Yeah, it works great on teevee.

You two have taken martial arts classes, right? Or are you gleaning information from Hollywood?

Practically the first thing they teach you when addressing knife and other weapon disarms is that no matter how talented a martial artist you are, there's an incredible likelihood that you'll be seriously injured when performing l33t ninja disarms like this, especially when your attacker isn't caught by surprise... You're also making assumptions that said attacker is definitely not experienced in any combat, and will be easy to disarm - this is a potentially deadly mistake. It's often best to err on the side of caution.

You also don't address the issue in this scenario of the reactions of the bystanders - what are they going to do and where will they be when in about 2.5 seconds you and a raging crackhead with a knife struggle in an epic melee? That is, if you can engage him - nobody ever said (and you don't know) who his target is. Will you put them at risk and accept the consequences of doing so? What if your kids or wife are gravely injured as a result of your refusal to defend them using the deadly force you're being attacked with? I don't see it as terribly unlikely in the ensuing brawl that one of them gets in the way and ends up hurt or dead.

It seems to me, will, that you're out to prove yourself better than everyone else, on the basis that you wouldn't kill someone trying to kill you or others. You're trying to hold all life to the same level of value, and would put yourself and others in danger because of it. Sure, they might make a movie about you if you were able to pull it off, but what if you don't? You'll either be the hero or the shame of the city, so I'd suggest you be damn well prepared, and remember it still might not help you.

Further, what would your answer be if you weren't involved in this scenario, and it were up to a woman to choose what to do? Would you have her be a martial arts expert, and put herself and her children at risk to attempt to disarm someone with a weapon? Perhaps have them run (and be subsequently outran) or lay down and beg for mercy? As hedwigstrange pointed out earlier, guns happen to be great equalizers. Most strong women, let alone an ordinary woman, are still not as strong as a man. I'm not trying to be sexist, but it's a fact of life. Would you still hold them to your standard of not responding to force with the same level of force?

Nobody ever said you have to not announce your ability and intention to defend yourself. You are not required to kill in cold blood. You're not even required to shoot, or shoot to kill. Here's my response, once deadly force and intent has been shown:

1: draw concealed pistol - check for response from attacker.
2: YELL: FREEZE! I HAVE A GUN! or something of that nature, with gun clearly visible in low ready position (aimed near attacker's kneecaps/groin) - check for response from attacker (it's likely that FREEZE will be the only part to get off before the distance is closed - that is sufficient.)
3: if no response: aim for center of mass, fire twice. hopefully two low torso hits - check for response from attacker.
4: if still no response, and attacker persists despite being shot, then an immediate killing blow is necessary. people hopped up on drugs can often continue to attack, despite being shot. This is why the Mozambique drill exists.

All this has to happen in that minuscule amount of time between the attacker and myself and family - checking for responses is something you have to do on the fly because it happens so fast, but I wrote them out to emphasize a point: if the attacker desists in his actions, so will I. I will only use deadly force if it's the only action which will bring the incident to a stop before anyone else is hurt, once deadly force has been shown on the attacker's end. It's still not my intention to KILL anyone. It's my intention and duty to STOP them before they harm myself or my family, and killing may be the only way to stop them. That's something which has to be accepted before carrying/using ANY lethal weapon to defend oneself.

I, personally, will not risk the wellbeing of anyone to prove myself somehow better than a thug on the street. I don't see it as "stooping to the thug's level" if I respond to deadly force with deadly force, because I'm not the one going around attacking people with no provocation. I find you naive, will, for making such an assumption, and for being willing to put others at risk because you have such faith in your martial arts abilities to stop others intent on harming you and yours. You value a hoodlum's life more than you value your own, and I think that's far too dangerous for everyone else, and giving the hoodlum far too much credit at being human. I pray (despite being an atheist) that nobody is ever forced to rely on you to keep them from imminent harm, and I also hope beyond hope that you're never put into that position, and never go into politics.

This is not to say that I wish to be exposed to such situations - as I said before, it's every gun owner's worst nightmare to be forced to use their weapon. However, I will prepare to the best of my ability to respond to such situations, and those around me will be all the better for it. I'll make every attempt not to use my weapon, and to use non-lethal means before using lethal ones - but, if it comes to it, anyone attempting to infringe upon the safety of myself or those around me will end up with nothing more than a belly full of lead and a pool of their own blood to drown in.*

I don't think that killing another human "sits right" with anyone. I do think, however, that sometimes that's the only option, and the array of possible alternatives would sit with me far less well than having put an end to the life of someone trying to do me or my family harm.

