• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?

Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?

  • Total voters
    33
Henrin said:
The Garner situation you can watch on youtube, so unless the video has been edited everything is right there for all to see.
Click to expand...
Yes, Garner was resisting arrest.

Again though, people looked into the claims by the police and all of them appear to be full of it. Garner was doing nothing wrong and by all accounts they had no reason approach or attack him.
Click to expand...
The police can approach anyone they want ant any time for no reason at all.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The stupid **** should habe complied.
Click to expand...

He had no real reason to do so. He did nothing wrong and from the looks of it the police were not listening to him or bothering to discover the truth.

The facts matter, not what you recall.
Click to expand...

So you have some fact that says otherwise?

Eric Garner was in the commission of a crime when the cops approached him.
Click to expand...

He was not in any sort way in the commission of a crime, which is obvious since he was doing nothing wrong as the evidence shows.

None of this matters. Garner should still have complied.
Click to expand...

The evidence shows the police lied about their reason to approach Garner. We don't know the real reason they decided to approach Garner since they decided to lie about it, but if I had to guess I would say they were likely up to no good.
 
The Mark said:
Several events over the past year or so lead me to this question.

Is fear of harm/death caused by another sufficient reason to kill them?

Regardless of what the current law is, where do we draw the line between a person claiming a threat of attack/death by another person as a justification for killing that person, and allowing a person in such a situation to defend themselves from harm or death using lethal force?

In some cases, the current laws seem to allow a person who for one reason or another (poor preparation, misunderstanding of situation, nervousness, etc.) thought they were going to be attacked or killed - to kill another person and face no significant consequences.
In other cases, the same laws may allow a person who is actually being threatened and in danger of death to defend themselves by killing the person who was going to kill them.



Yet there seems to be a worrying trend of higher profile events wherein police officers shoot an unarmed person, or a person who is not threatening them, due to claimed fear for their life. Whether this actually was the case, or they're just claiming it to save themselves from prison time, it seems we need to prevent such things. If at all possible.

But how?

More and better training for police?
Stricter internal controls to remove unfit officers from the police force?
Higher pay to attract and retain the best possible officers?
All of the above?


Either way, the original question which prompted me to write this, in poll form:

Is being afraid for your life sufficient justification to kill a person?
Click to expand...

Like most things it depends on the person and the situation. A 90 lbs woman being assaulted by a 200 lbs man? armed or unarmed? If she was able to use a weapon up to and including a gun, I would say it's justified. If a 200 lbs man was being attacked by a 90 lbs woman? I would say if he is just pushing her away etc, yea that's fine. If he kills her? No. Not justified at all unless she had a gun or other deadly weapon.

So it boils down to the situation and what would be considered reasonable for that individual. That would be for the courts to decide.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Yes, Garner was resisting arrest.
Click to expand...

A pretty fair reach you're making there. He moved slightly when the effort was made and didn't show any sign of force. Again, he wanted to talk it out and they were being assholes about the whole thing for really no reason.


The police can approach anyone they want ant any time for no reason at all.
Click to expand...

And yet no one has to talk to them. Remember kids to say the following:

Am I under arrest?

If they answer no:

Then I'm free to go.

If they keep talking then just repeat the same two lines over and over again until they either leave you alone, arrest you, or beat you up. If they arrest or beat you up then you have their asses for lunch in court. Pretty simple.

If they kill you, well, hopefully the courts get them, but I doubt it.
 
Henrin said:
He had no real reason to do so. He did nothing wrong and from the looks of it the police were not listening to him or bothering to discover the truth.
Click to expand...
The reason to comply is so you don't get hurt resisting. Garner's reasons are immaterial.
So you have some fact that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
You need to present facts your recall is meaningless.



He was not in any sort way in the commission of a crime, which is obvious since he was doing nothing wrong as the evidence shows.
Click to expand...
Why didn't you present this evidence to the grand jury?



The evidence shows the police lied about their reason to approach Garner.
Click to expand...
They don't need any evidence to approach anybody.

We don't know the real reason they decided to approach Garner since they decided to lie about it, but if I had to guess I would say they were likely up to no good.
Click to expand...
They didn't need a reason to approach people.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The reason to comply is so you don't get hurt resisting. Garner's reasons are immaterial.
Click to expand...

