would you rather be beaten and robbed, or kill the mugger?
 

Obv setting the matter in such a stark choice assumes the knowledge of things that in a real life situation would not be knowable.

But assuming that it can be known - if you are attacked, and rhetorically have two options:

1 - use deadly force by some means, and kill the attacker and protect yourself - suffering no loss of property or physical harm

2 - have possessions of yours stolen (whatever you may normally have with you - say wallet/handbag, phone and keys) and endure a mild to moderate beating (ie - physical injuries that would not require hospitalization or cause any lasting damage to your physical body)

Which would you choose, if you had the knowledge that such a choice existed?

Wow, talk about two extremes! I'm having trouble with only these two options...

1 - The use of deadly force to protect a few replaceable items seems drastic. However having the perpetrator know my address from my licence - not liking it.

2 - Letting them take the items, this would probably be the option I'd yeild to but I would struggle with the after effects, peering over my shoulder, changing all my locks, struggle with my sense of security and look at how much power I really have in my own life, those sorts of things...

It's been a tough thought given the amount of possibilities I would prefer to consider. Can I ask why the two extremes? I mean if it were my life or theirs then 1 would be totally different. Why did you choose this example?

There is no question that I would kill the attacker. I have no hesitation with that question. I never even considered that somebody else might.

Either way you deal with the aftershock and all the fallout possibly for the rest of your life. If the world has one less dirtbag in it while you go through the issues you will have with dealing with such a situation, then kill the bastard and move on.

if you asked me this two or three years ago, i probably would have said i'd rather be beaten and robbed. i like to consider myself a Buddhist, but i am not nearly as much of a Buddhist now as i was a couple years ago. so i don't think that given the opportunity, i could just let myself get beaten and robbed without attempting to knock his/her ass out first.

you will do society a favor by offing the sumbitch. A violent offender will only get braver and more cocky and may end up killing someone innocent.

Obviously I realise its not a truly realistic decision you would face in real life - you could just wound the attacker, and you could not know you would only suffer minor injuries while being attacked either... I guess I was trying to gage, at what point a personal would feel they would personally have justification to use ultimate force in self protection.

For the record, I chose to allow myself to be attacked... but then again, Ive never really been in that situation, so it is easier to say so when you dont have the experience of it, of course. I cant tell for sure how I would react if I was really attacked and robbed.

I believe this has been posted once before.

But I will answer again: I will defend myself.

You don't know when you are being beaten if that person is going to kill you... Most people would probably defend themselves, and if that means the attacker gets killed, well then -- so be it....

Granted it's only stuff, but the attacker is also attacking your person, and that's more than just stuff.

I've been in plenty of fights in my life. I took martial arts for years and years and I know how to defend myself properly. If someone on the street decided to gambel with his life and try to steal from me and/or injur me ... he would get totally away with it. He would beat me and take my wallet, ring, and whatever valuables on me. I will not, under ANY circumstances, take a life. I've had broken bones and cuts and bruises before. I've lost my wallet before. I know how to cancel credit cards and my drivers license. There is no excuse, in my mind, to take someones life. Actually, there is no reason to inflict physical harm. I would stand and allow him to do what he thinks he needs to do with no resistence. That's what my morals mean to me.

I would shoot the attacker down like the dog that he/she is.
It would be revenge for all the people this scum had robbed in the past and would prevent any future attacks.

exactly as the Q is phrased, I would let myself be attacked. (losing a few possessions and getting a couple bruises does not justify a life being taken).

but, it would be extremely difficult to simply endure a beating without fighting back.
not fighting back to kill, but just because i think that, for me, fighting back would be my instinct ...

(edit: fwiw, I *have* been mugged before, but it was not violent, he just grabbed my purse and ran.)

I would not hesitate to fight off the attacker, but kill him is an iffy one with me. If I was left with no choice I would kill him to protect myself, and anyone that would be fated to fall victim by him.

i voted for 'kill him.' i don't know i really would though. i've recently started taking tae kwond do, and one of the things that they've really pushed on us is the concept of defending ourselves with a 'reasonable' amount of force.

basically, if the situation were to ever come up, i would defend myself to the best of my ability, but in my opinion that means creating an avenue for escape. depnding on specifics that could mean something as simple as throwing them out of the way/to the ground and running, trying to disable them (like blowing out their knee), or worse. but i don't know if i could ever kill someone short of them coming at with with a knife or gun.

