What is acceptable & appropriate action?

[WordWolf]

Please select the most flexible level of communication,

and the most free use of violence,

that comes closest to your opinion.

The poll's anonymous, but feel free to post and make your position known and explain it.

[Bumpy]

Herr Wolf, mein alter Freund! Do you remember where we met?

How do all the window decorations in Manhattan look this year, and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center?

[polar bear]

I voted, now what.

[shazdancer]

Um, WW, I don't see a place where appropriate self-defense comes into play.

Been there, done that, didn't have to kill anyone, nor "beat them down," but needed to be physical in order to save my own life.

[Ham]

hmm. Lethal force..

"really your honor, I hadda. She was going to murder my credit.."

I really have met people with this kind of mentality..

[WordWolf]

Um, WW, I don't see a place where appropriate self-defense comes into play.

Been there, done that, didn't have to kill anyone, nor "beat them down," but needed to be physical in order to save my own life.

*studies the options*

Hm.

I certainly MEANT to put that as one response among all the others.

The closest response-the one that reflects most closely to

"nonlethal self-defense strictly in response to imminent threat of loss of life"

would be the first one-that violence is wrong, period,

i.e. that the violence you're responding to is wrong, and you're FORCED to

respond with violence only to save your life.

I didn't MEAN to make it any sort of trick question, I'm sorry.

I think most people here who selected the first would say that

violence in general is wrong, but if violence by another is already in effect,

use of violence in defense of self or other is necessary, if not preferred.

That would apply on the street as well as anywhere else,

and self-defense against imminent loss of life is justified.

The law sees it the same way, as well.

hmm. Lethal force..

"really your honor, I hadda. She was going to murder my credit.."

I really have met people with this kind of mentality..

I wanted to give that sort of person room to select a fair representation of their position,

and a place to explain why they feel it is appropriate.

[Nero]

Edited.

Nevermind... it's not like it will do any good anyway.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Nero

[JeffSjo]

For me it's hard enough to figure out if it was proper or not when I'm fully aware of the specific actions in question, and the events that lead up to them.

I try to stay away from hypothetical situations where there is no context at all. But that's just me.

[GeorgeStGeorge]

The system wouldn't let me vote on the first poll but not the second.

If shouting is considered "violence" and "nonlethal force" then I would consider it acceptable. I would only strike my spouse if she actually threatened my life.

George

[socks]

At first I thought this was tongue-in-cheek, but I sense it's serious, right WW?

It's foreign to me to consider what levels of violence would be appropriate at home, in my relationships with my family. I may be fortunate, lucky, blessed but probably not that much more than most of us - home is a place of safety and to a great degree, peace, with a good dose of what I'd call inevitable friendly chaos at times. Signals cross, communications go awry, but never so much of any of it that we spin off into a home-schooled version of "Cops". So I can't vote, it's just too weird to consider.

It's not Snow White and the 3 Dwarfs here but we don't license the use of firearms either.

Now sure, I suppose if I found myself staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge, I might have to consider acceptable levels of response. But that ain't gonna happen at home. If that's happening you need to do more than draw up rules of engagement. (But I think we know that - don't we?)