would you rather be beaten and robbed, or kill the mugger?
 

Obv setting the matter in such a stark choice assumes the knowledge of things that in a real life situation would not be knowable.

But assuming that it can be known - if you are attacked, and rhetorically have two options:

1 - use deadly force by some means, and kill the attacker and protect yourself - suffering no loss of property or physical harm

2 - have possessions of yours stolen (whatever you may normally have with you - say wallet/handbag, phone and keys) and endure a mild to moderate beating (ie - physical injuries that would not require hospitalization or cause any lasting damage to your physical body)

Which would you choose, if you had the knowledge that such a choice existed?

Wow, talk about two extremes! I'm having trouble with only these two options...

1 - The use of deadly force to protect a few replaceable items seems drastic. However having the perpetrator know my address from my licence - not liking it.

2 - Letting them take the items, this would probably be the option I'd yeild to but I would struggle with the after effects, peering over my shoulder, changing all my locks, struggle with my sense of security and look at how much power I really have in my own life, those sorts of things...

It's been a tough thought given the amount of possibilities I would prefer to consider. Can I ask why the two extremes? I mean if it were my life or theirs then 1 would be totally different. Why did you choose this example?

There is no question that I would kill the attacker. I have no hesitation with that question. I never even considered that somebody else might.

Either way you deal with the aftershock and all the fallout possibly for the rest of your life. If the world has one less dirtbag in it while you go through the issues you will have with dealing with such a situation, then kill the bastard and move on.

if you asked me this two or three years ago, i probably would have said i'd rather be beaten and robbed. i like to consider myself a Buddhist, but i am not nearly as much of a Buddhist now as i was a couple years ago. so i don't think that given the opportunity, i could just let myself get beaten and robbed without attempting to knock his/her ass out first.

you will do society a favor by offing the sumbitch. A violent offender will only get braver and more cocky and may end up killing someone innocent.

Obviously I realise its not a truly realistic decision you would face in real life - you could just wound the attacker, and you could not know you would only suffer minor injuries while being attacked either... I guess I was trying to gage, at what point a personal would feel they would personally have justification to use ultimate force in self protection.

For the record, I chose to allow myself to be attacked... but then again, Ive never really been in that situation, so it is easier to say so when you dont have the experience of it, of course. I cant tell for sure how I would react if I was really attacked and robbed.

I believe this has been posted once before.

But I will answer again: I will defend myself.

You don't know when you are being beaten if that person is going to kill you... Most people would probably defend themselves, and if that means the attacker gets killed, well then -- so be it....

Granted it's only stuff, but the attacker is also attacking your person, and that's more than just stuff.

I've been in plenty of fights in my life. I took martial arts for years and years and I know how to defend myself properly. If someone on the street decided to gambel with his life and try to steal from me and/or injur me ... he would get totally away with it. He would beat me and take my wallet, ring, and whatever valuables on me. I will not, under ANY circumstances, take a life. I've had broken bones and cuts and bruises before. I've lost my wallet before. I know how to cancel credit cards and my drivers license. There is no excuse, in my mind, to take someones life. Actually, there is no reason to inflict physical harm. I would stand and allow him to do what he thinks he needs to do with no resistence. That's what my morals mean to me.

I would shoot the attacker down like the dog that he/she is.
It would be revenge for all the people this scum had robbed in the past and would prevent any future attacks.

exactly as the Q is phrased, I would let myself be attacked. (losing a few possessions and getting a couple bruises does not justify a life being taken).

but, it would be extremely difficult to simply endure a beating without fighting back.
not fighting back to kill, but just because i think that, for me, fighting back would be my instinct ...

(edit: fwiw, I *have* been mugged before, but it was not violent, he just grabbed my purse and ran.)

I would not hesitate to fight off the attacker, but kill him is an iffy one with me. If I was left with no choice I would kill him to protect myself, and anyone that would be fated to fall victim by him.

i voted for 'kill him.' i don't know i really would though. i've recently started taking tae kwond do, and one of the things that they've really pushed on us is the concept of defending ourselves with a 'reasonable' amount of force.

basically, if the situation were to ever come up, i would defend myself to the best of my ability, but in my opinion that means creating an avenue for escape. depnding on specifics that could mean something as simple as throwing them out of the way/to the ground and running, trying to disable them (like blowing out their knee), or worse. but i don't know if i could ever kill someone short of them coming at with with a knife or gun.