I thought so, that's why I tried to stick with the guidelines. thanks :)

I'm amazed at the amount of responses so far inclined to 'get rid of the dirtbag and do the world a favour'. I agree that allowing them to take your stuff only encourages them and they may step it up later to more serious crimes. I would prefer to put up a fight, if I was unable to though, I couldn't justify myself to killing him, I don't feel right making that judgement based on a two minute interaction... maybe I will one day see the understanding in this, but right now I can't.

As being someone who, at work, had a gun in his back and having to open the safe. I can surely say, If I had the means, I will kill anyone who puts me in that situation agian.

Sure, I came out of it fine. I was probaly in shock for a couple of days and came back to work a week later. The heroin addicts that robbed me and my boss were arrested within 30 min of the robbery after an insueing police chase and car hijacking.

I chose getting robbed and attacked. In real life, however, I would not take the chance and would use whatever force neccessary. Some minor pain, and my wallet stolen is not worth taking a life. I am an optimist (the mugger might have a chance to reform) and because the odds are I will only be put in a situation like that once, maybe twice in my life (where I might have to kill someone), why risk doing something that I might supremely regret? So to sum up, because I'm cautious and an optimist.

As a female, the word "attacked" means "raped" to me, and since that is a horrible fear of mine-I'd kill the f'er.

Here is the same choice but in a more "real" situation for those who need it. I thought of this already to help my choice, figured I mine as well put it down if it helps anyone else.

You're filthy rich and have a sniper watching your back when you go out at night but he won't shoot unless you say so (or you're about to die) through the microphone hidden on your person. You get mugged by two guys, they have minor weapons, you know they can't kill you before your sniper takes them out. Do you give them your valuables and take a few punches to the face/body or give the word and have the sniper kill them before they can lay a hand on you?

(PS if the sniper took time to fire a warning shot he would only have time to refire and kill one of them before the other smashes your head in with a rock, as well as the fact the sniper has strong principles against giving warning shots)

Can anyone find any holes in that? :)

He said physical harm only, and no hospitalization, so not a rape scenario as that would be psychological as well, and probably require some therapy/hospitalization.

I like to consider myself a laid back peaceful person. If someone steals from me, I can handle it. Once it escalates to voilence, everything changes. If someone lays hands on me unjustly, especially if I offered to give up what they asked for, then whatever happens is on them. I would not feel remorse about tearing their eyes out or collapsing their wind pipe. I will do whatever it takes to defend myself. I honestly can't imagine someone letting themself be abused to avoid feeling guilty about dishing out justice to the abuser.

I like this. I don't like the fact that I'll get my lopsided face lumped, but the fact is that I am not in a potentially crippling/deadly scenario where the violence just escalates against me. My trained sniper will not cause unneccessary paper work for me, and besides the fallout would mean that I'd have to create a larger trusted staff pool, and with a full time sniper on duty I'd lead a pretty constrained life I'd bet. Probably the only time I'd get to meet the common folk was when I was beaten and robbed :lol:

I would have to say I would kill them. If anyone attacked either my wife or me, I would pity them, more so if they attacked my wife rather than me.

Let's just say that he should have his affairs in order.

I might end up killing him. Depends if he tried to seriously wound me first, I suppose.
I have to say I admire Willravel's steadfast philosophy though. Good on you mate: a man who can stick to his morals that hard is a man indeed.

For myself though, suffice to say that I'd do my best to beat the everloving crap out of the bastard without actually killing him. Then, I'd call an amulance for him and bugger off.

Hey, the guy may very well be a scumbag, but the hypothetical contained nothing referencing the attacker's motives. What if the guy was homeless and needed some cash to eat? What if the guy mistook you for the punk who beat him down last week? What if the guy mistakenly thought you had just run over his daughter? What if you had actually just run over his daughter?

I protect me and mine.

"Shoot her...."
- Jurassic Park

I think you are doing the society that you live in a disservice by not resisting criminal conduct. If you reap the benefits of society without contributing to upholding the rules of that society you are a parasite that would be better off removed. Enforcing the law is not completely reserved for the police; in the same way you should help someone bleeding to death in the street (and not say "Thats not my job, let the EMTs do it") you should do your part to prevent crime. Also, supposing you had the chance to use less than certain lethal force you might be doing him a favor by preventing him from encountering someone who would kill him for certain.

When being attacked while armed, there are only two options. The first is to allow yourself to become a victim. The second is to shoot to kill. I'm not going to shed a tear over anyone who makes a living attacking people.

