Killing someone in Self Defence?
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
I understand however is one is seeking to do corruption is still corruption, why even state "seeking" in that verse?
Also can you better explain what you said here "For instance, one can only stop another that is seeking to kill ; after murder has occurred, one is hardly in a position to intervene! "
Thanks )
Maybe seeking to do corruption has to do with intention/demonstrated intent. Example possession of burglary tools while trespassing might be a clue of intention.
My phrasing was awkward. It isn't possible to prevent a would-be-murderer from killing you AFTER they kill you. Such a person is seeking to do corruption/work evil.
For sake of example A "bad guy" menacing another person with a knife is committing corruption but at the same time is seeking to do corruption. The act of menacing demonstrates intent to USE the weapon. The knife has not yet been used to stab, but the bad guy is projecting that he seeks to do so--maybe even stating that he intends to use the knife to maim or kill. Would there be any reasonable doubt that a person with a weapon in hand stating that they intend to commit aggressive acts is seeking to commit corruption?
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Maybe seeking to do corruption has to do with intention/demonstrated intent. Example possession of burglary tools while trespassing might be a clue of intention.
My phrasing was awkward. It isn't possible to prevent a would-be-murderer from killing you AFTER they kill you. Such a person is seeking to do corruption/work evil.
For sake of example A "bad guy" menacing another person with a knife is committing corruption but at the same time is seeking to do corruption. The act of menacing demonstrates intent to USE the weapon. The knife has not yet been used to stab, but the bad guy is projecting that he seeks to do so--maybe even stating that he intends to use the knife to maim or kill. Would there be any reasonable doubt that a person with a weapon in hand stating that they intend to commit aggressive acts is seeking to commit corruption?
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
AH now that makes sense. The pursuit itself would be both corruption and seeking to do "more" corruption sounds logical ) This would explain why we can kill soldiers in war as they are coming at you even if they haven't killed just yet.
Thank you very much D
One other thing i'm wondering is where does regular fist fighting fit into this? I mean even kids do this stuff so I wouldn't think it warrents as corruption. I mean so far everything we discussed involved a weapon aside from rape which doesn't always require a weapon. So where do fists fit into it other than beating someone to death? Does it even fit into corruption?
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
A person that is confronted by somebody larger or more powerful than themselves may be justified in using a rock, a knife, a firearm, or whatever else is handy to defend themselves. Key word is defend. Having defended themselves, it is time to stop...not continue destroying the other person. Harming a person that has ceased to be a threat is excess, and an aggressive act. In most cases, fists do not present such a threat that a person has to resort to potentially lethal force.
Few things are worth fighting about. If leaving is an option, it may be a good option. On the other hand, anything worth fighting about is worth fighting about seriously.
Personally, I like the options afforded by proper use of verbal jujitsu.
http//www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/verbaljujitsugoshin.htm
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
A person that is confronted by somebody larger or more powerful than themselves may be justified in using a rock, a knife, a firearm, or whatever else is handy to defend themselves. Key word is defend. Having defended themselves, it is time to stop...not continue destroying the other person. Harming a person that has ceased to be a threat is excess, and an aggressive act. In most cases, fists do not present such a threat that a person has to resort to potentially lethal force.
Few things are worth fighting about. If leaving is an option, it may be a good option. On the other hand, anything worth fighting about is worth fighting about seriously.
Personally, I like the options afforded by proper use of verbal jujitsu.
http//www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/verbaljujitsugoshin.htm
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
Okay lets say they are coming to attack someone using some weapon. The defender takes out a gun. He has an option at this point to shoot at any part of the attacks body as they come. He can cripple them by shooting their knees or kill them with a headshot. Normally under the panic people shoot to killwhich is one way of keeping them down and thus defended yourself. However consider there is thenoption of simply crippling them vs killing them, are they blameworthy for killing the attacker? Considering its corruption they are committing I believe the option to kill stands too I assume as it does in war. Am I correct?
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Shooting extremities belongs in movies, not real life. There are no magic bullets; only a hit to the central nervous system (brain or spinal column) is guaranteed to put someone out of commission/stop the threat immediately. Best bet when using a firearm is to aim center of mass (unless opponent is wearing body armor). If time and skill allow, aim for the head. It goes back to the "anything worth fighting about is worth fighting about seriously" thing. Somebody aggressively using potentially lethal force is in no moral position to complain if their would-be victim returns the favor with lethal force. They are getting like for like--or as we say around my parts, the "Darwin Award."
http//www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/127235-Special-Force-Science-series-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/
My father in law had to shoot an armed robber once. Being a veteran (and an excellent shot), he didn't want to kill the guy, so he shot the robber in the leg. The robber still quickly bled to death. Mind you, the robber was attacking with a weapon and said that he'd harm my father in law.
A knife is every bit as lethal as a firearm. The average person can move about 20 feet a second. If one chooses to carry a weapon, make sure that it is done lawfully, that one knows how to properly use the weapon, and that the weapon is in good repair. If the weapon is a firearm, make sure that the ammunition is quality and appropriate for self defense. Good quality .32 ACP ammunition (7.65 mm) has the same stopping power as .45 ACP (11.43 mm) full metal jacket.
http//www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
Compare the .32 ACP 60 grain Winchester Silvertip to the .45 ACP 230 grain FMJ. 63% one stop shot for both from actual shootings. There is generally speaking wide variation of stopping power for any given cartridge, depending on choice of ammunition. It's absurd to carry target ammunition for self defense if better options are available.
