Would you kill an attacker?

Nick Porter wrote: In response to the poll: I don't think the question is _would_ you kill an attacker, but rather- COULD you kill an attacker? I'm not talking fighting or anything, I'm talking if it came down to it, do you think you could muster up what it takes to end another human being's life? Something to ponder, -Nick

Sorry Nick. I think it's a dumb question. Everybody has the CAPACITY to kill an attacker so of course they could.

A better question would be: 'Could or would you stop an attacker?'

Or even better than that: 'Could you change an attacker?'

Regards.G.

Graham Christian wrote: Sorry Nick. I think it's a dumb question. Everybody has the CAPACITY to kill an attacker so of course they could. A better question would be: 'Could or would you stop an attacker?' Or even better than that: 'Could you change an attacker?' Regards.G.

Or how far would you be willing to go to stop an attacker? How much soul searching have you done? BY the time the attack happens it is probably to late.

yep

samurai and aikido are linked and many a past master would sacrifice a limb or two, to deal the final blow to his assailant. I know times are different now, but maybe those times will resume at a later date

Ian Dodkins wrote: PPS. I have let someone hit me because I felt guilty for upsetting him. Luckily he was a boxer and the two punches were fast yet painless.

would it not be better just to say sorry and then hopefully avoiding conflict

Yes

never.

Firstly, it is highly overratd they idea that you could do so - it is more realistic and fighting oriented thinking that _you_ could be killed, for it means you entertain no romantic idea about fighting (romantic being: I show up and being so aikifabulous i beat him/her off like a nuisance...) but that you realize fighting is inherently dangerous. In this regard, being killed is not a function of the ability of your opponent, but precisely of his reckless lack of experience.
An experienced fighter is not exprienced inasmuch as s/he knows how to kill you (any idiot with a gun knows) but inasmuch as s/he knows how not to do it.

Consequently, i would never kill an attacker because doing so would prove that I am no martial artist but just another street thug.

However, I might break an arm - this only in case the adversary proved so dangerous to me that incapacitating him/her seems necessary (ie: s/he extracted and knife and randomly tried to slash or stab me, regardless of how or where).

No

inflicting injuries that could be lethal, possibly.

I could see myself causing a level of injuries to knock someone unconscious if that is what it would take to stop them, and if they
were to recieve a fatal injury in the process, that would be regretable.

But strike to kill? Nevar.

Also, in Sweden, killing someone even by accident in a fistfight if you're a martial artist would count as murder.. since our training should be enough to stop a fight without having to resort to lethal violence.

You must never have any doubt about killing an attacker who intends to either kill you or do great harm.. You will die if you suffer from the four sickneses of the heart (a kendo concept). Fear, doubt,hesitation and suprise. These will get you killed.

Dave Gallagher wrote: You must never have any doubt about killing an attacker who intends to either kill you or do great harm.

I'm not very good at mind reading, so how do I know he intends to kill me and not just take my money?

Quote:

"I'm not very good at mind reading, so how do I know he intends to kill me and not just take my money?

.....Sadly in today's world a very high percent of muggings and robbery victims are left dead. You may do as you like but I am always going to assume that if he has a weapon he is going to use it. It has been shown in court cases that you may assume that an armed robber is going to kill you. Deadly force to protect yourself in this situation is not only understandable but should be expected.
If you have to figure it out you may wind up dead. This is just my opinion. I would rather protect myself and family rather than worry about the armed attacker's intentions. I would muce prefer to explain to the police how the attacker died than have them find me dead on the sidewalk.

Dave Gallagher wrote: Quote: "I'm not very good at mind reading, so how do I know he intends to kill me and not just take my money? .....Sadly in today's world a very high percent of muggings and robbery victims are left dead. You may do as you like but I am always going to assume that if he has a weapon he is going to use it. It has been shown in court cases that you may assume that an armed robber is going to kill you. Deadly force to protect yourself in this situation is not only understandable but should be expected. If you have to figure it out you may wind up dead. This is just my opinion. I would rather protect myself and family rather than worry about the armed attacker's intentions. I would muce prefer to explain to the police how the attacker died than have them find me dead on the sidewalk.

I guess extreme violence for self defense in the US is viewed differently than in my country (from Mathias' description I guess our law is more like Swedish law ).