Given the foreknowledge of those two exact outcomes, I'd allow myself to take a mild beating. Losing a few possessions and suffering some minor physical injuries is a small thing compared to a human life.

what guarantee would i have that the beating would only be mild to moderate. I think that should someone attacked me i would have to option, one to fight, one to run. I'd choose the option i would be most likely to suceed with.

Lot of cowboy-attitudes in here.

I can't see how you can rationalize taking another persons life just to save yourself a few bruises and maybe a few dollars?

Where's the christian attitudes and moral that you're spewing on us in all the other threadhs? I'm sure a lot of the 46 (so far..) that went for "kill him" consider themselves christian.

hey, no one's throwing stones... :thumbsup:

what i think is really telling is that a lot of the kill him comments have to do with 'blowing him away' or some other euphemism. for all intents and purposes, most of those posters don't really have a choice to do less than kill. guns are made to kill, can wound, but if someone's trying to rob you you don't try to just wing them.

maybe this just goes to show that people really need to start to learn real self-defense, where they have more options than to just kill.

and i'm curious, how many of you gun-totters (sp?) really think that if some one suprised you and tried to rob you that you'd be able to draw and successfully fire on the mugger before they managed to get the first few hits in, possibly even taking your gun from you and using it on you? it's not as though they're gonna come from in front of you western style where you can draw like in a gun fight.

I would not hesitate to kill someone who attacked me or my wife. And Phage said it best that in not resisting criminal behavior, you are part of the problem. Think about the after-effects for the mugger and his kind. If you do not resist and allow yourself to be beaten and robbed, that mugger is going to be thinking, "Man, that was pretty easy. I can get some quick cash and knock somebody around with little consequence." If you kill him, he won't be thinking at all. That's better in my book.

The effects on the community are also significant. Say the story was covered the next day in the paper. Would the headline read, "Man offered no resistance as he was robbed and beaten" or "Man killed would-be assailant." The personal impact of the scenario aside, consider what the criminal element hearing about either of those stories would think. On one side, "Hey, easy pickings. Let's go rob some people!" On the other, "Hey, we better watch our asses out there!" Yes, I am aware that some will argue that violence only escalates into more violence. That the criminal element might come more prepared with deadlier weapons next time. I would call bullshit on that argument. Most criminals are bullies and cowards. They always look for the easiest target. If you want to be that target, go ahead.

Once I took self defense classes I decided at that moment that it was possible that I could kill someone with my bare hands. I accepted that responsibilty of potential outcome from that day forward.

I was reminded of it again, once I learned how to shoot a firearm.

I don't want to harm anyone, but if it's a choice between the possibility of me living versus someone else, I'm going to do my best to make sure I'm the one who lives to see another day.

The thing is here we were not given the choice of simply defend. And between only the choices: kill him or be mugged, it is my life over his life. If his life is sustaned through the pain, suffering, and robbery of others, what a waste of a life he is living.

I voted kill only because defend was not an option. Defense ends when your enemy is no longer able to retaliate. Anything after that becomes senseless violence. Death is rarely a reasonable means for my safety.

The poll is worded very clearly. Our two choices are to kill or to allow a mild to moderate amount of damage to ourselves plus property loss. That boxes us in fairly effectively. Honestly, to me it seems manipulative.

If someone's going to attack me I already put them in the inscrutable category. It can go any way we might imagine, based on capabilities and motivations. It isn't unusual for a concealed carry victim do sustain injury before drawing and defending themselves.

i realize that, and agree.

but the comments area allows you comment on your pick, and why. and based on some of the comments, many seem more 'hell yeah i'd shoot the bastard' like they're almost excited for the opportunity rather than 'yeah, i'd shoot them, wish i had another option though'. see the difference?

Yep, but due to the poll wording I went through my own circle of reasoning. "Wait, what about choice #3?!" For me, accepting the inevitable, it could easily come out as "shoot the bastard." Suppose that made me less judgemental about responses.

I will answer this question, since I "spew" on occasion.

I think that "forgiveness" is the primary trait that Christians are called to practice, not submitting to robbery.

I also acknowledge that he told Peter "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" when Peter tried to defend him.

I don't think there is a good answer and it is a problem I struggle with.

Taken to its extreme, the Hitlers and Stalins would rule the world while the Jews and anyone else who gets in their way will die horrible deaths.

A lot of you are really assuming too much. Who says the mugger makes his living doing this? What if he is a 15 year old kid who was forced into it because of an abusive father? You people are stereotyping, and that is always a bad thing. You can (probably) admit stereotyping or racism is bad, yet the majority do it here.

