A question on the right to self defense

[kkelso]

I have been debating this point with a colleague, so I though I would throw it out to the massed TERB meta-mind. A hypothetical question:

You & your children live in a house. You own a gun. The nearest police are a minimum of 20 minutes away. The following series of events take place. At what point in this sequence of events is it ethically and morally (ignore legalities) acceptable to shoot?

1 - A man you do not know in your vicinity buys a gun
2 - The man walks by your house several times with gun in hand
3 - The man walks onto your property
4 - The man test your back door handle to see if it's locked
5 - The man enters your house
6 - The man shoots at you but misses
7 - The man shoots and hits you

Note: Events 2-7 take place within a 10 minute window.


Please reply with the sequence number you feel is correct. If you could include your nationality that too would be appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[lenharper]

phone the cops at #2. fire your weapon at #6

 

[Anynym]

My understanding is that the courts have looked at what options you had: as you've laid it out, you haven't presented enough details whether you could hide, or escape: can you get to your car and drive away with your family?

Only after all alternatives are exhausted and you are still under direct threat could you reasonably consider aggression and harm as self-defense. If the threat continues after 6, and escape is impossible, I would suggest the criteria are met at that point.

 

[kkelso]

My understanding is that the courts have looked at what options you had: as you've laid it out, you haven't presented enough details whether you could hide, or escape: can you get to your car and drive away with your family?

Only after all alternatives are exhausted and you are still under direct threat could you reasonably consider aggression and harm as self-defense. If the threat continues after 6, and escape is impossible, I would suggest the criteria are met at that point.

Some valid points. For purposes of this question (which has some very real-life implications) I would not see there being any time during 2-7 to do anything like bundling the kids up in a car or hiding in the attic. Perhaps I'll amend the question.

As to what the courts think, I am interested only in the responder's view of right and wrong, not what is lawful.

Thanks for the response.

 

[chuckparker]

What country are you in ???


If in Canada call the cops at #2 as he would not have a license to convey the gun anywhere but to a gun range and back to his house.

I think the correct answer would be to shoot at #6 but I would shoot at #5 .

 

[chuckparker]

Now you have changed the question.....


I would now shoot at #4.

 

[kkelso]

What country are you in ???

I would not see the question of moral and ethical acceptability as being dependent on the country. But to address your issue (I think) I amended the question to be more specific on the issue of time-frame.

 

[kkelso]

Now you have changed the question.....


I would now shoot at #4.

Yeah - sorry, cross-posting (not a fast enough typist). Thanks!

 

[Brill]

#6
Canadian with nicely developing tan on face and arms but hasn't started on his legs yet this year.

 

[GotGusto]

I'd be itching at #4

 

[tboy]

I'd:

Call the cops at 2
Shout a warning at 3
Fire a warning shot at 4
fire at his gut at 5
fire at his head at 6

Deal with the repurcussions later. I'd rather be alive in prison with my family growing old than dead and them raped and or murdered.

Oh, I forgot to add:
If I hit him at 5 and he's still trying to raise his weapon I'd empty mine into him........

 

[Moraff]

Pretty much agree w/ tboy on this one, although I would try to be beside the back door with a club of some sorts to greet him as he came through the door rather than fire a warning shot.

 

[ig-88]

At #5, I would greet him with Amway fliers.

He'll leave.

 

[seth gecko]

I'd shoot at #1, as is the custom of my people....Sicilians!

 

[Don]

Warning shot at #5
Shoot to maim #6

 

[PeterBoms]

I would shoot at #1

Nationality: Wrapped up.

cheers.

 

[mandrill]

Warning shot at #5
Shoot to maim #6

+1 with me.

 

[kkelso]

Warning shot at #5
Shoot to maim #6

So to be clear, a guy with a gun in his hand just forced his way through your back door and is standing in your kitchen, you would fire a shot in the ceiling to warn him off?

Not challenging you at all, just want to understand.

 

[xix]

5 & 6

you are allow to shoot at 5 & 6 as along he is facing you and you shoot on the front of his body. Not the back side that would be first degree or what ever they call it against you that is attack not self defence.

In 2 If possible you should have called if you saw it, but if you kept it to yourself and didn't tell the cops your ass is covered but if slip up in your confession that you did see him they may try to charge you for not calling first.

Also he must have a weapon on his hand. It doesn't matter which way it was held. if he falls down and dies don't kick the weapon out of his hand.

 

[Don]

So to be clear, a guy with a gun in his hand just forced his way through your back door and is standing in your kitchen, you would fire a shot in the ceiling to warn him off?

Not challenging you at all, just want to understand.

I take the concept of shooting someone very very seriously and something I'd like to avoid. If there is a chance that a warning shot might scare the guy away without any bloodshed, I'll give it a shot (literally).