Beware the person who has only one firearm--they probably know how to use it!
May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
I understand, though the question was more towards not if the person will die or not but rather what if the person who is being attack fights back with the intent to kill then. Like as a rapist is about to attack this woman and she takes out a knife and with intention she tries to kill him by stabbing him whereever she can and then runs. Basically im looking into the intentions here and seeing if this person is blamesworthy for trying to kill them or not.
I personally believe so far that they wouldnt be due to the verses we referenced on a person who has commited corruption can be killed and thus she wouldnt be blamesworthy.
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
I understand, though the question was more towards not if the person will die or not but rather what if the person who is being attack fights back with the intent to kill then. Like as a rapist is about to attack this woman and she takes out a knife and with intention she tries to kill him by stabbing him whereever she can and then runs. Basically im looking into the intentions here and seeing if this person is blamesworthy for trying to kill them or not.
I personally believe so far that they wouldnt be due to the verses we referenced on a person who has commited corruption can be killed and thus she wouldnt be blamesworthy.
We are of the same mind on this. A person defending themself from rape or sodomy, even if they intend to kill the attacker while defending, is blameless.
Where I live, it is also completely lawful for anyone observing a violent felony to kill the felon.
Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has it's own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)
Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if
-
A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
-
A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
-
The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
Source http//www.georgiapacking.org/law.php
Current Georgia law http//www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/
Stay safe.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
-
Alright thatmakes sense. Now my other question is what if you end up in a street fight where people are just planning to beat you up much as how some kids beat up other kids in school or high school kids beat up other high school kids. Usually one fights back in these situation but is the attacker here considered as doing corruption cause he started a fight or not due to how it's doesn't involve weapons or doesn't seem like they are planning to permanently injure you.
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Most street fights are avoidable simply by leaving the area. One who gets involved in the situation mentioned is likely to get the worst of a fight, because they are complying with the other person's plan--falling into their OODA loop. The planner of the fight has anticipated the fight and knows exactly how they intend to proceed. To quote a movie, "Stange game, the only winning move is not to play." If forced into a fight, respond appropriately to the threat--and try to end the fight quickly. Not only are all fights not winnable, but it only takes a single person to escalate a situation. Things can turn ugly quickly.
Aggression is corruption--but children are usually not held to the same standards as adults. Shoving someone rudely is corruption. Spitting at someone is corruption. Cursing someone is corruption. Not as much corruption as killing--but corruption just the same. The key word in response to aggression is appropriateness. Throwing a fragmentation grenade at someone who threw a rock at you is not an appropriate response. In some cases, swearing out an arrest warrant for battery (if a person hit you knowingly) is an appropriate response. I did this one time--swear out a warrant rather than utilize a weapon. I'd also tried to avoid the situation, but was unable to. Turns out, the guy's father shot the assaulter in self defense (over something unrelated) before the warrant could be served. Sad story, but maybe the warrant helped the father get acquitted of all charges.
Anyway, maybe too much "narrative" here.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
fighting is only allowed for self defense or against tyranny etc. It is never allowed as aggression, but only in defense 2190
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Most street fights are avoidable simply by leaving the area. One who gets involved in the situation mentioned is likely to get the worst of a fight, because they are complying with the other person's plan--falling into their OODA loop. The planner of the fight has anticipated the fight and knows exactly how they intend to proceed. To quote a movie, "Stange game, the only winning move is not to play." If forced into a fight, respond appropriately to the threat--and try to end the fight quickly. Not only are all fights not winnable, but it only takes a single person to escalate a situation. Things can turn ugly quickly.
Aggression is corruption--but children are usually not held to the same standards as adults. Shoving someone rudely is corruption. Spitting at someone is corruption. Cursing someone is corruption. Not as much corruption as killing--but corruption just the same. The key word in response to aggression is appropriateness. Throwing a fragmentation grenade at someone who threw a rock at you is not an appropriate response. In some cases, swearing out an arrest warrant for battery (if a person hit you knowingly) is an appropriate response. I did this one time--swear out a warrant rather than utilize a weapon. I'd also tried to avoid the situation, but was unable to. Turns out, the guy's father shot the assaulter in self defense (over something unrelated) before the warrant could be served. Sad story, but maybe the warrant helped the father get acquitted of all charges.
Anyway, maybe too much "narrative" here.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
However to conclude something as light as shoving as corruption wouldn't make much sense to me as the death penalty is then allowed for such a minor thing there. I assume there has to be a line drawn as to when its simply a bad thing vs corruption but what fits into such a catagory is what makes me wonder.
-
The general principle seems to be equivalence or less, so if someone is trying to kill you but they dont and you kill them, then that is fine BUT this would have to be proven/disproven in court. Similar to many Western countries, e.g. UK.
Well i'm not concerned about court here, but rather what happens if you kill someone who is trying to rape you/kill you according to the Quran.
