Deadly force to keep lethally contagious sick people from infecting you/your children/family?

I've often read survivalists saying how in a social breakdown dystopia they would shoot people to protect their food. I wouldn't.

But what about sick people with a lethal contagious disease for which if infected your entire family and you die? And what level of risk?

This next "To American With Love" disease from China - as happens every year - is claimed to only have a 2% lethality rate but is extremely contagious and easily passed to others. What if the lethality is higher? Much higher? And it has gone pandemic (wide spread?)

You are in public. You HAD to go somewhere - and a coughing beggar or beggars are approaching you. They won't stop. You can't outrun them. If they get to you? The odds are 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% 50%, 75% that you will die - and if you ever return to your family you'll kill them. So, is there a threshold you can shot someone who may kill you with a pandemic known killer disease?

Or, another example, you know someone is HIV/AIDS positive. This person is attacking, trying to bite and fight you. Would be justifiable self defense to shoot that person if you can't escape/outrun that person trying to bite you? What if the person says "I'm going to bite you and give you AIDS." Can you shoot that person to prevent it, or are you obligated to let yourself be infected with AIDS or some other passable deadly incurable disease?

How great does the risk have to be? What self defense rights do you have to defend yourself from someone(s) who recklessly, stupidly, in their own desperation or deliberately infecting you/your family etc with an easily passed incurable disease with a high rate of lethality?

This ^^^worries me.

Wouldn't be a normal day on DP without Joko saying something ****ing mental.

It is never appropriate to use deadly force without warning against someone who has no intention of harming you. Even if they are a Typhoid Mary.

Jetboogieman said:

Wouldn't be a normal day on DP without Joko saying something ****ing mental.

Click to expand...

Really? You're going flame and bait a thread that is just a thought game? Seriously? I cant say what I want, but lets just say I said some very derogatory things about you and your various aspects. At least the thread is not another in a long line of stupid threads about the impeachment or Trump or Washington.

Pandemic spread of disease was genocidal to the indigenous peoples of the America's. Estimates of those killed ranges from 100 to 200 million. The Spanish flu infected 1/3rd of the world's population killing at least 50,000,000 people. The kill rates when countries were more isolated than now could be as high as 1/3th the population.
Even world war deaths pale compared to many, many of the world's pandemic spread of disease. The extreme mobility of people and crowded nature of the world allows a pandemic deadly disease to spread at unprecedented rates.

Jetboogieman said:

Wouldn't be a normal day on DP without Joko saying something ****ing mental.

Click to expand...

Your constant efforts to turn the forum entirely into your trashed out basement shouldn't be tolerated.

Your message, singularly, is to derail and to bait with a personal attack trying to convert this into a name-calling basement quality thread.

I'm not the topic. Trump isn't the Topic.

You do this incessantly. I am not a moderator so I won't cite the rules you violated in that message in my opinion and probably a fourth of every message that you post outside of the basement.

Why don't you go start a thread about me in the basement? You got that one covered. :thumbs:

Do you have anything to post on the topic of this thread?

joko104 said:

Those of you Democrats who are on the forum who just troll and derail on the forum should be thrown off the forum. You rant on and on we are all going to die from climate change - and try to derail what not only MIGHT kill people - it IS killing people and so great that entire cities are being quarantined.

Click to expand...

Is this directed toward me?

PirateMk1 said:

Is this directed toward me?

Click to expand...

Nah. joko knows who he is after.

There is nothing unusual about the poll. Back with the Avian flu scare, government plans included declaring martial law, ordering everyone quarantined to their own homes, and with the National Guard possibly being authorized to shoot those who violate the quarantine if necessary to stop some. Movies have been made on this potential. It has been discussed as policy questions.

Enforced quarantines has been the most successful - even possibly only - way to stop a pandemic from becoming genocidal. Not everyone agrees to being quarantined.

