The problem is, the good guy closes to the bad guy while he is prostrate on the ground, and plugs him 3 times at close range when there is no apparent deadly threat present. Then, he shoots him again when he leans over to pick up the toy gun.
That, my friends, is how you go to jail despite being initially 100% justified in using deadly physical force.
This isn't an argument against double-tapping. This is an argument that the law is broken and must be fixed.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that, if someone threatens you, your family, loved ones, etc. with a deadly weapon, your only correct, moral, and ethical recourse is to destroy them. A person who has chosen to threaten you with a weapon has chosen to risk destroying you or your loved ones, whether by accident or intent. Shooting a hostile once is no guarantee he won't fire a few shots back at you, potentially hitting you, your loved ones, or innocent bystanders.
But if you hit center mass, and double tap to make sure the assailant is dead, you prevent not only immediate retaliation, but future malfeasance by the initial hostile.
It rustles my jimmies something fierce that people can't understand the simple logic of "you must wager your own life if you are to threaten to take someone else's". A criminal committing criminal acts with a weapon is not a misguided innocent needing to be coddled and "rehabilitated". This is not a man breaking a window and stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister. This is a man who, to the best knowledge of everyone around him, is waving a magic white man fire stick around and can kill anyone he points it at.
Yes, I agree. That time is generally defined as the point in which the aggressor can be declared clinically dead.
I will honestly never understand the apologia for violent criminals brandishing deadly weapons who try be be what's going around and instead get what's coming around. It's not like we're discussing clubbing baby seals, kicking puppies, or gunning down unarmed civilians. We discussing someone correctly ending what, at the time, your best evidence indicated was a real and present threat.
You can argue "oh, the jogger boy got his reparations, he was on his way out to go to church and get out of the hood. He wuz a gud boi, he dindu nuffin" all day, but the civilians who are, to the best of their knowledge, being robbed at gunpoint, have no reason to assume the man crazy and/or desperate enough to become a bandit won't suddenly decide a rape or murder is on the table as well.
Jogger boy over there could very well turn around and fire a few shots; you have no indicators the aggressor, and I hate to belabor this but it bears repeating, who is a literal armed bandit is a man of sound mind and upstanding moral character, and many indicators that this is a violent, aggressive man acting unpredictably.
Putting two rounds center mass and another two in the head to make sure he stays down is perfectly moral. I would even argue it's an ethical requirement, if you follow the ideology that those with power have a responsibility to use it to protect those without power.
What's your opinion of killing military aged males in sandy countries bevause they may have used weapons in the past?
Way to not so much move the fucking goalposts as to attach them to a rocket and launch them at Mars.
I dunno, what's the bloody context? Are the sand joggers robbing a store I'm in? Did I just pass them on the street? Are we currently in sand jogger country and they're potential hostiles eyeing up my guard post suspiciously?
Because if this question is, essentially, "would you also say to double tap if it was an allahu ackbar instead of a dindu robbing the store with what turned out to be a toy gun?", I'd say "absolutely, ammunition does not discriminate, it only penetrates".
If a person is an aggressor with a deadly weapon, making sure the target is permanently stopped is the goal. You can own a firearm and not brandish it in a robbery. You can go for a walk about town with your firearm without automagically becoming a bandit, forced to assault and rob nearby people.
But when you make the choice to walk into a place, brandish a deadly weapon (which even in the most soyboi cuck legal frameworks is still understood to be an implicit threat of grievous injury and/or death), and rob people, you've made the choice to gamble your life. And you have zero recourse to complain if your gamble fails and someone takes your life.
Because the bandit is not a victim. The bandit is a violent criminal, who was quite likely to offend again, and potentially hurt or kill someone during the next robbery.
This isn't an argument against double-tapping. This is an argument that the law is broken and must be fixed.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that, if someone threatens you, your family, loved ones, etc. with a deadly weapon, your only correct, moral, and ethical recourse is to destroy them. A person who has chosen to threaten you with a weapon has chosen to risk destroying you or your loved ones, whether by accident or intent. Shooting a hostile once is no guarantee he won't fire a few shots back at you, potentially hitting you, your loved ones, or innocent bystanders.
But if you hit center mass, and double tap to make sure the assailant is dead, you prevent not only immediate retaliation, but future malfeasance by the initial hostile.
It rustles my jimmies something fierce that people can't understand the simple logic of "you must wager your own life if you are to threaten to take someone else's". A criminal committing criminal acts with a weapon is not a misguided innocent needing to be coddled and "rehabilitated". This is not a man breaking a window and stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister. This is a man who, to the best knowledge of everyone around him, is waving a magic white man fire stick around and can kill anyone he points it at.
There is a point when the threat has passed.
Yes, I agree. That time is generally defined as the point in which the aggressor can be declared clinically dead.
I will honestly never understand the apologia for violent criminals brandishing deadly weapons who try be be what's going around and instead get what's coming around. It's not like we're discussing clubbing baby seals, kicking puppies, or gunning down unarmed civilians. We discussing someone correctly ending what, at the time, your best evidence indicated was a real and present threat.
You can argue "oh, the jogger boy got his reparations, he was on his way out to go to church and get out of the hood. He wuz a gud boi, he dindu nuffin" all day, but the civilians who are, to the best of their knowledge, being robbed at gunpoint, have no reason to assume the man crazy and/or desperate enough to become a bandit won't suddenly decide a rape or murder is on the table as well.
Jogger boy over there could very well turn around and fire a few shots; you have no indicators the aggressor, and I hate to belabor this but it bears repeating, who is a literal armed bandit is a man of sound mind and upstanding moral character, and many indicators that this is a violent, aggressive man acting unpredictably.
Putting two rounds center mass and another two in the head to make sure he stays down is perfectly moral. I would even argue it's an ethical requirement, if you follow the ideology that those with power have a responsibility to use it to protect those without power.
What's your opinion of killing military aged males in sandy countries bevause they may have used weapons in the past?
When someone is already dead is not the point at which you stop.
Way to not so much move the fucking goalposts as to attach them to a rocket and launch them at Mars.
I dunno, what's the bloody context? Are the sand joggers robbing a store I'm in? Did I just pass them on the street? Are we currently in sand jogger country and they're potential hostiles eyeing up my guard post suspiciously?
Because if this question is, essentially, "would you also say to double tap if it was an allahu ackbar instead of a dindu robbing the store with what turned out to be a toy gun?", I'd say "absolutely, ammunition does not discriminate, it only penetrates".
If a person is an aggressor with a deadly weapon, making sure the target is permanently stopped is the goal. You can own a firearm and not brandish it in a robbery. You can go for a walk about town with your firearm without automagically becoming a bandit, forced to assault and rob nearby people.
But when you make the choice to walk into a place, brandish a deadly weapon (which even in the most soyboi cuck legal frameworks is still understood to be an implicit threat of grievous injury and/or death), and rob people, you've made the choice to gamble your life. And you have zero recourse to complain if your gamble fails and someone takes your life.
Because the bandit is not a victim. The bandit is a violent criminal, who was quite likely to offend again, and potentially hurt or kill someone during the next robbery.