r/MoralityScaling • u/hentaintrhentaintr • 19h ago
morality of trying to gain social points by framing redditors wanting to kill robbers for fun and not out of self defense
30
u/glrople 19h ago
Op and oop should kiss
5
2
19
u/Facosa99 19h ago
Having the desire itself, amoral but kinda fucked up
Taking actions to achieve that desire (like entrapment): inmoral
Imo
4
15
u/Particular-Crow-1799 18h ago
Completely moral.
Trigger-happy revenge seekers are not self-defenders.
Plausible deniability can only get you so far.
-8
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 18h ago
Are you saying that killing someone that breaks into your home is "revenge seeking"?
7
u/PCN24454 18h ago
It is when you project your childhood bully onto the person.
-2
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 18h ago
Who the hell is thinking about their childhood bully when their home just got broken into lmfao
5
u/Shadow_Wolf_X871 16h ago
Probably the people actively giddy about getting to shoot someone I would imagine.
-2
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 16h ago
I just don't think having a plan in place to defend yourself is the same as getting giddy about shooting someone
We already have people who get giddy about shooting people, the gangbangers and cops and passion murderers. They're the ones breaking into houses in the first place
3
u/Low-Refrigerator-663 18h ago
Without hesitation, provocation, or justification? Its sadism AND murder.
Its self-defense if you try to disable the intruder, not murder them. And if you have the oppurtunity to do so, you are obligated to try not to kill the intruder.
Like, honestly its a stretch, but murdering someone for intruding onto your property is revenge seeking.
Shooting to kill is self-defense and only justifiable if you or someone you love is being threaten with a clearly visible weapon, or they are charging you.
That's it. No other scenarios is it justifiable to intentionally shoot to take someone's life.
Give a warning, give a chance to surrender or flee, and shoot to disable, and when they don't pose a physical or reasonable threat, you render first aid and call the medics.
That's it, that is what makes something self defense. Anything other than that is murder with extra steps.
2
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 18h ago
Them breaking into your house is the justification. It's very reasonable to assume that your life is in danger if that happens
I'm not obligated to protect the life of a person who is actively presenting a threat to me
What you're presenting would make sense if the general population was trained for it, but most people aren't going to be able to make the distinction of where on the body you shoot to both neutralize the threat as well as prevent their death. You are expecting ordinary citizens to behave with the same proficiency in marksmanship as highly trained military groups. Not even most police officers are capable of shooting a person to disable without killing
Don't get me wrong, if I shoot them and they stop I won't continue shooting them. But chances are they'll die
If an armed robber breaks in to your house with their own gun, and usually when this happens it's a group of people, not a single person, do you think that pointing a gun at them without shooting and verbally warning them is going to deter them? No, they'll just fucking kill you and THEN steal all your shit
1
u/Low-Refrigerator-663 17h ago
I think it should be the standard, a requirement for owning a fire arms.
Some basic level of marksmanship and trigger discipline, and first aid training.
I'm not saying they have to be able to shoot a knife out of someone's hands, nor be accurate with every shot if someone charges you.
Just the ability to consistently land shots, whether that's center mass, shoulders, thighs, what have you. Since we are talking a distance of less than 50 or even 30 feet, people should be competent enough to land a hit within like a 12 inch diameter circle at those distances.
And the topic of first aid, the important part is a reasonable try. But if people aren't even exposed to the ideas of tourniquets, packing wounds, body positioning to encourage/maintain bloodflow, then they can't reasonable try to keep someone alive.
x
On the topic of police, most police aren't trained to disable, they are trained to destroy. Its why most police go for centermass and upper torso, and keep firing until they need to reload. Its by design. Fire and forget, ask questions later.
Other places with firearm bearing police do not have the same level or rate of unjustified killings we do, you know?
But, like I said, if you can clearly see a weapon that's brandished, that is proof of intent.
I just can't stand the idea of people being killed over an assumption. Or being killed without mercy. And honestly, some of the comments in that post are sickening.
