Is using deadly force on an unarmed person EVER justified?

Is using deadly force on an unarmed person EVER justified?

Some cases where I believe deadly force would be justified against an unarmed person.

1. Whether a police officer or not if someone reached into my car and tried to harm myself or my family I would use deadly force.

2. Whether a police officer or not if someone was beating me in the head I would use deadly force. Many people have been paralyzied or beaten to death with fists and/or feet.

3. Whether a police officer or not if someone was trying to take my gun I would use deadly force.

4. Whether a police officer or not if after trying to take my gun a person charged me again I would use deadly force. I can only assume they are going to try and take it again. What if the next time they are successful?

I do not know what happened in the Brown case.

But to those who feel that there is never justification in shooting an unarmed person I leave you with this video and ask if you were in the same situation would you have used deadly force?

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I was going to comment extensively that there are numerous instances of people being killed by a single blow to the head using fists, so 'unarmed' is all relative, but I see that is the premise of your Original Post.

My motto is, if you're cornered like a wild animal, you'll act like a wild animal. This still doesn't give you the right to double tap just to make sure he's dead, but to use reasonable force to stop an attack is justified.

My other rule is, practice martial arts so you never have to use it. I don't even like MMA or kickboxing tournaments despite being a fan of martial arts, because it should only be used in a life or death self defense situation and not just for entertainment. Look at that MMA "war machine" guy who assaulted his girlfriend. You think maybe the "war machine" mentality got to his head?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Agreed.

Several years ago I responded to a bar fight.

One of the persons involved was punched and fell to the ground striking his head on the curb. He died on scene.

Unarmed is always relative. One must consider an aggressors height, weight, aggressiveness, fighting skills, etc.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Sure sometimes you gotta do what you've got to do . Problem is there are too many instances nowadays where it's not justified.

I'm completely against violence and unless someone was physically assaulting me I wouldn't raise a finger.

No one is truly unarmed. The original arms were, well, your arms.

a reply to: filosophia

Martial arts training is not always effective or worthwhile.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Yes, if the person is a trained fighter and when their fists are legitimate weapons..

a reply to: filosophia

If someone is going above and beyond to commit great bodily harm against me I WILL do what I feel necessary to stop the threat.

If that means going one step above his level of force I will. If that means a double tap so be it. If that means a failure drill so be it.

One who does not try to commit great bodily harm against me will have no issue whatsoever.

Again I DO NOT want this to turn into a Wilson VS Brown thread.

This is simply about using deadly force against an unarmed attacker.

originally posted by: jhn7537
Yes, if the person is a trained fighter and when their fists are legitimate weapons..

You do not need to be a trained fighter to kill another human being with a blow to the head.

Witnesses say the cop was trying to pull brown into the car, brown was trying to pull away That would explain why the cop banged his head on the car.

I do not know what happened in the Brown case.

and yet all your scenario's feature what the police say happened!

a reply to: jhn7537

One does not have to be a trained fighter to be deadly.

Height, weight and aggressiveness is a huge factor.

Also if one is surprised or "sucker punched."

Any person can make a fist and bash it into a persons head until damage is done.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Again this is not a discussion of the Brown case.

This thread is about using deadly force against an unarmed person.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

To start, police should be under increased scrutiny due to their positions, training, and also the legal free-for-alls the general public are not allowed access to.

For regular citizens there are quite a few scenarios where killing someone unarmed is okay.

-Rape, attempted rape, etc.
-Someone breaking into your private property
-Physical abuse
-Police break into home with no knock warrant(I don't break law so there is no reason for them to break into my home without warning)
-Etc

In other words, self defense.

Police are trained in hand to hand and their job is to use deadly force as a LAST resort. What generally happens is that they are not held accountable as a regular citizen might be in the event that they do something immoral.

So is using deadly force on an unarmed person justified? Sometimes.

Is using deadly force on an unarmed person justified as a police officer? No. It's called backup. If you are in a small town and it is a emergency call where you cannot get backup, MAYBE. But 99 percent of the time police can and do not subdue suspects properly. Deadly force is reserved for deadly suspects. Teenage kids smoking pot and the elderly need not apply.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
I do not know what happened in the Brown case.

Neither do we. No one knows what truly happened. Whatever original story there was has been shrouded and shred by media speculation fueling the fires of distraction.

The human body can easily become a deadly weapon if properly conditioned and trained. A sharp knife fist to the side of the neck can cause death or paralysis. A throw to the ground...a choke hold...a good foot stomp.
There are valid reasons to defend oneself with a weapon, but deadly force is usually not necessary.
I am fairly confident in my self defense skills, but I would never want to kill another person.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
Is using deadly force on an unarmed person EVER justified?

Some cases where I believe deadly force would be justified against an unarmed person.

1. Whether a police officer or not if someone reached into my car and tried to harm myself or my family I would use deadly force.

2. Whether a police officer or not if someone was beating me in the head I would use deadly force. Many people have been paralyzied or beaten to death with fists and/or feet.

3. Whether a police officer or not if someone was trying to take my gun I would use deadly force.

4. Whether a police officer or not if after trying to take my gun a person charged me again I would use deadly force. I can only assume they are going to try and take it again. What if the next time they are successful?

I do not know what happened in the Brown case.

But to those who feel that there is never justification in shooting an unarmed person I leave you with this video and ask if you were in the same situation would you have used deadly force?

Yes. Remember that more people are murdered with hands and fists every year than rifles of all types.

Disparity of force can include physical stature, numbers, age, gender etc. One can be under reasonable fear for life and limb and still have the aggressor(s) be unarmed in a traditional sense of the word.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Interesting.

So you believe it is okay for a citizen to use deadly force against an unarmed person but not for the police to use deadly force against an unarmed person.

So in the video I posted you feel that the officer would not have been justified in using deadly force even though she was practically beaten to death and had to have extensive reconstruction surgery.

I really have no response to that.

a reply to: skunkape23

Understood.

Make no mistake I never want to kill a person either.

But you do agree there are situation where using deadly force against an unarmed attacker can be justified.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

As I stated above if you cannot call backup then it is justified as a police officer.

Obviously, it is ill judgement to have cops answer any type of call without having a backup.

Edit: Also, no I do not believe that if you are entering into law enforcement that if you cannot defend yourself without using a gun then you should not be in the field. Plain and simple. It is a dangerous job. It is also a job where at one time police used tactics to subdue individuals BEFORE killing them. If a female officer does not have the skills to do so then she needs backup. That is a failure of the system and a failure of policing in general. There are many drunk, drugged, and violent suspects. Policing means you ARREST and not kill. Shouldn't be rocket science.