Is the use of deadly force an acceptible way to deal with domestic violence?

Question

On the negative. This is a debate question. So why should the use of deadly force not be used?

Answer 1

How about for the simplest of reasons: Victims of domestic violence DO have another alternative -- get the f**k out of that abusive environment!

Answer 2

that is to open of a question there is not enough info fo form a real answer. if you gave a situation with a little more detail we would be able to tell you if it was acceptable to use deadly force. deadly force is only used to defend the officers or someone else when no other means will work. so there are a lot of times when it is necessary because those situations are very tricky and can go bad really quickly.

Answer 3

The only way that deadly force can be legally justified in a domestic violence situation, or any other situation, is when the person being assailed or a witness to the crime feels that the victim's live is in imminent danger. At this point a legal homicide is justified.

Answer 4

In any situation that there is the possiblility of loss of life or serious bodily injury, then deadly force is justified, and in any of those cases, deadly force should be used. Now, on the other side of the coin, you can use non-leathal force like a tazer, so the dirtbag can serve time, but in my oponion, anyone trying to kill you, does not deserve that option (waste of taxpayer money). One last thing, I am very partial in another law enforcement tool, and it can be a great site to see, that is when it comes to dirtbags, "K-9"!!!!!!

Answer 5

Deadly force is justified depending on the circumstances at the time. Usually, in the USA, it can be used only if the person using it is in *immediate* fear of serious bodily injury or death.

Of course, that is simply stated...there are innumerable nuances associated with each circumstance that are factors to be considered -- that's what juries do.

Answer 6

Only that force necessary to neutralize the threat as it is a threat should ever be used. It circumstances arise calling for the use of deadly force, use it. Remember though, you will live with the fact that you killed another person. Not as easy to live with as you might think.

Answer 7

Deadly force should never be used in any situation.

Answer 8

It would depend on the violence of the domestic violence.

If it looks like one is going to be killed by the other, then definitely.

Answer 9

Deadly force is justifiable if it is leveled against you.

Answer 10

Under NY law, a person may use deadly physical force upon another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself or someone else from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful deadly physical force by such individual.
Some of the terms used in this definition have their own special meaning in our law. I will now give you the meaning of the following terms: "deadly physical force" and "reasonably believes." DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE means physical force, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.
Serious physical injury means impairment of a person's physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

The determination of whether a person REASONABLY BELIEVES deadly physical force to be necessary to defend himself/herself or someone else from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by another individual requires the application of a two-part test. That test applies to this case in the following way:
First, the defendant must have actually believed that the other person was using or was about to use deadly physical force against him/her or someone else, and that the defendant's own use of deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself from it; and
Second, a "reasonable person" in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have had those same beliefs.

Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself or someone else against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable.
To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself or someone else from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by the other person, and a "reasonable person" in the defendant's position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too.
On the question of whether the defendant did reasonably believe that deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself or someone else from what he/she reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by the other person, it does not matter that the defendant was or may have been mistaken in his/her belief; provided that such belief was both honestly held and reasonable.