Ah..the my way or the highway approach. Not a real successful approach for the police these days. You guys might want to try being less authoritarian on the streets. If you listen to people and work with people the dangers of the job might just decrease.

You need to present facts your recall is meaningless.
Click to expand...

So you got nothing.

Why didn't you present this evidence to the grand jury?
Click to expand...

They already knew it. There is no evidence he had anything illegal on his person.


They don't need any evidence to approach anybody.
Click to expand...

They still lied about their reasoning to do so. :shrug:

They didn't need a reason to approach people.
Click to expand...

They still lied about why they did.
 
Henrin said:
A pretty fair reach you're making there. He moved slightly when the effort was made and didn't show any sign of force. Again, he wanted to talk it out and they were being assholes about the whole thing for really no reason.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not reaching. You're pretending you knits the entirety of the circumstance.




And yet no one has to talk to them.
Click to expand...
And yet they still have the right to approach anybody.

You don't have to say a thing to an officer.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, I'm not reaching. You're pretending you knits the entirety of the circumstance.
Click to expand...

It's all on video. They try to arrest him during a discussion and he moves slightly. At this point they react to his movement and escalate the situation to retarded heights.


And yet they still have the right to approach anybody.
Click to expand...

And yet they shouldn't be running around bothering people for no ****ing reason.

You don't have to say a thing to an officer.
Click to expand...

Indeed. You can just stand there if you want.
 
Henrin said:
Ah..the my way or the highway approach. Not a real successful approach for the police these days. You guys might want to try being less authoritarian on the streets. If you listen to people and work with people the dangers of the job might just decrease.
Click to expand...
Authoritarian? No. They are there to enforce the law.
So you got nothing.
Click to expand...
I wasn't presenting anything. You were blathering about your memories. You have nothing. I pointed that out.



They already knew it. There is no evidence he had anything illegal on his person.
Click to expand...
So the grand jury is in cahoots with the cops to kill black people? You need the conspiracy theory forum.




They still lied about their reasoning to do so. :shrug:They still lied about why they did.
Click to expand...
Proof?
 
Henrin said:
It's all on video.
Click to expand...
Tell the grand jury.

They try to arrest him during a discussion and he moves slightly. At this point they react to his movement and escalate the situation to retarded heights.
Click to expand...
Moves slightly how?




And yet they shouldn't be running around bothering people for no ****ing reason.
Click to expand...
If Garner didn't want to be bothered he should have stayed home.
 
cuban smokes said:
many years ago when I lived in Dallas, Texas I met a former sheriff from Arkansas. We met by chance & she was quite an impressive person.
She relayed a story to me of how she came to the conclusion of her LE career.
She told me how she shot a suspect one day, a suspect that was a potential lethal threat to her.
What did she do when confronted by this, "lethal threat?"
She shot the perp .................... in the knee :shock: .............. so, he could no longer advance toward her.

She went on to explain that the threat was no longer a threat because of her actions; actions that did NOT involve killing the suspect.
Don't get me wrong; she was fully within her training & duty to utilize deadly force upon the suspect but she did not.
She saved the guys life by shooting him in the knee, even while potentially risking her own life.

She also went on to explain how at EVERY level within the department she never heard the end of the story when it came to her NOT shooting to kill the suspect.
After she wounded the suspect, stopped his advances, and stopped the threat, EVERYONE within her department over a period of time continued to harass her, and attempted to convince her that she did the WRONG thing by wounding the suspect.
Everyone told her she was supposed to KILL the suspect, that her duty was to KILL the suspect, and that she had FAILED in her duty to kill the suspect.

After some time of enduring this from everyone within her department she finally resigned, and she left LE for good.

She also told me that basically everyone that had harassed here told her basically the same thing but a different thing.
She said everyone told her, "you shoot to kill BECAUSE a dead suspect won't testify in court."

This was over 30 years ago; what an eye opening insight & introduction to the mindset of the LE community ..................
Click to expand...

To the bolded, I suspect that is the same advice given in most civilian firearm training courses as well. Pointing and firing a gun at someone is considered lethal force whether you hit the subject or not. If you aim to wound them then it could be said that you weren't in fear of your life. So in order to claim to self defense you have to kill the subject. Philando Castile was shot five times to make sure he was dead so the officer could claim using lethal force in self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom