hands, because you failed in your civic duty to society, and your failure caused the death of an innocent.

Frankly, I don't care what the old testament says. I'm not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

You say the emotional damage of killing someone is worse than the damage you get from being mugged. What do you base that on?

moosenose

You don't have kids, do you...

If you had kids and they were in danger, you'd kill to defend them, wouldn't you? If you wouldn't, how would you live with yourself afterwards? How would THEY live with you knowing that "your morals" were more important than "their lives"?

Xazy

Good thing I am not Christian. Bible says an eye for an eye. If you rob someone of all their belongings it is like killing them. It also allows you to defend yourelf, if someone is trying to attack (kill you) you can strike first!

Robert_XX

Given the precise choice in the question I would, after some thought, go for 'be attacked' option given that, unlike any concievable 'real' situation you have the certain knowledge that you will escape with a mild beating.

I would suggest that most people opting for 'kill the attacker' are projecting this to a real life situation where you wouldn't know what the hell was in store. My view is that if you felt that you were in danger of a serious or life threatening attack and lethal force were the only way to protect yourself then go for it. Otherwise it's not justified

For those people shocked by the bloodlust of some of the responses, don't get too wound up about it, it's all to easy to anonymously toss off and post a 'kill the bastards' kind of message in a forum such as this.

If half those people were seriously questioned about whether they support the death sentence for mugging and knew their views would be publicly broadcast and available to all their family and coworkers etc. then I feel you would get a more considered response from them.

cj2112

Just a point of order....An eye for an eye was under Mosaic Law, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, and his second great commandment was love thy neighbor as thyself. When sked how many times one should forgive their enemies Jesus replied "seven times seventy". Seven is an interesing number, in the original hebrew, it can also mean infinity, or an infinite number....Before I get the reputation of being a Bible thumper, let me say this:I carry a gun, I am licensed to carry it and I voted that I would kill my attacker because that is the closest option to defending my safety, and the safety of my family.

Sugarmouse

if i look at what underpins this..as in would you rather be hurt or hurt someone i would probably go with the former.it would depend.if i knew i cud kill him and i knew he deserved it i probably would..if i didnt know this...and i knew he wouldnt kill me i may let him! anwyas in this country id probably get put in prison for killing an attacker lol

__________________
Sugarmouse=Festered

braindamage351

I chose kill, but not because he's a "scumbag who deserves to die". If he went through with the attack I would be traumatized for probably a good deal of my life. Of course I'd be traumatized either way, but I'd rather feel guilty than terrified all the time.