A simple question to those who carry for self-defense.

[Starboard Tack]

Do you support the death penalty?

16 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	11 (69%)
	No
	5 (31%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[slackmaster]

1. I don't carry, but I oppose the DP

HTH

[petronius]

2. +1 (nt)

[Glassunion]

3. I disagree with the death penalty

I carry for self defense. I do not view the death penalty as self defense.

[Starboard Tack]

7. I agree. The death penalty is not self defense.

But doesn't your carrying imply that you are prepared to execute another human without due process, if you alone deem it necessary?

[gejohnston]

9. no

because the DP sets out to kill someone. Self Defense does not. You fire to stop, not to kill. that is a difference. You realize, by saying what you are, you are putting a higher value on the attacker than the defender. If no, it is certainly perceived as such by most people in the world. That is why people who have disdain for those who defend themselves, are marginalized even in DU.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. +1 :) n/t

[Starboard Tack]

13. There is a difference between defending yourself and killing someone.

Admittedly, one could inadvertently kill someone with a punch or kick or in wrestling an attacker to the ground and they crack their skull. But shooting a person and aiming at center mass to STOP them is more than likely going to kill them. Using a firearm for SD is about as subtle as using a bomb to make a point.
I don't know anyone who has disdain for those who choose to defend themselves, but I know many who have disdain for those who would choose a gun as the primary tool, rather than a last resort.

[gejohnston]

15. you need to read threads closer

Admittedly, one could inadvertently kill someone with a punch or kick or in wrestling an attacker to the ground and they crack their skull. But shooting a person and aiming at center mass to STOP them is more than likely going to kill them.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on a number of factors. The difference is what happens after the shot is fired. Attacker takes off drops and defender calls 911 including ambulance for the guy he shot is not like the DP. Sometimes subtle doesn't work. Maybe that is all you have.
A summary execution after the attack is over, is like the DP. Big difference.

I don't know anyone who has disdain for those who choose to defend themselves, but I know many who have disdain for those who would choose a gun as the primary tool, rather than a last resort.

Seriously? iverglas comes to mind. Remember the thread about the guy that shot someone who was beating the shit out of him even after he retreated? Hoyt called him a racist. DanTex accused him of "not walking away and driving off". Then there is Robert Eells last year. Sorry, don't buy it. Sometimes that is the only tool. You don't reason with violent drunks or someone on PCP. My view is, if you don't know all the facts of the case and were not there, you don't get to judge.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. If your assailant is determined to kill you with fists, teeth and fingernails,

defending yourself is going to incur the same risks to your attacker, you're both just going about it in a horribly inefficient manner.

[PavePusher]

31. "shooting a person and aiming at center mass to STOP them is more than likely going to kill them"

Not according to the CDC injury/death by gunshot stats.

Try again?

[Callisto32]

33. I carry a gun.

It is not my primary tool.

Situational awareness and not going doing stupid shit to single myself out as a possible prey animal is my primary tool. So many times, those who do not carry firearms incorrectly perceive the carrying of a firearm as giving that firearm first resort status.

[DWC]

25. Perfect response to a loaded question. n/t

[Glassunion]

12. No it does not.

[Starboard Tack]

14. So why carry it if you are not prepared to kill?

I'm sure your intention would not be to kill an attacker, but to stop them, but you also realize the chances of your killing them is very high.

[Glassunion]

24. No matter how you rephrase it you are ignoring the point.

1. By carrying a firearm, I am not preparing to execute someone.
2. By carrying a firearm, I am not preparing to kill someone.
3. By carrying a firearm, I am not preparing to (your next rephrasing of the above)

By carrying a firearm, I AM preparing to defend myself should the occasion arise. PERIOD.

[Starboard Tack]

27. I never suggeste you were "preparing" to do any of those.

I stated that by carrying you must be "prepared" to kill, if you deem it necessary. Your intention may be to defend yourself, but in doing so with a gun, you are also aware that there is a very good chance that you will kill. I'm not rephrasing it. I used the word "prepared". You used the word "preparing". There's a big difference.

[Callisto32]

36. We prepare to stop violent attacks.

Sometimes, that means inflicting mortal damage upon the attacker.

We are prepared to accept the possible consequences of our actions, not "kill."

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Due process is not a factor in self defense.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

2. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,

3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,

4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

This is not a due process, law enforcement/punishment issue.

[jeepnstein]

29. My goal is to stop the aggression.

That's all.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Your goal may well be to stop the aggression, but there are consequences.

If your goal is to stop the boat from rocking, do you sink it? Do you jump off a roof to escape a fire? The first thing I learned in LE was that the primary goal was to protect life and that meant the lives of others before one's own. Stopping the aggression may be a step towards protecting life.

[jeepnstein]

41. So you're saying defending your own life is not acceptable?

I'm supposed to just willingly die so the other guy isn't inconvenienced? Kind of sounds like that's what you're getting at.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Now where did I say anything close to that?

