Something missing here.

[Working Man]

I was looking at a poll and noticed these 2 questions that seemed to go together.

Is it morally correct for a police officer to shoot in order to save an innocent
victim from an attack?
Yes. No.

If no police officer is present is it morally correct for the innocent victim to
shoot to protect self or dependents from an attack?
Yes. No.

Its what the second questions implies (specifically) and the direction of the
two combined that I am troubled by.

Please discuss.

 

[ED21]

If the victim is in imminent threat of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault then yes, Shoot.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Is it politically correct to let a criminal have his way with your or your loved ones and get away with it without consequence?
Yes. No.

I think that's the general direction of the two.

 

[Ed Ames]

Seems like a good question pair to me.



If they say:
"no,no" you have a pacifist -- lethal force is never moral.
"yes,no" you have an authoritarian -- lethal force is only moral when applied by authority/the state
"no,yes" you have either a strict individualist who believes in personal responsibility instead of hiring protection or you have an anti-authoritarian -- lethal force is only moral if you are the victim, not if you are a third party paid by society (including the victim).
"yes,yes" you have someone who believes lethal force is moral to stop an attack -- lethal force is moral to stop an attack.

On first blush it looks like a well thought out poll. Some of the people who post polls here on THR could learn from the writers of those two questions.

It would be even better with a third question, "If a police officer is present would a victim be morally justified in shooting an attacker." padded out to be in the same form as the other two of course.

Then you could really track down the people who think that a victim really shouldn't defend themselves unless nobody else is there vs. those who think a victim should defend themselves period. Maybe they had other questions they thought covered that end of the spectrum.

 

[rbernie]

My nits:

The word 'innocent' is perjorative. The right to self defence exists only in the absence of police.

 

[waterhouse]

I agree with Ed Ames. Seems like good wording to me.

I also see what rbernie is getting at, but it could head in either way depending on the answers. A common things for antis to say is, "you don't need a gun for protection, that is what police are for."

So it appears they would answer yes to the first question. Now you ask them the second question. Their answer will be fairly telling. The question focuses on moral principles, not on training or background checks or the 2nd amendment. Are police given a different set of morals than the rest of us?

 

[jrfoxx]

I agree with Ed Ames take on the reason for the two questions together.(we could be wrong, but It seems the most logical reason).Also, FWIW, I'd vote YES to both questions.If lethal force is justified to prevent an attack, it doesnt matter who uses the force.For me, given the choice, I'd much rather the officer shoot the BG for me, than have to do it myself, if I get a choice in the matter (which one obviously never does).If I shoot, I'm in for a real unpleasant time legally and financially, most likely.If the officer takes care of it instead, I'm still safe, and I'm spared the legal and financial issues, and the officer is shielded from them too, so...

 

[Working Man]

It would be even better with a third question, "If a police officer is present would a victim be morally justified in shooting an attacker."

That's exactly what I felt was missing. I felt the poll directed one or was getting
at, that self-defense is only an option during the lack of a sanctioned authoritative
figure being present.

 

[novaDAK]

The right to self defence exists only in the absence of police.

if there is a copcar parked across the street from where I'm walking, and a thug attacks me, I'm going to defend myself anyhow. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"The right to self defence exists only in the absence of police."

Yeah, tell that to the guy that assisted the police at Newhall, where all the policemen present were laying on the ground dead or dying.

I'll trust my firearms skills more than those of the police, thank you very much.

 

[Chipperman]

Somthing missing here.

I've got it!

The "e" is missing. What do I win?

 

[cyclist]

Are police given a different set of morals than the rest of us?

Police have a different set of rules and allowances and permissions than the rest of us, switchblades, asp batons, assorted other tools and weapons which they are free to carry and employ, they even have additional penalties applied against their attackers if someone attacks them, so yes apparently in the eyes of the lawmakers the police have a different set of morals than the rest of us. Note that I said "in the eyes of the lawmakers", thank you.

As to the second poll question, just take off the first portion of "If no police officer is present" and then see how it reads to you in conjunction with the first poll question. It sounds sort of like the poll writer is asking if one needs permission or moral justification to use a firearm in self defence, as if there is an implied moral approval granted to a carry permit holder, or not.?.

 

[waterhouse]

so yes apparently in the eyes of the lawmakers the police have a different set of morals

I disagree. Rules and allowances do not equal morals. Police have a different job description than other folk, but their set of morals, in the eyes of lawmakers, is in theory the same. Because of their job description, they can [are required to] carry tools that others may not. The laws [from a moral perspective] don't say things like "Stealing something valued over $1,000 is a felony, except for LEOs." You can argue that where tools (collapsible batons, automatic weapons, etc.) are considered, they are given more [improper] legal access, but the "moral" laws (things involving theft, violence, murder, etc.) apply to all of us.

Thus, if a police officer can be morally right in the taking of an attacker's life to protect someone else's life, so can we all be morally right in self defense.

 

[Chipperman]

...but the "moral" laws (things involving theft, violence, murder, etc.) apply to all of us.

They should apply to all of us. Unfortunately, there have been many cases where crooked LEO's have been given preferential treatment legally when they have committed clearly Immoral acts (theft, embezzling, murder, illegal drug dealing, etc). That goes far beyond a Cop parking in a handicapped spot or running a red light. These are the things that make some people Anti-LEO.

