How can you justify killing someone in self-defence?

> I disagree with shooting a burglar, the burglar's objective is not to do personal harm.

So its the intent? How can you determine this? I feel it would be awfully difficult to enact a decision from context, some random guy in your house stealing your shit. How would you know they wouldn't lash out on you given the chance to escape?

If his color of skin is darker than mine

A man attacks you with the intent to end your life. Where is ending his to preserve your own wrong?
He has violated any form of social contract that exists between you, he has attempted to remove your right to live and his life not be considered more valuable than yours (if you're the type who believes in classical liberalism), and he has engaged a conflict between you which will end in the death of one party and the continued reproductive capacity of the other (you know, evolution and all that). If someone attempted to kill you you would think it wrong to take his life instead?

>How can you justify killing someone in self-defence?
You just did.

>It was in self defence
There you go

Its me or you

>self defense

Bingo.

Nigga burglars rape and kill all the time what are you talking about.

Not that guy, but you can't. However, this is why most places have laws that will punish you for shooting a burglar in the back, because he probably had no client intent and was trying to run.

Not realty. Most states have some sort of castle doctrine that allows you to shoot anyone trespassing in your property of you feel harm is about to be done to you.

If you convince a judge that despite having his back turned toward you he still had an intent to harm you, you can shoot him.

Burglars get killed at least once a month where I live (MiamiFtlauderdale area). As a matter of fact some kids I went to high school with caught murder charges because they were breaking into a house and one of their friends was shot and killed by a neighbor who saw everything going down.

Comparing Florida to any other place outside of Africa is unfair and you know it.

It was self-defense? LOL

Passive, scared human is passive, and scared.

Alternate Response:

To send them to heaven or hell, quicker.

nvm I thought the OP said justify morally, which you can't, but practically through law I suppose.

Yea, we kinda are a third world country. I have to Carey a glock with me on pizza deliveries after a delivery driver from a dominos 2 blocks away got robbed and killed one of the guys trying to rob him.

But you're not taking food out of my plate. I grew up in the ghetto, I """"""" get""""""" why some people rob others, but I work too hard for my money for it to be taken away by some cunt with a gun

Talk shit, get hit.

Try to argue with that.

Didn't that spic who shot treyvon talk shit, shoot the ape before he got hit, then get away with it?

"they started it"

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Didn't fat tits get pummeled to shit before shooting down that baboon?

An other initiated violence against you, so you retaliate in order to stop him/her.

It really isn't that difficult to rationalize this unless that you're mentally impaired, or socioculturally crippled by pacifistic propaganda.

The very fact that you're asking this indicates that there is something wrong with you.

he started it

Third world country is a cold war term to determine which countries were allied with the west, the ones allied to the USSR and then all the others. Saying we're third world is the dumbest fucking thing.

invading people's private property is already breaking the social contract.
Burglars know the risk

Violence is never justified, prove me wrong

pro-tip: you can't

morality isn't real, kid

no he got a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head

>no response
Europeasants/Austards BTFO

>why did you kill that guy
>self defense
?

I hope that's an intentional way of getting the girl's baby tooth knocked out. Otherwise, it's fucking asking for an injured kid.

Not wanting to die or be seriously injured is a pretty damn good justification. You can of course try and talk about all sorts of philosophical this and that but all that shit is trumped by self-preservation.

>How can you justify killing someone in self-defence?

its self-defence

>>that picture
I knew that a not-guilty verdict was likely as soon as I saw that photo.

I honestly don't understand the point of this thread, how is it not justified to kill someone in self defense.

If a person walks up to you with the intent to murder are you supposed to just let him murder you? Or you know, do the actual logical thing and fight for your life and if it requires you to kill the attacker to make yourself safe then so be it.

Retarded thread.

Quite easily. If they're willing to do harm to you (or your loved one) for personal gain (muggings, robberies), for settling some perceived wrong (retaliations/revenge), or just for the thrill of attacking and harming someone, at best they have no right to not see that violence returned to them. At worst they just plain don't belong in civilized society.