I said the primary goal is to protect life and that means the lives of others before one's own. If you are acting as a cop, then your own life does not come first. That's why you are a cop, because you are prepared to put your life on the line for others. That does not mean you should not defend your own life. When you carry a badge and gun, your life becomes secondary to those you serve and protect, in the same way a captain of a ship is responsible for his passengers and crew first and foremost.

[gejohnston]

45. I guess that is the difference between UK cops and cops in North America

not that US and Canadian cops don't, but I doubt it is as ingrained.

[jeepnstein]

47. What department are you with?

I've never heard anything even remotely like that. That's not at all what I was taught at the Ohio Peace Officer's Training Academy. Of course there are forty nine other states and they may have a different approach, which is why I'm interested.

ETA: If you don't want to say publicly I understand. A private message would be just as good.

[gejohnston]

48. some place in the UK

he had a badge, but no gun.

[jeepnstein]

49. Oh. That's really interesting.

I was taught that I was going to be of no use to anyone if I went and got myself killed. So the first goal of any call is to not get myself killed or crippled. Everything else kind of falls in behind that.

I'd love to see a thread comparing the two different approaches. The mind set must be 180 degrees apart from how we do it here.

[Starboard Tack]

50. UK, unarmed, as we all were at the time, barring specialized sharpshooters.

[PavePusher]

4. Support, under very strict evidence requirements.

Giffords shooter, caught at scene, video evidence, etc? Yes.

Aurora shooter, same deal? Yes.

[virginia mountainman]

8. Agree NT

[Trunk Monkey]

5. Not sure how to answer I don't support the death penalty across the board

But I do think there are crimes for which it is appropriate. If the Aurora shooter is found guilty I would agree with the death penalty in his case for sure.

To answer your deeper question I have drawn a firearm in self defense one time and I had every intention of shooting as soon as might sights were lined up on the target but my attacker ran.

[Starboard Tack]

6. I'm not sure what you mean by "across the board"

But your response to the Aurora shooter is enough. I would think that anyone supporting the DP would insist on strict requirements along with very strong evidence.
So your answer to the "deeper question" is that you would apparently have no problem acting as executioner?
I'd be interested in hearing about how you felt and thought immediately after that incident. Did you feel total relief that the guy ran and you didn't have to shoot? Did you pissed that he ran? Did you have any misgivings?

[Trunk Monkey]

21. Answering the deeper question

But your response to the Aurora shooter is enough. I would think that anyone supporting the DP would insist on strict requirements along with very strong evidence.

Holmes was caught red handed at the scene. I'd call that fairly strong evidence

So your answer to the "deeper question" is that you would apparently have no problem acting as executioner?

Didn't even think about it I reacted in accordance with my training

I'd be interested in hearing about how you felt and thought immediately after that incident.

I went through an intense adrenalin dump I kept it together long enough to get into my apt them I shook like a leaf for 20 minutes and smoked probably a half a pack of smokes.

Did you feel total relief that the guy ran and you didn't have to shoot?

Yes

Did you pissed that he ran?

What a fucked up question are you asking of I was disappointed that I didn't "get" to shoot? I was pissed off that the guy jumped me

Did you have any misgivings?

What kind of misgivings?

[Starboard Tack]

22. They are just questions, not accusations.

I'm not trying to imply anything. By misgivings, I mean any kind of regrets. I can hardly imagine what it must feel like to point a gun at someone with the full intention of shooting them. So, by misgivings, I'm curious as to whether you had reason to question your actions in light of how close you had come to killing another human and the only reason you didn't was because that person decided to run.
I'm not casting any blame your way and I truly sympathize with you for having to go through such an ordeal. I have considered carrying, but the thought of having to make that choice in such a situation tells me not to.

[PavePusher]

35. "They are just questions, not accusations."

"I'm not trying to imply anything."

I do not believe you.

[Starboard Tack]

51. I'm sure you don't. There is plenty I don't believe about you.

[Trunk Monkey]

46. Unlike you

Unlike you I’m not willing to trust my life to the good intentions of a stranger (armed or not) that has already shown his contempt for the social compact by attacking me. If a person attacks me they have already signaled their intent to at the very least do me serious bodily harm. Similarly if a person threatens me with a weapon they have threatened to end my life and I reserve the right to take them at their word.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Where did I say I was willing to trust my life to a stranger?

If I'd been armed, I would probably have done exactly what you did. The fact that I have never been armed in such situations, of which I've had a few, meant I didn't have your choice. So I had to rely on other resources in order to find a peaceful resolution. I learned very early in life that when attacked, escalation is the worst solution. You may think I'm foolish for not using a gun to defend myself, but if I did use one, even with justification, it would cause me irreparable damage. I don't believe in any god, but I do believe in the soul and that is what drives me.

[PavePusher]

34. You keep attempting to insinuate that defense is equal to being an "executioner".

That is vile and dishonest and you are doing it intentionally.