I thought so, that's why I tried to stick with the guidelines. thanks :)

I'm amazed at the amount of responses so far inclined to 'get rid of the dirtbag and do the world a favour'. I agree that allowing them to take your stuff only encourages them and they may step it up later to more serious crimes. I would prefer to put up a fight, if I was unable to though, I couldn't justify myself to killing him, I don't feel right making that judgement based on a two minute interaction... maybe I will one day see the understanding in this, but right now I can't.

As being someone who, at work, had a gun in his back and having to open the safe. I can surely say, If I had the means, I will kill anyone who puts me in that situation agian.

Sure, I came out of it fine. I was probaly in shock for a couple of days and came back to work a week later. The heroin addicts that robbed me and my boss were arrested within 30 min of the robbery after an insueing police chase and car hijacking.

I chose getting robbed and attacked. In real life, however, I would not take the chance and would use whatever force neccessary. Some minor pain, and my wallet stolen is not worth taking a life. I am an optimist (the mugger might have a chance to reform) and because the odds are I will only be put in a situation like that once, maybe twice in my life (where I might have to kill someone), why risk doing something that I might supremely regret? So to sum up, because I'm cautious and an optimist.

As a female, the word "attacked" means "raped" to me, and since that is a horrible fear of mine-I'd kill the f'er.

Here is the same choice but in a more "real" situation for those who need it. I thought of this already to help my choice, figured I mine as well put it down if it helps anyone else.

You're filthy rich and have a sniper watching your back when you go out at night but he won't shoot unless you say so (or you're about to die) through the microphone hidden on your person. You get mugged by two guys, they have minor weapons, you know they can't kill you before your sniper takes them out. Do you give them your valuables and take a few punches to the face/body or give the word and have the sniper kill them before they can lay a hand on you?

(PS if the sniper took time to fire a warning shot he would only have time to refire and kill one of them before the other smashes your head in with a rock, as well as the fact the sniper has strong principles against giving warning shots)

Can anyone find any holes in that? :)

He said physical harm only, and no hospitalization, so not a rape scenario as that would be psychological as well, and probably require some therapy/hospitalization.

I like to consider myself a laid back peaceful person. If someone steals from me, I can handle it. Once it escalates to voilence, everything changes. If someone lays hands on me unjustly, especially if I offered to give up what they asked for, then whatever happens is on them. I would not feel remorse about tearing their eyes out or collapsing their wind pipe. I will do whatever it takes to defend myself. I honestly can't imagine someone letting themself be abused to avoid feeling guilty about dishing out justice to the abuser.

I like this. I don't like the fact that I'll get my lopsided face lumped, but the fact is that I am not in a potentially crippling/deadly scenario where the violence just escalates against me. My trained sniper will not cause unneccessary paper work for me, and besides the fallout would mean that I'd have to create a larger trusted staff pool, and with a full time sniper on duty I'd lead a pretty constrained life I'd bet. Probably the only time I'd get to meet the common folk was when I was beaten and robbed :lol:

I would have to say I would kill them. If anyone attacked either my wife or me, I would pity them, more so if they attacked my wife rather than me.

Let's just say that he should have his affairs in order.

I might end up killing him. Depends if he tried to seriously wound me first, I suppose.
I have to say I admire Willravel's steadfast philosophy though. Good on you mate: a man who can stick to his morals that hard is a man indeed.

For myself though, suffice to say that I'd do my best to beat the everloving crap out of the bastard without actually killing him. Then, I'd call an amulance for him and bugger off.

Hey, the guy may very well be a scumbag, but the hypothetical contained nothing referencing the attacker's motives. What if the guy was homeless and needed some cash to eat? What if the guy mistook you for the punk who beat him down last week? What if the guy mistakenly thought you had just run over his daughter? What if you had actually just run over his daughter?

I protect me and mine.

"Shoot her...."
- Jurassic Park

I think you are doing the society that you live in a disservice by not resisting criminal conduct. If you reap the benefits of society without contributing to upholding the rules of that society you are a parasite that would be better off removed. Enforcing the law is not completely reserved for the police; in the same way you should help someone bleeding to death in the street (and not say "Thats not my job, let the EMTs do it") you should do your part to prevent crime. Also, supposing you had the chance to use less than certain lethal force you might be doing him a favor by preventing him from encountering someone who would kill him for certain.

When being attacked while armed, there are only two options. The first is to allow yourself to become a victim. The second is to shoot to kill. I'm not going to shed a tear over anyone who makes a living attacking people.

