Defending yourself is not a matter of “punishment.” You’re not out to correct your assailant’s behavior, you’re wanting to stop it, as quickly and effectively as possible, with the least collateral damage. Whatever does that is what you should do.
RobertaX – Pizza Robber Update
February 25, 2013
[I’ve never quite understood the method of thinking that ties self-defense into punishment. Can I not kill someone until after they’ve killed me? Is that the new standard now? When it comes to rape then, can a woman only rape her assailant back after she’s been violated? Why is she not allowed to stop the threat. Yes some times stopping the threat does involve the assailant’s body reaching room temperature but that’s the risk of their profession.
You know how the assailant would still be alive? By not attacking his intended victim. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
In the words of Malcolm Reynolds:
“I didn’t kill him, he killed himself. I just carried the bullet for a while.”
The criminal made his choice and in the middle of the crime the victim can, and should, do all that he can to protect himself and family. Someone is threatening force against them and they are not and should not be required to be mind readers to determine if the threat is real or just words. If you use something that looks like a gun in a threatening manner, it’s a gun, and I will not fault the individual who defends himself from you.
The criminal takes a risk that someone might defend himself, and if the criminal continues to fight even when presented with force being applied back from the victim, the onus for the outcome lies squarely with the aggressor. Stop blaming victims for the outcome of actions and choices made by criminals. -B]
TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.
Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.
“Why is this so hard for some people to understand?”
Simple. It’s right there in your cultural script. Charles Manson articulated it very well. “You made me do it.” Our sick culture is at fault. If things weren’t so shitty, people wouldn’t be driven into desperate acts. If things weren’t so unfair, people wouldn’t be forced to rob, rape and kill. It’s Liberation Theology. See Rev J. Wright.
This sort of thinking permeates our entire society. They don’t often come right out and say it blatantly, but it does happen occasionally. Most of the time it is subtle innuendo and insinuation, but it’s EVERYWHERE. Criminals are victims of society, and because their victims played a role in creating the criminal, they shouldn’t be complaining. Or as Rev. Wright put it so clearly; “Our chickens have come home to roost!” Certainly we have no right to use deadly force againast the poor criminal that we created. Jeeze, Man; You MADE the criminal, and now you want to shoot him? It doesn’t get any worse, or any more sick or twisted than that. It’s beyond cruel. It’s sadistic. You suck, Dude.
That’s the mindset we’re dealing with here. It’s a monster. It’s incipient mass destruction. They’ll sit back and see your guns confiscated, and cheer. If you resist and get killed in the process, they’ll cheer, whoop and holler, slap their knees and celebrate. THIS is Social Justice at its best! Finally you will have gotten your comeuppance after all your insubordination and bluster.
I’ve never quite understood the method of thinking that ties self-defense into punishment.
I think this is important. People watch the Ox-Bow Incident and go “Ah-ha, vigilantism is bad!”. Superficially, vigilantism and self-defense can look similar : a criminal act, an act of violence and afterwards a good chance of someone saying “well, he needed killin’.”
Occasionally it is muddled thinking in not understanding the difference but most of those who mistake one for the other aren’t asking “is this insignificant, an accident, murder, manslaughter, vigilantism, or self-defense?” and trying to pick the descriptor that best fits. Instead they are asking “if criminal kills then murder; if the victim kills then vigilantism?” It is literally unthinking for most of them. A few are intentionally confounding vigilantism with self defense for their own purposes.
Fortunately, it is easy to explain that vigilantism is, after an injustice, using force to take justice in your own hands while self defense is about using force to prevent an injustice from occurring. Antis tend to confuse them intentionally but it is easily corrected and most people (with the exception of hardcore antis) appreciate the difference.
To add to Lyle : being able to look at 2 identical cases and to have the power to arbitrarily declare that one is justifiable and one is criminal is a tremendous power.