MasterShake brings up more good points.

I look at it this way, in the context of the poll question we are given two options.

Of the two options, which would I consider (lacking more appealing options)?

I for one choose death.....for the mugger.

I certainly can't stand by and let myself be victimized and if the death of the mugger is the only available option--so be it--the mugger made the choice, not me.

Extremism in any form is dangerous, but this survery doesn't go to extremes, you simply have to be prepared to make the choice before the time is there. This is something that fortunately, most of us will never face, but I think your personality dictates what you will do. I choose to walk away, he won't.

What about the commandment "Thou shall not kill!" ? So you can kill, but just as long as the person you're killing deserves it? Is that it?

And still, I can't really argue on this. I'm just shocked that most people here would rather kill than receive a few bruises. It just blows my mind that there is so many willing to kill for something as pety. The emotional damage of killing someone will be a lot worse than the damage you get from a mugging. So you lose, no matter what .. the only difference is that you'll still have your pride.

And for those of you that believe in heaven and hell? What are you thinking? That you'll still go to heaven, because he had it coming to him?

My emotional side is already prepared to kill someone.

I forgot to include that I also thought that when I took my first ride out in a car, that I may kill someone.

All those things of being concerned about and understanding the responsibility I hold for someone's life isn't easy. You make it sound like there's been no thought at all, well for some there has been.

i really try to not have a problem with anyone, even if they are jerks.

but if someone has the balls to try something stupid on someone than they taking a chance at getting what they deserve.

for anyone else who is just skimming this, i would definately dissuade them from their course of action. as much as needed.

The two choices were take a mild to moderate beating and lose some posessions or kill the attacker. It's not a choice of his life or mine; that's not the choice presented in the poll. If that were the choice, I'd choose killing over dying.

But given these two exact options, I would suffer less harm by being a little bruised than I would at having to live with the knowledge of having killed someone.

I've had my purse snatched, being knocked down in the process, and recieved a few bruises and a very light sprain of my ankle. I lost some makeup, a brush, some life-savers, tampons, about $45 and my shoes, pantyhose and skirt were ruined in the process. That's pretty close to the first option--take some minor damage and lose some possessions.

Would I rather the boy who took my purse and knocked me down be dead instead to save me about $100 some abrasions, and walking with a limp for a week? I don't know enough about him to say that his life is worth less than my $100 and a few minor inconveniences.

If I'd had a gun, it'd have been in my purse, and the purse snatcher would have had it and I'd have been in the same situation, but now out the cost of the gun also.

You misquote.

It's "Thou shalt not commit murder".

Killing in self defense is not murder.

And who are you to say that taking a beating imparts "less emotional damage" than defending yourself?

As to the "heaven and hell" part, if you are somehow trying to put in "eternal damnation" for killing someone, even if it is "murder" (which I don't believe it is), murderers can enter heaven...if they are repentant. If they couldn't, then we are all screwed that way.

I have been thinking about this question for a few days now. I know that I would not allow myself to be beaten, I would defend myself. In real life I would go for disabling my attacker, not really killing him unless there was no way to disable him without killing him. If I new that defending myself would result in my attacker's death (as the question assumes) I think I would still defend myself. The starkness of the example is what gave me pause.

I guess, worded as it is, I would allow myself to be attacked and suffer minor physical injury. The only reason that that is what I chose is because Strange specifically states that I knew that these were my two choices - with nothing in between.

If this question was worded a bit differently and those were the two outcomes, but we didn't "know" the outcomes ahead of time, it's likely (given the choices, anyway) that I would kill the attacker.

Interestingly enough, if you were to replace me with my S/O, I would kill them (again, given these choices) either way - I would to everything in my power to keep my girlfriend free from harm, no matter how minor it is.

For those of you questioning the attacker's motives, I can't say I really agree - nor does it really matter what the motives are. If someone were to walk up to you and begin assaulting/robbing you, typically the victims thoughts aren't something along the lines of "hmm... I wonder if he is mistaking me for someone else, or maybe he's just trying to eat..." You have very little time to think, much less ponder the reasoning behind the attack, I'd imagine. If the situation ever come up and the attackers intentions weren't to kill me or my S/O, but I felt they were, I would do everything in my power to survive. To Kill or Be Killed is not much a philisophical question in my mind - I know which I would chose.