PirateMk1 said:

Really? You're going flame and bait a thread that is just a thought game? Seriously? I cant say what I want, but lets just say I said some very derogatory things about you and your various aspects. At least the thread is not another in a long line of stupid threads about the impeachment or Trump or Washington.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I deleted my message. Got it all wrong.

joko104 said:

Sorry, I deleted my message. Got it all wrong.

Click to expand...

No worries. Cheers.

This is fear-mongering and fanning the flames of paranoia.

You would have no means to know if your "coughing beggar" is infected with Disease X or not.

Applying that sort of logic to general self defense would lead to tactically clearing and detaining and checking everyone in the room for weapons every time you enter, just because it's the only way you could feel safe for a few seconds.

Life's to short to sit around worrying all day, and no one gets out alive in any case.

How is that different from any govt mandated quarantine? There are scenarios where that is exactly the plan...kill any who try to leave the quarantined area.

What is the difference between that and the OP?

joko104 said:

What self defense rights do you have to defend yourself from someone(s) who recklessly, stupidly, in their own desperation or deliberately infecting you/your family etc with an easily passed incurable disease with a high rate of lethality?

Click to expand...

1. The OP has asked a serious question.

2. In 2020 America, one has NO rights to use deadly force against someone with a deadly disease.

3. If one shot a homeless person with Coronavirus or a person with HIV, the police, the courts, and the media would consider the shooter to be a criminal and a bigot.

4. No jury (at least in big cities) would let the shooter go.

5. And when the shooter was sent to prison, s/he would be even more liable to be beaten up or raped, not to mention possibly being infected.

6. The only thing one has is hope. Hope that one is not attacked by a homeless person or a person with HIV. This means that one must be very careful where one goes in the city.

7. I think that some people WOULD shoot a dangerous person who had broken into their home. They would have to face the full force of the government against them, but no doubt some courageous people would be willing to pay the price in order to protect themselves and their loved ones.

I gave the counter point of starving people because some survivalists see the potential threat of desperate people that will attack to take food because they are starving. They talk of shooting starving mobs from their fortress.

We do have "dystopia" plans and supplies. It basically is for stages. Simply locking down staying out the public to going into hiding or offshore with lots and lots of supplies.

But shoot starving people? Children? Women? Hell no. For this, we have a few 55 gallon drums of cheap basic long term storage basics - certain types of beans, rice, dried potatoes, milk etc. plus lots of cheap vitamins and plastic bags with sealers to distribute it. If it is turning violent or overwhelming - then we flee and hide - rather than just gunning down desperate starving people. We also calculated taking in up to 100 people for a month. Theoretically, we could go for years or indefinitely by hunting and fishing. We are probably the best place in the USA for that and for hiding out. The swamps, estuaries and Gulf has an endless easy supply of food. Easy to hide. Or run and hide way out in the Gulf of Mexico.

We can feed people. But we can't help lethally contagious sick people. If any were trying to break in? I'd shoot to protect the lives of my family IF none of our NON-lethal options were successful. I WILL PROTECT MY FAMILY. If it comes down to that, LAW is irrelevant.

Paranoia? Sure. But anyone who has ever reached the point of starvation for him/herself and others such as their child will be like Scarlet in Gone With The Wind. "I swear I'll never go hungry again!" Long ago, I've been there. For a few hundred dollars a person can have sealed drums with enough food to feed their family for half a year or longer. And sealed drums of other emergency supplies for a few hundred more. We did NOT just calculate for ourselves, but many more people. We even have a collection of seeds and this land is very fertile - and some very remote and difficult to find.

WillyPete said:

This is fear-mongering and fanning the flames of paranoia.

You would have no means to know if your "coughing beggar" is infected with Disease X or not.

Applying that sort of logic to general self defense would lead to tactically clearing and detaining and checking everyone in the room for weapons every time you enter, just because it's the only way you could feel safe for a few seconds.

Life's to short to sit around worrying all day, and no one gets out alive in any case.

Click to expand...

