If someone is going to kill you, are you justified in using lethal means (if necessay) to stay alive?

Question

Or, perhaps, do you believe that there is NEVER a situation in which lethal means are "necessary"?

Answer 1

you do have a right to protect yourself. it's what you use and how far you go.

Answer 2

I sure as hell wish somebody would try and kill me.

In my early twenties I spent three months in Israel and Russia, and eight in the Orient learning 5 different kinds of Martial Arts, and combined, roughly a hundred different ways to kill a man with my bare hands. I've never had a chance to actually use them since, making that year of my life all most completely worthless. I say all most completely because I did learn Russian, Mandarin, Japanese, and a bit of Hebrew.

But seriously, I would absolutely love for some guy to try and mug me when I'm walking home from campus some time. I bet I'd be in the news for kicking his butt so badly.

Answer 3

Yes. That's the classic definition of self-defense. It is even justified if you reasonably believe they are going to kill you, even if it turns out they were not. If they only meant to frighten or threaten you, for example, you are justified in believing they would carry out the threat, and defend yourself.

Answer 4

Only in the case of you are being attacked by the mob, a gangster, or you are in some deep hole with enemies of the state should you be inclined to use lethal force..and by lethal do you mean maritial arts? It is against the law in some states to use lethal force including yourself against an opposing threat. For instance if somebody broke into your house to steal and you were protecting yourself by using lethal force such as martial arts against this person..and they were injured because of it. They can take you to court and sue you because of it...even though they were in violation of you, your house, and the law.

Answer 5

Yeah, of course. I mean, unless you feel that the other person's life is more valuable for some reason. But the defense reaction is automatic anyway. Of course I'm sure by "lethal means" you mean a gun or other weapon, which means that you have it on or near you, which means you've thought about it and prepared for it, and it IS a fine line between legitimate self-defense and a trigger-happy gun-nut. Not that there isn't a line, and not that I have any problem whatsoever with the responsible use of weapons for self-defense.

Answer 6

If there is no other way, sure. I'f you that worried about it I suggest learning Aikido. It is martial arts that focuses on defensive tactics to immobilize and/or unarm an attacker very quickly. As it is almost purely a responsive martial arts, using the attackers own energy and momentum against him, it is learned by many Buddhist monks and laypeople in Asian countries.

Answer 7

Not being Amish, or a true pacifist, I would have o say yes, it's survival instinct.

I am originally from the southwest, when I was a kid lots of people still carried guns openly in a holster for everyone to see... odd thing, people seemed more polite in those days.


CZ 75 works for me

Answer 8

It's called self-defense. If someone is making a lethal threat against me or my loved ones (or even total strangers) and I have the means to kill him/her first, I would do it. That's one of the reasons I have my sweet little Svetlana... a nice Czech 9mm.

Answer 9

In the United States the laws than govern the use of deadly force are well defined, if the criteria is met on ability, opportunity and intent I 'll have no problem stopping the threat.

Answer 10

I see, and I agree... this line of questioning will only lead to either the acceptance that all morals are relative to context and situation, or stubborn people who refuse admit that all morals are subject to context and situation. A star for you from a confirmed fellow atheist.

Answer 11

I believe that lethal means are often justified, especially in the circumstances that you just described.