Strange Famous,

I love your threads. You always seem to get to the core of all of us.

Now to answer your question, I normally try to take peace not pieces. I don't think that hurting someone is worth anything.

However in the heat of being beaten I would probably strike back. The pain would get to me, and the more the attacker hit, the more I would build my rage (kinda like a pokemon") and eventually take out my car keys and stab the guy in the eye.

I would not want to kill the person, but my natural instincts may say something different.

So I think in the long run I think its kill or be killed. It that guy is going to beat me to death, I'm going to meet the one eyed bastard in hell.

If I know ahead of time that this is all that will come of it, sure. I wouldn't bother fighting back. All these things are replaceable. Bruises heal. Not only does this guy not deserve to die for this, I don't need a death on my conscience for the rest of my life. I'm a little surprised that I am against the majority on this one, actually.

I'm asking for clarifications.

Apparently I can reliably use deadly force on the opponent with certainty, and they can't stop me from killing them.

1> Can I project the threat of deadly force to the mugger?
2> Can the mugger pre-empt my deadly force threat with a first strike?
3> Is the mugger using a threat of deadly force against me?
4> Can the mugger execute their threat of deadly force against me?

If the answers are true, false, true, false (as in that rich-man case seemingly), I believe I would threaten deadly force, and then follow through if the threat is ignored.

If the answer is true, true, true, true (you have a gun trained on him, but he doesn't know it, and he has a gun trained on you), then I believe I would strike first.

If the answer is false, true, false, irrelivent, I want to know how this man is going to take my possessions without even the threat of deadly force? However, in this strange case, they are welcome to my paultry possessions.

If the answer is false, false, false, irrelivent, I would threaten deadly force and follow through if required.

One final question: how in the hell do you know the consequences? Even in the rich-man case, the difference between being beaten and being killed is a fine line.

I place importance with an honestly stated threat: I will play the position game. Instead of accepting the game (kill mugger or give mugger stuff) that the mugger is placing on me, I will give the mugger a game with my own set rules (go away or die). It changes the rules from being about how I value life, to being how the mugger values his own life.

Yes, of course, you would certainly have less time to think it through on the street. But that's part of the point of asking these questions, so you can determine the moral or legal questions involved ahead of time and have some guide to how you should react if it were to happen.

Anybody seen the Korean film Oldboy? I just caught it this past weekend and it brings up some excellent ideas about revenge, vengeance, the futility of violence, etc. That person attacking you might very well be justified in attacking you. Are you still entitled to self-defense at that point?

Some posters seem to suggest that it's allright to kill the mugger once he/she starts the actual mugging. Does the mugger still have a right to self-defense from you even after he/she caused the situation?

Would you be justified in shooting a cop who was trying to shoot you even if you started the situation by shooting somebody else, etc.?

Even Hobbes allowed the individual the right to self-defense against the sovereign.

I know SiNais avatar would kick some tail. Look at that guy. He walks around with his shirt off so he can sport his scars or tatoo or what ever those are. I bet he can bench more than any other avatar. He probably trains like 8 hours a day with sacred tae bo masters. Nobody is going steal that dudes gym membership card.

Someday I will have an avatar like that. Someday.................................

I wouldn't kill someone to avoid a few bruises and a loss of some possessions.

This is scary and saddening. Who here could say they have never hurt someone mentally or physically. What if the robber had children and was at wits end. I wouldn't agree with his methods, but he is not going to kill and probably won't maim you. What exactly are you protecting you money, you pride? I like "willRavel" have taken a significant amount of martial arts and consider sparring much like dancing. I personally am secure that I can survive with whatever belongings I carry on my person and could continue quite well without them. Where do people get off assuming that someone who is mugging you is a life criminal and probably is going to become a psycho murderer?

If I was uncertain of my safety or more importantly others then I may use force to phase him and would try not to kill him, however if it came down to him or me or him and someone else, I would unfortunately have to put him to rest.

As a 'victim' of armed robbery, how I reacted is probably why I am still here. I let them take what they wanted and get the hell out.
It's easy to say 'kill him' when you aren't in the scene. In my case, it was two men, one very large and the other brandishing a knife pointed at my face. The choice was instant and apparently right.