Not every question is a legal question. "Do you have a right to..." also can be an ethical question. Unless a total social breakdown with massive levels of death, without a doubt you would be prosecuted as a legal question. But more I'm asking an ETHICAL question. How much RISK by others does a person ethically have to take towards their children, themselves and/or others?

For legalities, if the GOVERNMENT can shoot people breaking quarantine to protect themselves and society, is this ethical for them - but not for you to do for the identical reason?

Again, this is a discussion topic, not a claim this is coming. I do think this will go worldwide like a flu. I do not think it will lead to massive levels of death or social chaos. That said, one person we know has a very seriously compromised immune system, so it would take little spreading of this before that person will be put into a rare isolated situation as comfortable as possible including in relation to us.

joko104 said:

Not every question is a legal question. "Do you have a right to..." also can be an ethical question. Unless a total social breakdown with massive levels of death, without a doubt you would be prosecuted as a legal question. But more I'm asking an ETHICAL question. How much RISK by others does a person ethically have to take towards their children, themselves and/or others?

For legalities, if the GOVERNMENT can shoot people breaking quarantine to protect themselves and society, is this ethical for them - but not for you to do for the identical reason?

Click to expand...

My answer was based in ethics. You would have no way to know your beggar was infected based on a cough. Your scenario presumes something that you couldn't presume in reality. It would be (very clearly, to me) wrong to attack them under those circumstances.

It's ethically wrong for the government to kill anyone, in my book. Its even more ethically wrong for me to do it.

These things are subjective. Check your book. It'll tell you when the time is right to start shooting strangers for coughing near you.

The World Health Organization just declared this is a "global health emergency" -
Coronavirus declared global health emergency by WHO - BBC News

WillyPete said:

My answer was based in ethics. You would have no way to know your beggar was infected based on a cough. Your scenario presumes something that you couldn't presume in reality. It would be (very clearly, to me) wrong to attack them under those circumstances.

It's ethically wrong for the government to kill anyone, in my book. Its even more ethically wrong for me to do it.

These things are subjective. Check your book. It'll tell you when the time is right to start shooting strangers for coughing near you.

Click to expand...

If your rules is how people always saw it, there would be no humans on earth. Virtually every one of the great civilizations was suddenly taken to extinction by disease - everywhere in the world. In Peru. 100% total genocide (literally 100%) for every Caribbean nation, in Mexico, In Cambodia. In the Middle East. Africa - everywhere. Virtually every empire that suddenly disappears forever - some we only find their massive cities in some discovery - everywhere.

Here, the "Natural Gulf Coast Of Florida" for thousands of years there was a highly populous peoples. They were so advanced for the era the were smelting copper for tools, jewelry etc. So populous that all the shell islands here are their dumps they used for centuries. This area is over 1000 miles of shallow warm Gulf Waters - the birthing grounds of the entire Gulf Of Mexico. It was the largest clam and scallop fields in the world. And then they just disappeared. There is only one explanation: disease. It is the explanation why all those discovered vast cities in jungles, in deserts, everywhere became empty.

It can not be from war, though war or civil war maybe have lead to it or happened within it. If that was so, then the city would belong to the conquers. People would have come back to use the buildings - rather than living in the jungle or open desert. It is because disease was always believed to be caused by some form of evil or curse from some supernatural power. Even if anyone survived, it would have been who felt or lived on the outskirts - for which that place was so evil it killed everyone.

It is known that a disease outbreak CAN kill 100% of every human in a society or country. Everyone. Because we know that happened many, many times. Everywhere. It is not disputed that every country, every society, every last person on every Caribbean Island died - 100% extinction for all of them. And some are very, very big islands and the Caribbean is HUGE - these counties separated by as much as over 1000 miles by water.

In terms of mass killing people, everything else combined including all wars, all pale compared to by diseases.

