Defense of family or self surely. Probably also for revenge for any heinous crime committed against my family. The only good John Grisham book, IMHO, is Time to Kill, because I found that scenario totally plausible.
Could any guy really tell me he wouldn’t kill someone who raped and beat his daughter?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Could any guy really tell me he wouldn’t kill someone who raped and beat his daughter?[/quote]
Not if he is an honest man.
Tell me, Boston: how much do laws concerning the concept of “justifiable homicide” vary throughout the United States? I do know that laws in Oklahoma and Colorado allow the use of force, including deadly force, in defending one’s home, but I imagine this is not the case in all states.
In the example of the father killing a man who has beat and raped his daughter, I assume that one may legally kill the bastard only while he is in flagrante delecto, but not post facto. In other words, once he’s done fucking and beating your daughter, if he runs away, you can’t chase him down and shoot him. Is this the case in all states?
And what about killing to prevent a rape? Or a robbery, or a carjacking?
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Threaten my family, let me see you hitting a woman or a child, attack me or my family, or touch my food I will not hesitate one second.
Okay the food was a little over the top. [/quote]
By hitting a child, I’m going to assume you mean senselessly beating, rather than disciplining.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Could any guy really tell me he wouldn’t kill someone who raped and beat his daughter?
Varqanir wrote:
Not if he is an honest man.
Tell me, Boston: how much do laws concerning the concept of “justifiable homicide” vary throughout the United States? I do know that laws in Oklahoma and Colorado allow the use of force, including deadly force, in defending one’s home, but I imagine this is not the case in all states. [/quote]
It’s a rather complex area. Justifiable homicide almost invariably involves real-time defense of self or others. Juries, however, have been known to nullify the application of laws to people who “needed killin’.”
Also, even with self defense, you need to only use “reasonable force.” And generally, you have a duty to retreat from a confrontation if you can do so safely - this duty to retreat applies to self defense mostly, not to defense of others, but I suppose it could be problematic if you punched someone for verbally threatening someone else.
Many states do have “castle exceptions” to the duty of retreat – a “man’s home is his castle” and he does not have to retreat from an intruder to invoke self defense.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In the example of the father killing a man who has beat and raped his daughter, I assume that one may legally kill the bastard only while he is in flagrante delecto, but not post facto. In other words, once he’s done fucking and beating your daughter, if he runs away, you can’t chase him down and shoot him. Is this the case in all states? [/quote]
Pretty much. I’d need to check on Texas. =-)
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And what about killing to prevent a rape? Or a robbery, or a carjacking?[/quote]
The problem there is in application of deadly force to something you’re assuming might happen. You’d need to prove it to a jury – and you’d probably also run afoul of a requirement to use “reasonable” force if you shot someone rather than just pointing the gun at him and ordering him to do something. I’m sure we could create a hypothetical in which it would be permissible to use lethal force to prevent a non-lethal crime, but it would be tough.
Remember – “self defense” is an affirmative defense. Thus, the burden of proof to demonstrate the facts that justify use of self defense is on the person who used the deadly force.
Yup…the thought crosses my mind every time I hear Rosie open her mouth
For straight up first degree murder, it’s a VERY SHORT list, likely even zero.
For second degree, voluntary manslaughter, self-defense, defense of loved ones, military service, etc., the possibilities are endless.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Could any guy really tell me he wouldn’t kill someone who raped and beat his daughter?
Varqanir wrote:
Not if he is an honest man.
pushharder wrote:
Then place a huge, black, felt tip pen mark in the column under “dishonest man” for me.[/quote]
Really Push? You wouldn’t, if you had the chance?
Let’s make this a purely moral question on the killing itself, not a mature consideration of possible consequences to your family: If you knew you would not face conviction or not get caught, would you kill a guy you knew had raped and beaten your daughter?
Like This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_fullscreen?video_id=7eelg6ZPcp8&l=159&t=OEgsToPDskL9ybtCtEGc99tM2afTX1DY&fs=1&title=Ashida Kim
Interview 2
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
By hitting a child, I’m going to assume you mean senselessly beating, rather than disciplining.[/quote]
Yes. I figured senselessly beating was implied.