The fore knowledge of the end results is pretty limiting for discussion. Obviously a reasonable person wouldn't want somebody dead over a few material possessions. That's why this question is ridiculous, why can I only respond with killing the person or taking a beating? Why can't I just crack his ass? If someone tries to rob me and in the process they start beating me, you better believe I am going to start throwing thunder; if he's smart he'll get the picture and won't stick around, if he's stronger he'll fend me off and beat my ass and get what he came for, if he's stupid he'll keep going at me and I will have no problem beating him to the point of incapcitation or death. We are only animals and the most basic instinction is self preservation, problem is I don't like running from situations like this.

This is not a problem for me. Seriously. Given the two choices, there is nothing immoral or unethical about killing an attacker in self-defense.

In real life, you don't have time to think and moralize about all of this...
If it was just a theft of my stuff... here take it.
If it was to be followed by a beating of course I would defend myself. That said, I would not wish to kill anyone.


If given the time to ponder the situation, and only given the two choices, I would take the beating. I have no need to take someone's life.

I would kill the attacker with no further thought or consideration. I act. I don't consider the ethics of my actions because I have no reference for that category of thought.

If the ONLY consequences are as stated and there are no other repurcussions like having the the mugger stalk me (now knowing where I live) since I was such an easy target, then I would choose #2, loose my possessions and endure a few bruises.

In this hypothetical scenario, it comes down to this:
My wallet and bruises < Mugger's life

But without knowing all of this up front, I'd probably kill the bastard, while defending myself of course.

[B]The attacker basically makes his own choice. Why should I work hard for things to have them taken away by someone? And why should I be injured so he can have them?

I really dislike pain, besides, I'm not the one doing anything wrong, why should I be punished? I would never go out and kill anyone for the sheer pleasure of it, now, why, would I think there was pleasure in killing?
Just out and about, being the average, let's say, above average, Jane Doe, minding my own business, doing my thing, not bothering a soul - this person, going out, with the intent to cause harm and inflict pain, on whomever, could be a little old man, just because they think that they can, they are above the law, to hell with everyone and everything, no contest! They know the risks, probably part of the thrill for them.

I'd take a beating. Yes, it would suck to loose your stuff and also get your ass kicked, but my cell phone and credit card is not worth the life of another person, even a bad person.

[Full Metal Jacket reference]"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"[/Full Metal Jacket reference]

It's easy to rationalize. The mugging is an assault on my rights, my body and my property. To defend myself in such a situation is a matter of principle. In real life, I wouldn't kill the mugger unless he or she kept attacking me and I had no other choice, but I won't be a willing victim.

I'm an agnostic, myself. But hey; anyone who tries to commit a violent crime against me might end up in a position to tell me whether or not there's an afterlife. :thumbsup:

It would take a lot more than the risk of losing some stuff and getting a few bruises for me to actually kill someone. I'm not even sure I could kill someone intentionally ever.

i'd do it, no question.

Amusing. Kill. NO question, no regrets. He will simply have died as a result of his choices. Christian??? Replacable items? Bah. The most basic right we can have is the right to that which we produce. As soon as we are willing to surrender that to politically correct BS, we may as well sign ourselves over into slavery. I am prepared to die for the $4 in my wallet because it is MINE. I do not take from others, and I will not willingly allow another to take from me. The issue does not boil down to the lousy $4 (Or whatever) it boils down to whether or not I am willing to be victimized by another human being. I am not. I will not vicitimize anyone else.

I decided given those two choices that I would kill the attacker.
I prefer not to use violence, but I refuse to allow someone to threaten my life.
I am the only thing that I truely have so when someone attacks me in an attempt to injure me and destroy and aspect of my life ( by attacking me they have already partially succeed) I no longer consider them a human. They no longer have my tolerance. They no longer are apart of my love of humanity.

They are dead.

Human life IS precious, but if you attack me you have squandered that value. You have made a concious choise to endanger my life and as such you have endangered your own. Survival is a basic human instinct, and humans are dangerous animals.

I think people need to use common sense in situations like this. If I was attacked by one or two guys who weren't armed, I would definitely fight. If I was surrounded by 47 guys who were demanding my wallet, there wouldn't be any point in fighting. There is no way I could defend myself against that many people, so I would cooperate unless they physically attacked me and I had no choice.

I think it is great that a philosophical question about the value of another's life in relation to minor physical threat towards yourself has produced a resounding consensus - C. He doesn't want a piece of THIS!