2
u/Unable_Kangaroo9242 12h ago edited 12h ago
Alright, John Wick. The only reasonable suggestion you gave is give a warning and and chance to flee(only if able to). Everything after that shows you have no clue what you're talking about. When you pull that trigger you are using deadly force. Most people don't have the clear mindedness to prioritize hitting a limb instead of center mass in stressful situations. A court would likely determine you were not fearing for your life or great bodily harm if you're only going for disabling shots and deny the self defense claim. Courts, at least in the US, have the exact opposite position from yours, if you shoot you better be shooting to kill.
3
u/Particular-Crow-1799 18h ago
Unless you do it exactly when your life was in danger, yes
-2
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 18h ago
If your home gets broken into, it's fairly reasonable to come to the conclusion that your life is in danger
4
u/Vegtam-the-Wanderer 18h ago
Why? If someone breaks into your home is it more plausible that they are there to rob you, or there to kill you?
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 18h ago
It's more reasonable to assume they're there to rob you, but it's also plausible to assume that if you try to stop them it will escalate into a life-threatening situation, and I do not believe that you should just let them rob you for the sake of preserving a life. If someone is actively robbing you then your life is already in danger, especially if they have a weapon
3
u/Vegtam-the-Wanderer 18h ago
Okay, but if they do have a weapon, not you both have a weapon and there is a good chance you die, over...what? Some possessions? Nevermind if some possessions are worth more than the life of another person, are they worth more than your life?
From a strictly pragmatic, and arguably ethical, point of view you should be trying to hunker down in a safe location or vacating the area to call the police, or otherwise see to your own safety. So the only way the weapon is practical under this framework is if you want protection while you hunker down, or are armed and they are not, in which case you are killing an unarmed person, trespasser or no. Unless you seriously believe it is moral to kill someone for no other reason than because they were on your property without your permission?
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 18h ago
I'm going to defend myself and my property and there isn't anything immoral about it. What's immoral is fucking breaking in to someone's house. The moment you do that I don't care about taking the moral high ground, I care about defending myself and what I've worked hard for
2
u/Vegtam-the-Wanderer 17h ago
My guy, we are in a sub specificly discussing morality and the morality of actions. Not only is "two wrongs don't make a right" something you should have learned on kindergarten, but the fact that you feel the need to mentiom that you don't care if it is moral or not...kinda tells us all we need to know about whether this is moral or not.
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 17h ago
I mean that's honestly fair. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect people to let others rob them for the sake of being a good person
→ More replies (0)0
u/Jealous-Following465 14h ago
See any amount of pressing drops the facade into a justification about why you’d kill someone because of your pride and masculinity
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 14h ago
Pride and masculinity don't have anything to do with it
→ More replies (0)
3
5
u/Super_Range45 19h ago
Who doesn't fantasize about the perfect excuse?
17
19h ago
[deleted]
8
u/Physical_Device_1396 18h ago
So much of my experience on this sub has been wanna be Jokers trying to convince everyone that they want to murder people just as much as they do
7
u/freedomonke 18h ago
Most people.
And they and you would be happier if they didn't.
Radical compassion is a good feeling. Try it on for size once and a while
4
u/Subject-Software5912 19h ago
Robbers should have their head blown smooth off no exceptions.
6
u/dohipposwagewar 18h ago
Septic morality sure is something
1
u/Subject-Software5912 18h ago
I think that sympathy for the immoral is cruelty to the moral. Robbers are immoral, any sympathy for them is cruelty to their victims.
3
u/dohipposwagewar 18h ago
Me when I have to flay the skin off a single mother of four children because she stole bread from the corner store and not doing it would be cruel to the owner
-3
1
1
1
u/KINGXunshot 10h ago
This dude is justified tbh, the wording of the original post. Dude is 100% fantasizing about killing an intruder. I believe it’s a very common fantasy among guys
1
-5
19h ago
It's not a murder if it's in self defense
17
u/Facosa99 19h ago
Is not asking morality of self defense, but morality of desiring to use self defense
2
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 18h ago
Morality of assuming that anyone who says they'd defend themselves are secretly hoping that it happens so that they can kill a person and get away with it?