[quote]Dweezil wrote:
Would you do it for money?
Would I get caught? Is the person an asshole?
For love?
To protect the ones I love, or in this hypothetical situation would I be pussywhipped and ordered by her highness to off someone?
For revenge?
Depending on what was done. Did you take a baseball bat to my car? I’ll kill you. Did you do anything to my dog? I’ll set you on fire in a small room with no way out. My mother? Kill. A friend? … It depends on the friend. Did you steal my money? Not likely, but I’d find a good PI and have him make your life difficult. An ex-girlfriend? I’ll buy you a drink.
For a political ideal?
Unless the political ideal is someone believing they should enslave me, no.
For religion?
Unless the religion involves someone believing they should enslave me or kill me, no.
In self-defence?
Without hesitation.
For fun?
What’s fun about killing someone?
Or never?
Nobody would never kill someone. Even self-declared pacifists have a breaking point. [/quote]
What he said. This sums it up pretty nicely.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, I do realize that. Our old grudge goes back for generations and must handicap me in my “discussions” with you.[/quote]
Nah, I bear you no grudge for anything, man. But what I think handicaps you in our discussions is your tendency to pick nits: miniscule details, little words and phrases that you don’t especially care for…you go off on those, and ignore the main themes, which actually you and I pretty much agree on. Just sayin’.
[quote]Your amended parenthetical statement leaves a lot to be desired and like I said earlier would stir much dissension from those who have fought since then and from their widows and heirs. Good luck and don’t forget to be intrepid on your journey into these dark waters. It’s 1941 all over again and YOU are now the unescorted freighter off the coast of Newfoundland bound for the Thames carrying a load of military supplies. Feelin’ lucky, are ye?
[/quote]
For heaven’s sake, Push. I’ll say this one last time. If I am outside of the United States, or outside of United States territorial waters, and am attacked by Japanese Zero fighters, German U-boats, or the fucking Swiss Navy, then I may defend myself, my home, my ship, my property, my family, my friends and the men in my command. I may do it honorably and effectively, as the men who defended the freighters from submarine attack did, as as every American did who fought from Pearl Harbor to Normandy. I may fight in the name of my country, on behalf of my country, with weapons issued by my country, BUT unless America is attacked or invaded, and I am fighting these attackers or invaders on American soil or in American waters, I do not consider that I am fighting to defend my country.
It’s a semantic point we’re not agreeing on, Push. Let’s let it go.
Unless, of course, you’re anti-semantic. 
Oh, and no, Push, I was NOT implying that the men who fought before Pearl Harbor and after Normandy fought dishonorably or ineffectively. Sheesh.
V
[quote]BostonBarrister asked:
Could any guy really tell me he wouldn’t kill someone who raped and beat his daughter?
Varqanir responded:
Not if he is an honest man.
pushharder objected:
Then place a huge, black, felt tip pen mark in the column under “dishonest man” for me.
BostonBarrister then queried:
Really Push? You wouldn’t, if you had the chance?
[/quote]
Boston, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that my buddy Push would most definitely blow several large holes in the head and torso of a man who had just raped and beaten his daughter. As would I. As would any man. Anyone who says he wouldn’t is a liar, like I said earlier.
However, it looks to me as if Push – astonishingly enough – misunderstood my statement and took issue with it.
Push: read Boston’s question one more time, slowly and out loud. Then read my response. Then read your response. Is that really what you wanted to say?
The original question reminds me of the movie Deliverance. Burt’s character easily took to the task without hesitation. Jon Voight’s character struggled greatly with killing, first with the deer, and then successfully with the man. I’d like to think under those circumstances I would be like Burt.
D
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
The original question reminds me of the movie Deliverance. Burt’s character easily took to the task without hesitation. Jon Voight’s character struggled greatly with killing, first with the deer, and then successfully with the man. I’d like to think under those circumstances I would be like Burt.
D [/quote]
But would you squeal like a pig?
Straying off topic just a little bit… but let me say, Dedicated, that that is one fine little body on the woman in your avatar. Who is that?