Of course, you're not judge, jury, and executioner to make that judgement. However, if someone is seeking to employ lethal or near-lethal force against you unprovoked, you have (or should have) every damn right to defend yourself as you see fit against them. That aggressor coming after you wants trouble, and if you lay back and do nothing not only will you be harmed and possibly even killed, no doubt somebody else will down the road when the aggressor does something similar to somebody else. If someone is looking to inflict harm upon you, you are able to inflict harm back to prevent yourself from being seriously injured or killed. Saying anything else only encourages victimization and facilitates crime and abuse.

Side note, I'm an American gun-nut and even I'm seriously hoping that little girl's just posing with her Daddy's deagle, and came to range to shoot something like a .22 to get started. If she's actually about to fire that thing (which I'm doubting), fuck her parents and anybody else who's about to let a kid eat the slide of a handgun.

BTFO

>A robber, on the other hand, is willing to break the social contract for personal gain.

This implies that the social contract is perfect and features total equality.

Kind of but not really. Try again.

...

So he should have been punished for killing the baboon, according to the rule of "talk shit, get hit."

>Miami/Ft Lauderdale
>filled with massive amounts of Cubans from a third world country
>not a third world country

Nigga for all intents and purposes Miami is the third world.

You have a natural right to defend your own life, and if means taking an aggressors life then so be it.

Too bad your meme rule isn't a codified law, dindu boio.

>>according to the rule of "talk shit, get hit."
Since when does this rule have any validity in a court of law and why should I or anyone accept it as anything other then internet tough guy horseshit?

Preservation of my own life matters more then any philosophy ever will. Tolstoy was a faggot.

>You have a natural right

I have a natural right to be your Lord and King, now kneel down before your better.

>Implying perfection involves equality
You people throw that word into every other sentence and people just go along with it because it's a year after 1789, fuck off with this shit

...

Try it and see what happens you inbred monarchist fuckshit.

But how do you know his intent is to end your life? You're assuming the man's intent, but you can't possibly know what his intents are

Nah that's a robber. It's a semantic game, but it boils down to you can't distinguish between burglars and robbers easily, or even at all, so you should have the right to aggressively disable either in the attempt to defend yourself.

You can't know anything for sure, not even if he's advancing on you with a knife. But by your logic, you'd never step outside the goddamn door because you can't tell what a man's intents are. And that next driver passing by may just have the intent to run you over.

But that's the thing, its the complete opposite. You just don't assume someone is going to end your life. That seems like an American thing, justifying guns and the like, but I coud be completely wrong bc i'm not American. Someone attacking you doesn't give you the right to kill them. Incapacitate yes, but someone else's life isn't yours to take.

You can't know, but the that's where the old saying comes in. >"Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6."

I will never put my life into the hands of someone who is already violating my rights.

Example: The Zimmer did not know if Trayvon would stop bashing his face into the cement until he died. Therefor, self defense by lethal force was justified.

This is where we differ in opinions, I just don't think lethal force is justified. In the case of The Zimzam, he didn't have to shoot his chest. Any non-lethal area would have been fine, or just not shooting him.

Laws of Nature and the Laws of man. Simple as that. I also really don't feel the need to justify it because most of the time society takes your side of you kill in self defense.

Boi you dumb as shit

>hurr durr just shoot em in the leg!

Go ask /k/ why you're a fucking retard

I can explain it for him right here. It's difficult to hit limbs, especially if the person is moving towards you. You are supposed to aim for the center of mass in order to put the threat down before the aggressor can harm you.

>hurr durr i don't have a response to your point so i'm going to act as if its ridiculous!

he was chasing the kid, got btfo by him, then shot him in the chest. you're telling me he couldn't overpower a 17 year old? zimzam wasn't justifed in shooting trayvon

>>you're telling me he couldn't overpower a 17 year old?
Dude, you are fucking stupid.

>>zimzam wasn't justifed in shooting trayvon
Take a good long look at the picture in this post and say that again. In real life we don't have videogame health bars to determine how hurt we are.