 

[george_co]

Okay, adding in the third question proposed by Ed Ames my votes are:

Yes,
Yes,
Yes,

If it is moral to defend yourself or others in any one of the situtations, it is moral in all of the situations.

The presence or absence of the police, or other societal authority figures , doesn't change the "Morality" of self-defense. It may mean that you get shot by the police before you get to explain yourself though. The old "how can the police tell the goats from the sheep argument of anti's".

George

 

[cyclist]

Okay then, in that case I guess I have an issue with using the word "morally" in the poll altogether. Morals are somewhat personal, somewhat cultural, somewhat subjective, and somewhat dependant (dependent?) upon circumstances. Circumstantial or situational ethics not withstanding.

Change the word "morally" to something else and see if it makes a difference.

 

[waterhouse]

They should apply to all of us. Unfortunately, there have been many cases where crooked LEO's have been given preferential treatment legally when they have committed clearly Immoral acts

I agree, but the lawmakers make the laws for all of us. The fact that LEOs and politicians and celebrities and the wealthy are sometimes treated differently by the justice system can be a problem, but if I hit someone with a bat for no reason and a LEO uses his baton on someone for no reason those are both immoral acts, and morally wrong.

As a minor note, keep in mind, we aren't focusing on the bad cops. Those aren't the cops antis are talking about when they say only the police should have guns.

Okay then, in that case I guess I have an issue with using the word "morally" in the poll altogether.

To me the word morally is the best part of the poll. Antis love to point out that police are different, and therefore they should be the only ones who get to carry guns. "LEOs deal with dangerous people for a living." "LEOs have more training." If you change the word morally to anything else you leave those topics open. "Morally" shuts those topics down. We aren't asking about whether the police have more training, or better guns, or have undergone psych evaluations, or any other way in which police might be different. We are only asking about the morals of taking a life in self defense or in defense of a 3rd party, and from a moral standpoint the police and the rest of us should be the same.

While morals may differ between individuals, the wording of this poll leads to a comparison between groups of people, and what it really boils down to is whether police as a whole have a different set of morals than society as a whole.

If you can get an anti to admit that morally taking the life of an attacker to save the life of the attacked is valid, you can work from that, and a good way to start is with the police, since according to the antis they should be the only ones carrying guns anyway.

 

[DragonFire]

Thus, if a police officer can be morally right in the taking of an attacker's life to protect someone else's life, so can we all be morally right in self defense

What about the fact that a LEO can justifiably use deadly force against a suspect running away, but an individual can not?

If the police have a reasonable cause to believe that an escaping/retreating person will pose a deadly threat to others, they can still use deadly force. For non-LEO, if the threat stops you can no longer use deadly force.

I'm not sure this translates to different morals, but if it's posed as "is it morally right to shoot someone in the back", it could be seen that way.

 

[AKCOP]

A check of your state law may show the use of deadly force is the same for a private citizen as it is for police. I know this was the case in Alaska when I workd there, not sure if it has changed but I suspect not.

 

[DragonFire]

A check of your state law may show the use of deadly force is the same for a private citizen as it is for police. I know this was the case in Alaska

It depends on how you look at it.

True, before a police office can use deadly force, he must be faced with an immediate severe threat, just like an individual must be, but, (depending on circumstances) an individual would have to retreat, or not enter situations where it's the police officers job to go. Just striking an LEO is a more severe offense than assaulting a non-LEO and can be met with more force. So the laws are not exactly the same.

But the topic (I think) centers on what's moral and not just justifiable. That's what I was trying to bring out.

 

[RKBABob]

Are you aware that the questions come from Oleg's website?
http://www.a-human-right.com/

I believe the questions are designed, and placed together, to make an anti or fence-sitter think about their options when police aren't there. Most antis would say "Oh, just call the police" or "gun owners just want to pretend to be cops". The second question makes them examine this position. Why would it be OK for cops to use firearms to prevent a violent attack, but unacceptable for a citizen to do the same?

 

[zxcvbob]

Cops have no legal obligation to retreat -- under any circumstances that I'm aware of. Their job also requires them to sometimes go on the offensive, where us ordinary people will only use a weapon for defense. That's why cops get better guns than we do and have different rules. (not that Iagree with all the differences)

And by the way, I'd vote "yes, yes" in that poll, but if the cop is there I'd rather have him do the killing because it's less paperwork for me that way.

 

[waterhouse]

What about the fact that a LEO can justifiably use deadly force against a suspect running away, but an individual can not?

Once again, it is a question of morals. The LEO may have additional legal power to use deadly force, but from a moral perspective the answer should be the same for LEOs as a group and non LEOs as a group.

If it is morally acceptable for a LEO to shoot a gun wielding maniac in the back because the gun wielding maniac is running off to shoot more people, then it is morally acceptable for a non-LEO to do it as well. A badge does not change the moral playing field.

That's the reason I like the word "morally" in the question. The fact that LEOs have different laws, tools, and circumstances does not come into play once it is a question of morals.

 

[Working Man]

Are you aware that the questions come from Oleg's website?

That is correct. I was holding that back so as not to cloud the results.
The poll comes up if one clicks on "A LIABILITY" on the home page.

I still feel there should be a third question for that set of questions as
Ed Ames stated:

"If a police officer is present would a victim be morally justified in shooting an attacker."