We are taught that life is precious, and the oldest strictures of any human society seem to be "Don't Kill."

Sometimes in life, people are forced into situations where killing is, or seems to be, a viable option.

What are your thoughts on killing?

Choices #2 and #4 could easily be one and the same.

Life is precious, and it just so happens that mine is especially precious to me. Self preservation, my man, self preservation.

Yes, I see what you mean. What I was thinking for #2 was a case in which you are not sure, but you believe an attacker wishes to kill you. The situation intended for #4 was one in which the attacker or group of attackers does not intend to kill you, but unless you use lethal force you are not going to escape a serious beating.

This is a difficult question, and I have no ready answer, but a Tolken quote comes to mind:



Further complicating matters, any decision made in cold blood is next to worthless once you are forced to act, yet at the same time this does not excuse someone from not thinking about it if there is some reasonable chance they will be faced with the decision.

I think it would have to be a "your or me" situation, where non-lethal measures have failed.

This reminds me of another saying I heard from a one time Aikido practicioner. The idea of it went that if you can't completely stop your attacker without harming them, it is your fault for not having good enough technique.

I like this idea in some ways, because there can never be any end to your persuit of improvement. At the same time, it is also an unrealistic expectation in that your attacker may very well be of equal skill with you.

" in which the attacker or group of attackers does not intend to kill you"

The problem is, very few individuals have such control that once they commence to deal a 'serious beating' to you that you can be certain that you will not wind up dead. And if it's a group, then it's magnified significantly. And if there are any weapons involved, then that's basically that, it's a lethal situation.

The way things are going nowadays, many assailants will kill you just to keep you from being able to identify them. Happens all the time.

" in which the attacker or group of attackers does not intend to kill you"

Another problem with the above - for us mere mortals, there is no way ahead of time to determine an attacker's 'intent'.

This is actually a question with which I have wrestled long and often. I think what frightens me most isn't the moral anguish of trying to determine when/where it is right to use lethal force, but the cold, hard fact that I have no doubt that I am capable of using it.

"A sword can either be used for good or bad.
A sword can either give life, or take it.
Sometimes one can give life by taking one."

These statements come from Yagyu Munenori's classic book "The Life Giving Sword".

Great book for sword lovers...

HaiDong,

Michael Tabone

PS-
I also remember this really cool quote from a movie I saw recently called “Kingdom of Heaven.”:

Sybilla:
“There will be a day when you will wish you had done little evil to do a greater good.”

Well, my first response leaves me looking a bit self-centered, so let me add some qualifiers. This really isn't a black-and-white issue, is it? A lot of variables can come into play that would affect my decision making such as what else is at risk. If it's just me that I'm protecting in a life threatening confrontaition, then I'm more apt to use lethal force than if I have loved ones with me that I thought would benefit somehow (in terms of their safety) if I were to avoid using lethal force (like giving them time to escape, for instance). The same scenario could come up whereby loved ones are with you when a potentially life threatening scenario presents itself, but there is no chance for my loved ones to get away. I dare say that I'd be more likely to apply lethal force in that case even if there was appreciable doubt in my mind that the assailant(s) intended to kill. How many men would be more willing to use lethal force to save their wife or daughter from possibly being raped even if despite a doubt of murderous intent?

It made me to think..little off the topic.

Is it right to kill animals that we can eat meat? Is meat eating really necessary or satisfying that we can overlook the cruel things people do to animals? (injection feeding, factory style animal farming, etc)

The one issue I had with the survery was #1 abd #2 is the term "Perceived".

If I perceive someone to be a threat to my life, doesn't that mean I beleive hs is about to attempt to kill me, if so I will use lethal force to protect myself and my loved ones if I have too. Which is why I chose 2.

If perceived means only "possible", or you think he might be planning on using a weapon on you but you aren't entirely sure then it becomes a different thing altogether.

It get's more dificult also when we factor in what kind of weapons, if any, are involved. Am I armed? Is he armed ?

For right or wrong my Father taught me to take people at their word. If they threaten to harm you or your family you should beleive that is their intent and act accordingly with whatever force is appropriate to the place and time.

When teaching options regarding use of force I am always cautious in endorsing the option of matching lethal force with lethal force, (I am an instructor in defensive tactics etc (PPCT)). In the law enforcement community the situation is often easier in the role the officer has, the training and equipment provided. Often officers are placed in circumstance where in the cold light of day it is easier to calculate if the percieved force was lethal and the response justified. In the heat of the action however it is the "totality of circumstance", many factors afffect decision making. The criminal codes/laws offer some guidelines usually in use of the term "reasonable" and the question that is asked is what was a reasonable act in response to the percieved threat and options available.

A reasonable act may be the central question once the totality is illustrated (time of day, respective gender, weapons, size, training, age time of day, place, prior knowledge of the subject, percieved fear, escape routes etc etc)

Suppose an 80 year old lady attacks you with her umbrella, you might wrestle with her, punch or disarm her; it would be questionable if you pulled a gun and shot her. Change the subject to a 20 year old male ice addict threatening you with a machete in a dark stairwell...

When a private citizen uses lethal force then many questions are asked, there are guidelines within self-defence laws when use of lethal force is acceptable - however there are hundreds of test cases where the use of force has been questioned against the defendant. A question asked is the intent of the individual - carrying a sword in a public place for the purpose of self-defence is not usually acceptable. Being armed in public is an offence in itself in some juristictions. The law of the land and the reality of life often appear in variance, however going back to a reasonable act in the circumstances may offer an answer.

Regards
Garth Richards

I feel that is never "acceptable" to use lethal force. If lethal force is to be used against you, defend yourself to the best of your ability. When we accept lethal force without regret or consequence, we become no better than the person or people we were defending ourselves against in the first place.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Richards.



Master Gihm, I'm both a self-proclaimed animal lover and a hunter. I know - Huh!? I love animals and hate to see them suffer. At the same time, though, I recognize and accept my place in the food chain as an omnivore. That's why I have incisors! It peeves me when antihunting, meat eating, "animal lovers" get a look of disgust on their face when I tell them I'm a hunter. My first question to them is, "And how long have you been a vegetarian?" Then I point out to them that killing is killing regardless of whether or not they do it themselves or opt to have someone else do their dirty work for them. I'm sure you're not taking that stance with your comment, so it's not directed at you. I'm just replying to your question.

Obviously, when it comes to the prospect of taking another human's life, there is no boilerplate answer to whether or not one should do it. So many factors come into play. There's no time to ponder all of those factors when one is faced with having to make a decision in short order. Life is sometimes messy and the best you can do is to do the best you can do and deal with the consequences later. You simply can't weatherproof life.

One of the many reasons why I refuse to get shellacked.


So - taking it at face value that lethal force is never acceptable, do we create an internal conflict for ourselves by studying arts with an explicit and unavoidable focus on lethal combat?

I think we are not creating it ~ that the conflict is in fact already there, for the simple reason that ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ) cognitive dissonance is very normal for most people. If I am attacked, my internal programming at the most basic level is fight or flight. My higher brain functions work to keep me rational enough to actually decide if the attack is real or merely perceived. The simple act of resistance in unarmed combat can sometimes be enough. If my attacker is on drugs, however, all bets are off.

I don't want to kill. I also don't want to be raped or killed. I had always planned on running as my first resort until recently when my TKD instructor pointed out that most likely I would be wasting energy should I then have to fight.

I'm not even sure that I HAVE lethal force. I am also of the opinion that if it's my time to go, well it's my time to go. But I'm going out kicking and screaming.