*quote shamelessly ripped off from Sargent Johnson in Halo 1

I'm curious here and not being sarcastic.
Would tasers be a viable alternative, the kind that have some range?
Of course they could be mis-used as anything else, but think of the
fast knock down power, especially if you had one equipped with a laser
pointer, and the bright blinding lights of decent tactical weapons.

Ring: Tasers depends a lot on their use. They have trouble with thick clothes, and they can easily be used to disable victims if used by criminals. On the positive side, they are pretty effective in practical use. Most tasers can disable an average or even large man when used correctly, and their fatality rate is pretty low (few muggers have artificial hearts).

moot: I have more than enough training to disable someone who has a non projectile weapon, especially a simple knife. The first thing you're taught in real classes (for me it was everything from Krav Maga to Kali) is to avoid confrontation, but the scenario which Cromp laid out made it clear that the intention of the question was that wasn't an option. Considering my training and the average person who's used a knife before, I should be fine. I put myself between the other intended victims (wife and child) and the attacker so that his attentions are on me. I tell them to run while I engage him in combat. There's virtually no chance of this guy not just getting by me, but getting by me fast enough to get them. BTW, no one who ever bravely defended their family has been the shame of the city. That kind of sentiment is childish and is intended to try to control my perceptions by insulting me or appealing to ego.

I'd disable him. It's really that simple. If by some miracle he manages to do any level of harm to me, my family is long gone and has probably called the police. It has nothing to do with ego or anti-guns. He's not going to die and neither am I.

If he had a gun, I'd again get between him and my family as we went for the closest cover unless it was clear that cover was too far away. If cover is too far away, I toss him my wallet. People out there who just want to kill indiscriminately are exceedingly rare and it's not reasonable to prepare for that.

Well said sir.
As a woman who lives alone,
and has been robbed at gun-point twice when I was working retail in
San Francisco years ago, I see that every circumstance has to be read
in a split second or two, I feel confident that the reality of ever having
to use my training is slim yet having it, I sleep sounder.

The seven times I was threatened with deadly intent...a calm and
rational demeanor, I believe, saved the day.

Cooler heads are more likely to prevail. Well put.

well, like others have said, i would imagine that what would "suck" about beheading someone with a sword (?) who broke into your house would be.....

wait, what are we talking about?
where did all the guns come from?
i thought we were imagining beheading someone with a sword.
and what would suck about it.

everything, i would expect, would suck about beheading someone with a sword.

i watched alexander nevsky yesterday. it featured lots of sequences that involved cinematic whacking and dismembering. it looked like pretty much everything about it would suck.

this version, however, looks lilke it'd be more fun because you get to fly in it:

http://www.freewebs.com/stick_figure...swordmelee.gif

but i think the actual killing part would suck.
and that is my conclusion
and the evidence upon which it is based.



btw: i do not buy for a second that this sort of fantasy scenario thread says anything about what anyone would actually do were they confronted--somehow--with a situation in which they found themselves threatened by an intruder while holding a sword, but rather says alot about how people like to deploy their imaginations.

given that all that is happening here is an exchange of imagined scenarios with more or less detail as a function of whether you happen to spend your time filling out the detail in such scenarios, what i dont understand is the sense that seems to run everywhere that one group's fantasy life is more manly than another's.

on the other hand, i put up a graphic involving stick figures who engage in swordplay, so perhaps my inner life is that of a manlyman as well.

We could be heroes... just for one day...

"You know what sucks about killing in self-defense?"

You don't get to keep a trophy? No head to mount on your wall? Hmm that would make an awkward conversation piece.

I caught Will's post on the end of the first page... and honestly...

I would do all I could to first subdue any intruder. If they had intentions of killing me or others in my home even though all they came for was my stereo equipment (joke's on them, I am poor)... unfortunately I doubt I would hesitate in that moment.

Moot,

Great post.

Gah, don't quote video games. Makes you look like a douchebag to most adults.

...

The value of the human life always shocks me... in how much it varies.

Hey, man... not all of us get off to the theme the Beatles guy touts in "Imagine."

Quote above? Human nature in action, I'd say. We are combative creatures by design and thus it would seem only logical that a good portion of our kind would indulge in such fantasies in a world where the reality is socially unacceptable at best. What is fantasy but merely an extension of our animal desire to fight, to dominate, to survive.

Somebody define the human condition for me. Plenty of violence in that story.

Biological processes are often violent things and we're nothing more than a supremely pretentious biological process.

This is a soul stinging observation. Particularly in light of your definition of 'biological process'.'

I've been enjoying your style and very much appreciate your contributions to this forum.

-bear

:D Consult my subtitle.

we had another home invasion in my town the night before last- and for the first time, the victim responded in accord with the castle doctrine, which we passed here in august- He shot one of the invaders in the throat, the other fled- the shot invader died last night in the hospital.....