If you kill an armed thief in the US, you might have a good chance of getting away with it. In my country even a police officer killing an armed attacker would have to face serious consequences if a court thinks there were non lethal options. Proportionate violence is a very tricky thing in my country.

I'm sure the percentage of muggings and robberies ending with a dead victim is much lower in Holland than in the US, because fire arms are rare here. So the odds of how these scenarios end up have to be taken into account.

Well, i think that killing someone is wrong.

this is a good question about aikido and i would split it to fighting and Aikido

I think that basically taking someones life is not something that i need to do, it's like - not my job.

Yes, sure we all know how in some Aikido movies (steven seagal for example) the aikido master kills the bad guys...
but, as i see the real life and aikido, like i see in the dojo and on aikido videos, aikido is about peace. it;s even known way aikido started by O'sensei back then to avoid killing.
so, i say - from the side of Aikido - you need to use Aikido to find a way to avoid killing.

But, i have to be even more realistic and sometimes those moments in life like war - you face with this hard thing - that if you will keep him alive you will the one that will be dead, so in this position i believe that you need to keep yourself a live whatever it is - by self defense, even aikido if you found yourself in the situation.

I believe that Aikido can sometimes save you from this mistake of killing someone when you don't have to.

if some one hit you and you need to use self defense and you don't know how to fight using some martial art like aikido you can, by mistake - hit someone with a stone on his head - and kill him, aikido will give you the way to save yourself, stay protected - and.. save you and the attacker from unnecessary death.

I assume that anybody breaking and entering my home is a potential rapist/killer - who may be thinking originally of only robbery but since I cannot read his mind, I don't know what other crime of opportunity may occur. And I've always believed fully in the right to self-defense, period, and will do what I have to do.

Janet Rosen wrote: I assume that anybody breaking and entering my home is a potential rapist/killer - who may be thinking originally of only robbery but since I cannot read his mind, I don't know what other crime of opportunity may occur. And I've always believed fully in the right to self-defense, period, and will do what I have to do.

Most breaking and enterings are burglaries. Indeed a crime, but not a capital crime (capital punishment does not even exist in my country). People have gone to jail in Holland for severely hitting a burglar with a baseball bat. I wouldn't want to go to jail for that.

Ofcourse there is a small chance that the breaking and entering will end up worse than a burglary, but would I kill any burglar entering my house (and go to jail for it) to eliminate this small chance? No I wouldn't.

Dave, at least in the USA, no woman can safely assume that any break-in is "just" a burglar.
And I am not concerned with what the law says, I'm concerned with surviving assault.

In the USA, killing an intruder (it is called a 'home invasion' - 'burglary' is something done when no one is home) is considered a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But the first words out of your mouth when you call 911 and talk to the police should be "I was in fear for my life." And really that should be "true".

Robin Johnson wrote: In the USA, killing an intruder (it is called a 'home invasion' - 'burglary' is something done when no one is home) is considered a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But the first words out of your mouth when you call 911 and talk to the police should be "I was in fear for my life." And really that should be "true".

I understand that violent deaths seem to be less unusual in the US than in Europe: http://violentdeathproject.com/, from that site:

Dave-

I know... Sad hun? Then again the number of justifiable homicides in the USA is quite small - less than 250 per year. See link below for justifiable homicide stats by private citizen in USA.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_15.html

And this is an interesting table showing the circumstances of murders in the USA - a significant number were "arguments" - that is REALLY sad.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_12.html

-Robin

Hi Robin. The high number of fire arms privately owned in the US seems to be a major cause. In the chart I posted you can see that Switzerland has a relatively high number of violent deaths too and it also happens to be more liberal towards privately owned fire arms.

Fire arms may be helpful for self defense, but as you pointed out, civilians tend to use them for unjustifiable violence instead. Which is sad indeed.

Dave

Dave de Vos wrote: Hi Robin. The high number of fire arms privately owned in the US seems to be a major cause.

There are many doctors who consider it one of the big public health problems, up there w/ obesity/diabetes/heart disease.

Janet Rosen wrote: There are many doctors who consider it one of the big public health problems, up there w/ obesity/diabetes/heart disease.

yup, lead poisoning is a major health issue.