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.
Hardly. You're writing novels to justify NOT reassessing the threat posed by an individual after you've filled him with holes and disarmed him. Reread your first paragraph in your reply to me, please.
How smoothbrained of a motherfucker do you have to be to consider eight sentences to be "novels"?
Go back to eating crayons. Taking the time to double tap an armed agressor is the only correct option. Leave him on the ground, and you have to take the risk that he's wounded but not incapacitated, and will try to escape or attack. Neither are acceptable outcomes.
Why are you so fixated on protecting literal armed bandits?
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.
Hardly. You're writing novels to justify NOT reassessing the threat posed by an individual after you've filled him with holes and disarmed him. Reread your first paragraph in your reply to me, please.
How smoothbrained of a motherfucker do you have to be to consider eight sentences to be "novels"?
Go back to eating crayons. Taking the time to double tap an armed agressor is the only correct option. Leave him on the ground, and you have to take the risk that he's wounded but not incapacitated, and will try to escape or attack. Neither are acceptable outcomes.
Why are you so fixated on protecting literal armed bandits?