Please stop.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. I voted Pass. I don't carry.

I also don't support the DP because too many people are wrongly convicted. Often they are the poor and/or a minority.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I carry, and I do NOT support the death penalty.

I suspect you are conflating self-defense with some sort of impression of vigilanteeism/judge-jury-execution punishment.

This is not the case for me. My firearm is for the preservation of human life. Human life is precious to me. My firearm is for halting or preventing any attack upon myself or others.

If in the moment it takes to brandish, before firing, halts the attacker, I will not shoot.
If the first shot halts the attack but the attacker is still alive, I will cease fire.

It is a tool for stopping an attack, imminent or underway. Nothing more. It is not my function to detain someone, or punish them. My firearm will not be used in such a manner.

I've been carrying for 9 years, and I haven't shot anyone yet, and I'll die perfectly happy, an old man in my bed, never having shot anyone if I get my way.

[Starboard Tack]

38. I'm really not conflating anything.

I'm trying to establish whether there is a correlation between the two. The results, so far, are pretty much as I expected. Most who do not carry do not support the DP. Those who do tend to reflect the general population. I sometimes forget that.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Poll construction sorta sucks.

Could have offered an explicit "I don't carry, dont' DP" and "I don't carry, do DP" and eliminated quite a bit of speculation what that 'other' option contains.

[rrneck]

18. Dont carry, oppose DP. (Death Penalty) nt

[Clames]

20. Carry and support the death penalty.

For me, both are to be used only when circumstances are clearly justifiable.

[Kaleva]

23. Pass. I don't carry and I don't support the death penalty.

[MicaelS]

26. Very poorly done poll, too few options.

I don't carry, but I support the DP. And if I did carry, I would still support the DP.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Feel free to post your own poll. I support neither, under any circumstances.

That said, it doesn't mean I wouldn't carry or shoot someone if circumstances demanded. But advocate such behavior? No, never.

[DWC]

30. I voted "yes"

I do carry concealed.

The two subjects are mutually exclusive.

Individuals that commit capital crimes are cancers to the body of our society. We kill cancer, we do not isolate it and feed it until it dies naturally.

I also support a "quick and speedy trial". When individuals like the mass murderer at Ft Hood have not been tried after YEARS of legal BS there is something seriously wrong with our system.

I support a system where, whatever the crime and whatever the determined punishment, that punishment may not exceed seven years. If the punishment is execution, then that execution must be carried out within seven years.

Any individual, good or bad, is simply not the same person after that period of time.

Semper Fi,

[AtheistCrusader]

40. No question of competence?

Guilt on the part of the Ft. Hood shooter isn't really in doubt. Is it necessary to kill him, if he wasn't competent?

If his life can be salvaged with treatment, and he can become competent, is it then necessary to punish him for an act he committed while incompetent?

Aside from the 'do we have the right guy' question, this is the other reason I do not support the death penalty.

[CokeMachine]

32. Pass

Don't carry (California) -- Support DP in extreme cases.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. CCW permit holder here, voted "no."

I oppose capital punishment because I have insufficient confidence in the legal system. To my mind, too many cases of false conviction for capital crimes have come to light.

[Starboard Tack]

53. If you were sure all convictions were correct would you then support it?

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. For certain heinous crimes, yes. (nm)

...

[Starboard Tack]

55. So murder is OK when committed by the state?

I call it "murder" because it fits the definition of killing with premeditation and malice aforethought and I find it particularly "heinous" because of the torture that precedes any execution and the coldbloodedness of the process.
It is the classic example of two wrongs making two wrongs.

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. Murder has a different definition, actually..but I understand your point.

It's one I struggle with, actually...even though it's only a hypothetical (since the justice system is imperfect, I can't see myself ever supporting capital punishment).

[Starboard Tack]

57. Good! We agree on that.

I know it is very tempting to want to put to death those who commit the vilest acts and I doubt there are many who would not be prepared to kill someone in self defense or in defense of another. But for the state to kill in such a way is obscene.

[MrValentine]

44. I support the death penalty ...

... and believe that it should be used in all 50 states for the perpetrators of violent crimes like murder, rape, child abuse, and animal abuse.

[TheKentuckian]

58. Nope. I see no relation once one gets any beyond the killing aspect.

One, in self defense I am not putting blood on anyone else's hands. The state makes us all killers as the deed is done literally in our names.

Two, the death penalty is dressing up murder one. It is the pre-meditated killing of a defenseless person in no position to present a clear and present danger.

Three, self defense is not an act of cold blooded revenge but rather taking action to preserve life and limb in real time.

Four, self defense is not an agenda with a pre-determined outcome. Being prepared for an eventuality you pray you will never meet is a very different thing to me.

Five, I'm going to be a hell of a lot more certain the accused did the deed considering we are real time and I am dangerously an eye witness and target.

I'm sure there are other substantial differences but those spring to mind.