I guess that's one fewer drug addict on the streets of Columbia.

If I were the violent person who survived that encounter, I'd want revenge. I hope him killing the one man doesn't bring the wrath of the other.

So he can risk getting shot in the throat too?

hopefully, the collaborator will get the death penalty or life without parole for his role in his companions death.

Nah, it would be manslaughter. Parole after a few years, maybe.

He already was risking it wanting to steal a tv. Think about it that way.

Wait, you mean burglary isn't something liberals accept as natural and okay?

Well no. I mean even socialism doesn't tolerate theft with the idea of public ownership. It's not an acceptable form of earning money by people who have empathy or sympathy, which should be everyone... especially liberals. We've got those in spades.

Felony Murder.

Maybe. It depends on the context of the Castle Doctrine, considering it was the occupant who committed the homicide. Either way, the death penalty would be difficult to apply in this case because of the lack of intent.

Are we referring to the "death penalty" administered on Bubba Joe's living room carpet or by the system afterwards?

Update- local pd said that while investigation is ongoing, the shooter acted within his rights, and it is unlikely that any charges will be filed- score one for the good guys.....

while it was the occupant who fired the shot that killed assailant number one, assailant number two was a perpetrator of the crime and is legally responsible for a death during a felony crime. This could be charged capital murder.

Could be. But if the courts are reasonable, they won't seek capital murder on someone without malicious intent on the life of the dead party. And I would support this. I don't see the justice in state-sponsored homicide of a felon involved in a robbery gone wrong, where he didn't have any direct hand in the killing, nor would he want it. This is where the court should show a divide between a modern approach to felony murder in contrast to its ancient roots. I believe the Eighth Amendment might offer help with that.

Maybe it's been said, and maybe it hasn't. What sucks about killing someone in self defence is that you have killed someone. Now, the good part about it is that you are alive, but you have the rest of your life to deal with having brought someone to their end. Now it may well be you can satisfy yourself with "he needed killing", and that's fine, but I think most people who don't kill for a living will find it a bit more difficult than that.

The only extent to which I want to jump into the choice of weapon discussion is to say that it is remarkably easy to do lethal damage with bare hands, and If I have to kill someone, I'd prefer to do it that way. My hands don't go through walls unless I put them there. Course, you have to be within closing distance, but unless a firearm is already drawn, that's about 18'.

No socialism is about the state stealing from its citizens :thumbsup:

You can't tax citizen vrs citizen theft so they don't want any part of it ;)

That would be quite amusing.

Try to burgle a house, your accomplice gets shot and killed by owner, you get the death penalty for his death.

Whoah, careful there. Buddhists are capable of great acts of violence and war.

Like I said... most buddhists. No one's perfect. Not even Richard Gere.

Hahahaa, love the quip about Richard Gere. However, if you insist on saying most Buddhists, then I would say most Christians as well. But really, I am just trying to throw some balance out here in case people erringly think Buddhists are peaceful and non-violent.

I should point out that Buddhism has never declared war and that statistically a Buddhist is the last person who's likely to kill you. Unless you're a hamster. Then you're fucked.

Do something, Gere.

Yeah, at least get some duct tape. (I'll slink back to Nonsense now.)

This is why... well, so many things.

The idea of someone committing a minor property crime getting the death penalty amuses you?

What can be said about such a statement?

This is what happens when the "I'm allright, Jack" culture goes to the extreme I guess...

It sure as hell amuses me. Commit a home invasion, get a faceful of buckshot. Whoa, hey! I guess they didn't see that one coming.

Oh that's bound to happen at some point. It's been, what, three months now?

I like the logic here. Real world consequences make me really happy.

the main paper put on the front page recently a story of two more citizens who were attacked and fought back- one had a drunk, stoned guy try to kick down his door- the victim beat the shit out of him, and when he tried to get up and fight the cops when they got there, they tazed him.... the second was a woman mugged in the lot of a local restraunt- she started fighting with her attacker- said attacker ran off and was arrested nearby- I like the idea of citizens fighting back against criminals- seems like a happier world when a victim becomes a victor...

Matter of proportion, though. Robbery thwarted may be worth jail time or a permanenet limp, but when you kill a man (to borrow a phase from Eastwood) you take away everything he is and everything he was ever gonna be. Castle Doctrine is all fine and well, and I do hope that it will have a deterrant effect, but unless you're in immanent danger of loss of life, or have a reason to suspect that you might be, then killing is probably an overreaction.

Not saying I wouldn't be inclined to overreact to the guy who broke into my house and didn't show his hands when I bent his knee backwards, but there you have it.