The World Health Organization just declared this is a "global health emergency" -
Coronavirus declared global health emergency by WHO - BBC News

This does not mean this can't be contained. Doesn't mean it will kill millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people. But it is official the THE most respected and diverse group of scientists and specialists in diseases and pandemics that it possibly that it could do exactly that.

Not as serious to some as the sea level being 6 inches higher by 2050, but I've always believed THE #1 risk of humanity destroying itself is in having virtually unregulated or policed laboratories - medical, corporate profit and military purpose motivated - genetically altering and evolving micro organisms like virus, fungus and bacteria. Regardless of their motive, an artificially created lethal micro organism by "oops!" (something we'd likely never be told), could kill all humans because it is artificially the challenge to figure how to combat it or treat is symptomatically could be extremely difficult to impossible.

The worst monsters on earth have always been too small to be able to see. And there's a lot of them and they are always evolving to having new sneak attack and transportation methods.

joko104 said:

I've often read survivalists saying how in a social breakdown dystopia they would shoot people to protect their food. I wouldn't.

But what about sick people with a lethal contagious disease for which if infected your entire family and you die? And what level of risk?

This next "To American With Love" disease from China - as happens every year - is claimed to only have a 2% lethality rate but is extremely contagious and easily passed to others. What if the lethality is higher? Much higher? And it has gone pandemic (wide spread?)

You are in public. You HAD to go somewhere - and a coughing beggar or beggars are approaching you. They won't stop. You can't outrun them. If they get to you? The odds are 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% 50%, 75% that you will die - and if you ever return to your family you'll kill them. So, is there a threshold you can shot someone who may kill you with a pandemic known killer disease?

Or, another example, you know someone is HIV/AIDS positive. This person is attacking, trying to bite and fight you. Would be justifiable self defense to shoot that person if you can't escape/outrun that person trying to bite you? What if the person says "I'm going to bite you and give you AIDS." Can you shoot that person to prevent it, or are you obligated to let yourself be infected with AIDS or some other passable deadly incurable disease?

How great does the risk have to be? What self defense rights do you have to defend yourself from someone(s) who recklessly, stupidly, in their own desperation or deliberately infecting you/your family etc with an easily passed incurable disease with a high rate of lethality?

Click to expand...

I can't outrun coughing diseased beggars? That's like rule number 1!

Someone has seen all the zombie movies!

joko104 said:

Pandemic spread of disease was genocidal to the indigenous peoples of the America's. Estimates of those killed ranges from 100 to 200 million. The Spanish flu infected 1/3rd of the world's population killing at least 50,000,000 people. The kill rates when countries were more isolated than now could be as high as 1/3th the population.
Even world war deaths pale compared to many, many of the world's pandemic spread of disease. The extreme mobility of people and crowded nature of the world allows a pandemic deadly disease to spread at unprecedented rates.

Click to expand...

Ok but given that scenario where would you really "have to go"?

Drawdown said:

Ok but given that scenario where would you really "have to go"?

Click to expand...

We live on the West Coast of Florida. No place in the USA would be better to "bug out" to if you know the area and are prepared. Endless supply of food. Impassable woodland swamps. Thousands of small islands. Low population. This gives 3 options for staying away from people;

1. Hide out in the woodland swamps like my ancestors did successfully from the USA military in the past

2. Hide out on one of the shell islands

3. Head out into the Gulf of Mexico and stay out there until the pandemic passes.

Or shifting between those 3. For example, have a sequence, plus various places to hide supplies. Start on land, move to an island if your location is discovered and people coming. Then, if that ceased to be private, head out into the Gulf Of Mexico - but able to sneak back to resupply.

Who has little choices are people who live in cities. Hiding out in the mountains somewhere is likely starvation plus millions of people can't all go stay away from each other in the mountains, woods for flatlands. I doubt most people have enough food on hand to last more than a week or two - and little means or skill to acquire food, which would deplete nationwide within days.



All three of those would avoid contact with people. The question is do you have what you need to do so. We do. Very much so.