Euro fag detected

Not to mention the law varies where you live. Even in US states with castle doctrines doing things like shooting limbs can be considered excessive or unescessary and usually works against you in court

I don't cause any problems for anyone
There is literally no reason to attack me at all other than
You are crazy and you want to do me harm
You are trying to rob me
If you want to fight me for whatever reason I'll fight you but don't expect you to try to play the knock out game on me and my not to shoot back at you

...

By what? Walking after him?

A truly compelling and intelligent response my good sir.

This is literally it, everyone can shut the fuck up now.

I hope they were just letting her fuck around for the photo op. That's a terrible gun to train a small child with.

Should start her off with a .22 or something

t. gun pro

>Other Europeans think you should risk your own life for the sake of not having to hurt/kill some crimminal because you don't know if he is gonna kill you or just hurt you
I always thought it was just a meme...

His response is exactly that. What you're saying is ridiculous.

Life isn't a video game with health bars and assisted aiming.
Firing a weapon accurately is very difficult; more so when your heart is beating fast and your hands are shaking.

Aim for center of mass, always.

You seem upset.

How?

>Needing justifications for killing

Because morality is irrelevant to one-on-one survival situations. You'd understand if you were actually in one OP. In retrospect you think on it a lot. It'll consume you, guilt trip you, then eventually you come to accept that it was okay. You'll still question yourself over the method, over "fuckin hell I actually did it" later on in life, and it'll always be engraved into your mind.

But in the situation itself, there is no morality to begin with. You forget all morality ever taught to you once you see him/her charging at you or aiming at you. It's eerie to think about, yourself being that primal and inhuman.

Same reason you justify all killings.

The self-defense part is the justification.

This. It's a kill or be killed situation. That is self justifiying.

It is questionable if you purposely seek out confrontation to claim self defense. That's just premeditated murder.

If he is directly attacking you, you're looking at serious injury- and it is very, very easy to die from being beaten.

If he is advancing aggressively upon you, it's a pretty damn safe bet he's looking to harm you, and you shouldn't risk your life to save someone else's if they're being the aggressor.

Injuring someone's limbs doesn't incapacitate them, or prevent them from harming you. If they're high or not in a normal state of mind, it might just enrage them.

Furthermore, there is no *safe* place to shoot or stab somebody. Vital arteries are dispersed across the body, and a shot to the leg could very well hit the femoral artery and cause that person to bleed out in seconds.

I can respect that you have a different opinion, but using non-lethal force is not as reliable or easy as many people claim to think it is, *especially* if you have a physical disadvantage (you might be a woman, or handicapped, or elderly, or just plain weaker than your attacker).

If someone attacks you, THEY are initiating the aggressive situation, THEY are either intending to or willing to inflict harm upon you. I see no reason why the defender/victim should risk their own well-being in order to protect the well-being of the attacker.

In short, lethal force (or 'pretty damn near lethal') force is the only reliable way to stop an attacker from harming you, with minimal risk to yourself. In an ideal situation you should be able to either apprehend someone or get them to fuck off by pointing a weapon their way, and let the police take care of the rest, but real life isn't always ideal.

...

>Owning a weapon
>Can't aim with it

Why is this allowed?

Please try shooting a real gun sometime.

How can you butter your toast with butter?

You try to take my life, I quite like my life, I don't value yours that much especialy since you just proved to be a bad human beeing.
=> I kill you

>Dude, you are fucking stupid
Once again, calling me dumb isn't an argument. Trayvon was a skinny 17 year old nigger, and Zimmerman got his arse handed to him

>Take a look at the picture
Yes, he got beat up. Those wounds aren't even that bad. He's still got blood on his face making it look worse that it is, couple of cuts to his head, and what looks like the result of a clean punch to the nose.
He was still in a position to shoot him, so he wasn't knocked out on the floor or anything. Lethal force was not justified

Kill or be killed

Easy, they attacked me and now they're dead.

Good thing the judge, and jury disagree.

>Everyone is a delta force seal team 6 epic marksman with call of duty slow down abilities
Wew lad