Given the foreknowledge of those two exact outcomes, I'd allow myself to take a mild beating. Losing a few possessions and suffering some minor physical injuries is a small thing compared to a human life.

what guarantee would i have that the beating would only be mild to moderate. I think that should someone attacked me i would have to option, one to fight, one to run. I'd choose the option i would be most likely to suceed with.

Lot of cowboy-attitudes in here.

I can't see how you can rationalize taking another persons life just to save yourself a few bruises and maybe a few dollars?

Where's the christian attitudes and moral that you're spewing on us in all the other threadhs? I'm sure a lot of the 46 (so far..) that went for "kill him" consider themselves christian.

hey, no one's throwing stones... :thumbsup:

what i think is really telling is that a lot of the kill him comments have to do with 'blowing him away' or some other euphemism. for all intents and purposes, most of those posters don't really have a choice to do less than kill. guns are made to kill, can wound, but if someone's trying to rob you you don't try to just wing them.

maybe this just goes to show that people really need to start to learn real self-defense, where they have more options than to just kill.

and i'm curious, how many of you gun-totters (sp?) really think that if some one suprised you and tried to rob you that you'd be able to draw and successfully fire on the mugger before they managed to get the first few hits in, possibly even taking your gun from you and using it on you? it's not as though they're gonna come from in front of you western style where you can draw like in a gun fight.

I would not hesitate to kill someone who attacked me or my wife. And Phage said it best that in not resisting criminal behavior, you are part of the problem. Think about the after-effects for the mugger and his kind. If you do not resist and allow yourself to be beaten and robbed, that mugger is going to be thinking, "Man, that was pretty easy. I can get some quick cash and knock somebody around with little consequence." If you kill him, he won't be thinking at all. That's better in my book.

The effects on the community are also significant. Say the story was covered the next day in the paper. Would the headline read, "Man offered no resistance as he was robbed and beaten" or "Man killed would-be assailant." The personal impact of the scenario aside, consider what the criminal element hearing about either of those stories would think. On one side, "Hey, easy pickings. Let's go rob some people!" On the other, "Hey, we better watch our asses out there!" Yes, I am aware that some will argue that violence only escalates into more violence. That the criminal element might come more prepared with deadlier weapons next time. I would call bullshit on that argument. Most criminals are bullies and cowards. They always look for the easiest target. If you want to be that target, go ahead.

Once I took self defense classes I decided at that moment that it was possible that I could kill someone with my bare hands. I accepted that responsibilty of potential outcome from that day forward.

I was reminded of it again, once I learned how to shoot a firearm.

I don't want to harm anyone, but if it's a choice between the possibility of me living versus someone else, I'm going to do my best to make sure I'm the one who lives to see another day.

The thing is here we were not given the choice of simply defend. And between only the choices: kill him or be mugged, it is my life over his life. If his life is sustaned through the pain, suffering, and robbery of others, what a waste of a life he is living.

I voted kill only because defend was not an option. Defense ends when your enemy is no longer able to retaliate. Anything after that becomes senseless violence. Death is rarely a reasonable means for my safety.

The poll is worded very clearly. Our two choices are to kill or to allow a mild to moderate amount of damage to ourselves plus property loss. That boxes us in fairly effectively. Honestly, to me it seems manipulative.

If someone's going to attack me I already put them in the inscrutable category. It can go any way we might imagine, based on capabilities and motivations. It isn't unusual for a concealed carry victim do sustain injury before drawing and defending themselves.

i realize that, and agree.

but the comments area allows you comment on your pick, and why. and based on some of the comments, many seem more 'hell yeah i'd shoot the bastard' like they're almost excited for the opportunity rather than 'yeah, i'd shoot them, wish i had another option though'. see the difference?

Yep, but due to the poll wording I went through my own circle of reasoning. "Wait, what about choice #3?!" For me, accepting the inevitable, it could easily come out as "shoot the bastard." Suppose that made me less judgemental about responses.

I will answer this question, since I "spew" on occasion.

I think that "forgiveness" is the primary trait that Christians are called to practice, not submitting to robbery.

I also acknowledge that he told Peter "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" when Peter tried to defend him.

I don't think there is a good answer and it is a problem I struggle with.

Taken to its extreme, the Hitlers and Stalins would rule the world while the Jews and anyone else who gets in their way will die horrible deaths.