Egos aside, in the example you know the two outcomes. If you chose to kill him knowing you are not in mortal danger, it is murder. You are willing to use unequal force to spare your wallet and bruises. It is interesting that Christians defend their right to kick ass:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” - Sermon on the Mount

That is between you and your bible, I know there a lot of interpretations but this one seems pretty straight forward for you all. In terms of the social responsibility, the disregard for human life is a much bigger concern than a mugging. Remember Bernard Goetz? From Court TV

I know some people think of Bernard Goetz as a hero, I disagree. If we don't insist on the high value of life consistently, people like Goetz will feel entitled to sit in judgment of anyone they want.

I guess this is a good representaion of why we have a war on our hands.

Goetz only sat in "judgment" after some punks starting after him with a screwdriver.

Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.

hmm, i haven't read anyones posts... cos well, theres too many!!

but, knowing that there was going to be no PERMANENT damage... i'd take the beating.. i wouldn't want to risk the psychological trauma that would be placed on my fagile little mind, if i knowingly killed someone for no real reason :)

if it was me or them. fuck. they'd die.

in reality, i'd prefer to just give them a fucking good beating, hopefully so they could realise that trying to steal things is wrong.

If I were attacked the first thing I would try to do is defend myself, but I don't think that I would ever kill someone, unless they were clearly trying to kill me. If someone is just mugging me and taking my wallet, then no, I would not kill someone for that. If people are shooting at me and I happen to have a gun in my hand, then yes, I will probably shoot back. I didn't vote because I don't like the options of either sitting idly as you get beaten or killing a person. Surely there is some middle ground.

burn mugger, burn...

if necessary the mugger dies, but hopefully I won't have to go to that extreme. He's not getting my stuff however unless I judge that the danger to me or others is too great if I fight back.

this is honestly a tough one. I value all life, even if it is someone who is inherently evil. there is no justification for taking another's life even if it IS in self-defense. and i'm also a firm believer in kharma, and violence never solving anything and only breeding more violence. I wouldn't attack even if I thought the chance of me dying would be high. Nor do I believe I could live w/ the guilt of having to take someone elses life regardless of the circumstances...

about the notion "Killing in self defense is not murder", IMO, killing is still killing no matter how you try to justify it to yourself. you still took the life of someone else regardless of the situation. you may have been driven into the circumstance where it was kill or be killed, but your still a murder. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, like I said it's my opinion and philosophy and apoligize if you took offense in that statement...

HOWEVER, if there was someone else with me, I'd do what I could to protect them, even if it meant my own life. but as far as if I needed to go as far as killing someone else in order to do that, I honestly have no idea what I would do. I'd like to say I wouldn't kill them or cause them any pain, but never being in that sort of situation there's no way I could really answer that question. at least in the end I hope i wouldn't...

I responded that I would kill the attacker, because it was the closest option to the answer I have.

Basically, I would defend myself. If the attacker wanted my wallet, they can have it. But if they start roughing me up, I would not hesitate to give them a taste of their own medicine. If I am ever in the situation where I fear for my life because of the aggressive actions of another person, I will not hesitate to preserve my life at the cost of theirs. While there may be socio-economic factors or mental conditions that influence their decisions, I frankly do not give a flying fuck. If someone is trying to kill me, or someone I care about, I will do everything I can, using anything I can, to kill them first. End of story.

If it is murder, then I'll go to jail. And I'll still be alive.

The situation is setup and worded very badly. There's not enough information given on the situation, and the actual situation would likely never happen.

If someone attacked me, I would do EVERYTHING in my own will to defend myself, even if that means knocking him unconscious and possibly taking his life. I would not "try" to kill him, but if he kept atttacking me and I kept fighting and it didn't end until he was dead, then that's what he'll get. Sitting there and taking it to prevent own further physical harm is not a good choice. It seems today that the "cool" and "ghetto, brave" thing to do is just go ahead and kill instead of just mug. I'm not gonna take that chance.

Now, the actual question/situation posted: I would of course let him beat me up. Killing someone when they did not threaten your life is against the law. <B>In the original poster's situation, killing the attacker would send you to jail</B> because he did not threaten your life. Hell, the situation even states that you would be mildly injured. The question makes no sense and the situation would never happen.

Those that are answering "kill" are changing the situation into my first paragraph..basically whether to defend yourself or not. In the original poster's description, there are only two options: KILL the attacker and suffer no damage, or barely take any damage yourself and let the attacker get away. The obvious choice is to let the attacker get away, else you'd literally go to jail.

Is the original poster trying to set up a personal defense question, or is the question trying to manipulate people into agreeing they'd kill over money? I think it needs to be explained waay better.

-Lasereth

While I agree with others that this could have been worded better, it is always better to give that to receive. So why would you be content with receiving a beating when you can do the honors yourself?