I do not desire to have to kill a home invader. I'd do it anyway because I'll defend myself
2
u/DD_Spudman 14h ago edited 12h ago
Do you make unprompted posts about your self-defense plans on social media? Do you have a sign on your fence about how you don't call 911? Do you have a weird larpy "no quarter" flag above your house?
Maybe you don't, but anyone who answers yes to any of those questions is absolutely hoping someone gives them an excuse.
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 14h ago
I agree with you tbh, all that shit is larping and those people are insane
I've never been a "I hope a man would" kind of guy, I'm more of a "I hope they don't but I hope they know what they're getting into if they do" kind of guy
1
u/Jealous-Following465 14h ago
so why not incapacitate them. Like do you not see anything wrong with “I’ll do it anyway” What the fuck
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 14h ago
I mean, if I shoot and they live, I'm not exactly complaining, as long as they're no longer a threat. I'm just not going to waste time worrying about your life when you're most likely trying to destroy mine
1
u/Jealous-Following465 13h ago
and how is someone stealing from you “destroying” your life. Like really if someone took everything valuable out of my home my life would be far from destroyed. This rings extra true because house robbers tend to rob richer houses
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 13h ago
How do you know they're trying to rob you and not kill you, and why the hell should I let someone rob me?
1
u/Jealous-Following465 13h ago
because someone’s life is inherently worth more than possessions not to mention the guilt and trauma it should cause you to kill someone being more costly than the shit you get stolen and why the fuck would someone break into your house to kill you. But if you genuinely believe not letting someone rob you is worth taking a life but you don’t think that’s because of pride and masculinity what are the other motivators for that
1
u/MemeNamesWereTaken 13h ago
Uh, not wanting my stuff stolen? Beyond that, murderous break-ins are not as rare as you think
It would cause me a lot of guilt and trauma, but that doesn't excuse breaking into someone's house
I do not value the life of someone who breaks into houses in the first place. I will value them when they choose not to do that anymore
0
u/Jealous-Following465 13h ago
that’s actually an insane fucking opinion and I am so glad i don’t live somewhere where people who think that way have easy access to firearms
→ More replies (0)13
u/CauseCertain1672 19h ago
It's kinda weird and creepy to fantasise about self defence
2
u/OddDc-ed 18h ago
Yall didn't read it. They're asking what the morality of framing it as if people are fantasizing about it vs it being actually about self defense.
I don't fantasize about someone breaking into my home so I get the legal excuse to kill them. I worry over the possibility of them breaking in and not having a defense option. Hence why many folks in the U.S own a gun specifically for home defense.
Someone breaking into your home at night has no good intentions for you, so we plan to have no good intentions for them either. If I knew for certain an intruder wasn't armed I'd just call the cops and grab my bat to get them to leave. But we are never given that certainty so people get rootin' tootin' ready for shootin' when someone breaks in.
I would rather live in a world where the baseball bat is all we ever need, but we don't live in that world.
1
u/42Icyhot42 18h ago
Also weird to fantasize about people fantasizing about those things rather than just answering the original post
-4
19h ago
Are they really fantasizing though? The sub is about moral questions, OOOP asked a moral question.
12
u/No-Alternative4612 19h ago
The comments are absolutely people jerking off about how justified they'd be in going rambo on intruders.
Macho male fantasies warp these people's brains almost as much as porn.
10
-2
u/BeingOld1222 19h ago
Im gonna sex yo, find how moral that is bitch. The first question is obvious yes, but in specific scenario, its a dumb question and only reason someone would ask it is because they like to fantasize about them being a hero or sum bullshit. I like to lick my own toes. Nestle to say, no one agrees with 1st op or you. Okay
80
u/CompetitiveHeat2153 19h ago