Kill em. One less piece of shit in the world!

I didn't vote for either of them.
If I am attacked, I will defend myself no matter what. But I wouldn't kill the attacker.
There would be too much paper work involved :)

I wouldn't just sit by and let myself get robbed, but I wouldn't go for the kill instantly either. If it came down to him or me though, it wouldn't be me that dies. If I have anything to say about it anyway.

I was in my garage one time late at night with the door open. I was working with an exacto knife. I thought i heard someone behind me. I was surprised to see how fast I turned around and raised the razor blade, ready to plunge it into someones neck who might be intent on hurting me. If the situation was right, im sorry to say the sorry sack of crap would be lying on the ground taking his las breaths as i walk away with my wallet still im my back pocket.

No doubt that I'd open fire. To do any less would be to fail at a basic civic duty to remove the douchebag from society so that he cannot attack somebody else. And you can't know that the attacker would stop at a moderate beating. If you go around physically attacking people in violation of the law, you have to expect that people will not stand still for it, and that the cost may be your life.

As for "what point would you kill?" The answer is as soon as it's legally justified. Early Bird gets the Worm, and all that. As soon as the person puts you or your loved ones in danger, you MUST act, lest you lose the chance to act at all.

This varies from locality to locality. Here, if the person puts you in danger of grievous bodily harm, you can legally kill them. That can mean many things...I had a judge once tell me that getting kicked would qualify, since he felt that getting stomped to death was a very bad way to die. Personally, I operate on the "malicious wounding" scale. If you are at risk of injury that would require bones to be set, or sutures to repair, or any kind of surgery to repair the injury (like knocked out teeth), or the potential loss of an eye, that's grievous bodily harm.

So, let's say that you don't act, he robs you, and gets away. You've just managed to teach him that attacking people pays pretty well. So next time he goes out, he's going to do it again. Or do you think that once he gets your wallet and stomps on you a while, he's going to discover Jesus and stop robbing people? What happens when you didn't act to stop him, and he kills somebody? Now their blood is on your hands, because you failed in your civic duty to society, and your failure caused the death of an innocent.

Frankly, I don't care what the old testament says. I'm not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

You say the emotional damage of killing someone is worse than the damage you get from being mugged. What do you base that on?

You don't have kids, do you...

If you had kids and they were in danger, you'd kill to defend them, wouldn't you? If you wouldn't, how would you live with yourself afterwards? How would THEY live with you knowing that "your morals" were more important than "their lives"?

Good thing I am not Christian. Bible says an eye for an eye. If you rob someone of all their belongings it is like killing them. It also allows you to defend yourelf, if someone is trying to attack (kill you) you can strike first!

Given the precise choice in the question I would, after some thought, go for 'be attacked' option given that, unlike any concievable 'real' situation you have the certain knowledge that you will escape with a mild beating.

I would suggest that most people opting for 'kill the attacker' are projecting this to a real life situation where you wouldn't know what the hell was in store. My view is that if you felt that you were in danger of a serious or life threatening attack and lethal force were the only way to protect yourself then go for it. Otherwise it's not justified

For those people shocked by the bloodlust of some of the responses, don't get too wound up about it, it's all to easy to anonymously toss off and post a 'kill the bastards' kind of message in a forum such as this.

If half those people were seriously questioned about whether they support the death sentence for mugging and knew their views would be publicly broadcast and available to all their family and coworkers etc. then I feel you would get a more considered response from them.

Just a point of order....An eye for an eye was under Mosaic Law, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, and his second great commandment was love thy neighbor as thyself. When sked how many times one should forgive their enemies Jesus replied "seven times seventy". Seven is an interesing number, in the original hebrew, it can also mean infinity, or an infinite number....Before I get the reputation of being a Bible thumper, let me say this:I carry a gun, I am licensed to carry it and I voted that I would kill my attacker because that is the closest option to defending my safety, and the safety of my family.

if i look at what underpins this..as in would you rather be hurt or hurt someone i would probably go with the former.it would depend.if i knew i cud kill him and i knew he deserved it i probably would..if i didnt know this...and i knew he wouldnt kill me i may let him! anwyas in this country id probably get put in prison for killing an attacker lol



:crazy:

I chose kill, but not because he's a "scumbag who deserves to die". If he went through with the attack I would be traumatized for probably a good deal of my life. Of course I'd be traumatized either way, but I'd rather feel guilty than terrified all the time.