Killing in defense

[teeboy]

What capital sin is killing the result of?


Murder is a sin. All killings aren't murder.


Putting yourself in a posiition in which you may have to kill may not be wise.

[triumphguy]

One thing we need to remember in this discussion is that Catholics do not believe THIS life to be the be-all and end-all of our existence.

It does change how we think about killing and war etc.

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

One thing we need to remember in this discussion is that Catholics do not believe THIS life to be the be-all and end-all of our existence.

It does change how we think about killing and war etc.

However there is a Saint, canonized in 1920 who gives an example in this situation. He used a gun to defend a village, but he used his marksmanship to deter the marauders rather than shooting them.

ST. GABRIEL POSSENTI
Feast: February 27

http://gunsaint.com/
http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/gabposs.htm

[mytruepower2]

Originally Posted by mymamamary

Hey everyone!!

With all this talk of persecution, the movie for Greater Glory, obama and the hhs mandate etc., i wondered. If there was a mass persecution, could i kill in defense, for example, lets say soldiers break into Church, am i allowed to pick up a gun in defense of the Priest and the Tabernacle?? I wouldnt want them touching either of the two, so would this be justified, or should guns be a last resort?? I wouldnt be able to sjust standy by and watch, i could be a martyr (so hard, but so beautiful) or could i shoot the soldiers??

would this be justified?

It'd be better if you could somehow incapacitate your enemies without killing them.

However, the problem with killing in defense of the innocent is that it basically places you alongside the murderer of George Tiller. Sure, Tiller was a horrible, wretched murderer himself, but that doesn't let his killer off the hook.

Now, if you're fighting someone who's trying to hurt your family, and you happen to -accidentally- kill them, that's one thing, and if you're in an army, and it's your job to kill the enemy because it's war, that's another, but as a single person, using lethal force, even to defend others, is not a good or inspiring option.

The best bet is to go into the jaws of the lions with a song on your lips, because nothing wins more souls for Christ than a martyr.

[mymamamary]

Originally Posted by mytruepower2

It'd be better if you could somehow incapacitate your enemies without killing them.

However, the problem with killing in defense of the innocent is that it basically places you alongside the murderer of George Tiller. Sure, Tiller was a horrible, wretched murderer himself, but that doesn't let his killer off the hook.

Now, if you're fighting someone who's trying to hurt your family, and you happen to -accidentally- kill them, that's one thing, and if you're in an army, and it's your job to kill the enemy because it's war, that's another, but as a single person, using lethal force, even to defend others, is not a good or inspiring option.

The best bet is to go into the jaws of the lions with a song on your lips, because nothing wins more souls for Christ than a martyr.

[PoorKnight]

Originally Posted by mytruepower2

It'd be better if you could somehow incapacitate your enemies without killing them.

However, the problem with killing in defense of the innocent is that it basically places you alongside the murderer of George Tiller. Sure, Tiller was a horrible, wretched murderer himself, but that doesn't let his killer off the hook.

Now, if you're fighting someone who's trying to hurt your family, and you happen to -accidentally- kill them, that's one thing, and if you're in an army, and it's your job to kill the enemy because it's war, that's another, but as a single person, using lethal force, even to defend others, is not a good or inspiring option.

The best bet is to go into the jaws of the lions with a song on your lips, because nothing wins more souls for Christ than a martyr.

I would have to, lovingly and respectfully disagree.

Let me start with paragraph 2321 of CCC "The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good."

To render someone 'unable to inflict harm' may easily mean death for the unjust aggressor. Anyone who is motivated can shrug off a bullet wound. The book "Lone Survivor" tells the real-life story of a squad of 4 Navy SEALs who were ambushed by over 300 Taliban. 3 out of the 4 SEALs were killed but not before each of them - including the author (the lone survivor) - received 4 or more bullet wounds. The last SEAL killed actually to a round that entered his head at one temple and exited at the other. That SEAL still fought down to his last pistol magazine. So the whole idea of "just shoot them in the leg" will not reliably render an unjust aggressor UNABLE to inflict harm.

The whole "Lone Ranger" shoot-the-gun-out-of-their-hand is next to impossible. Mythbusters had an episode trying to replicate something similar. They declared their experiment a "one-in-a-million" shot. Hands are constantly moving making a 2" x 1" target (the size of a LARGE sized pistol pointed at you) virtually impossible to reliably hit. This too certainly NOT a reliable way to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.

Other mythical "guaranteed to stop anyone but not harm anyone" methods either do not stop or do not exist. Tazer is limited to 21 feet and TWO barbs fired out at different angles must BOTH hit. At the maximum range the two barbs are at 3 FEET apart. Tazer's long range solution is currently unreliable and has recently been removed from the market. The 40mm rubber bullets hit harder than a Mike Tyson punch. The target area is usually lower abdomen, legs or buttock area. If a person is on a pain killing drug - i.e. PCP - they won't even know their hit.

Nets - as I've heard suggested on a radio show - do not prevent anyone from pulling a trigger.

Instant stick foams, sound-wave guns and Star Trek "set-to-stun" guns do not exist.

Making someone "Unable" to inflict harm means they stop their dangerous behavior. The quickest, most reliable way to stop someone (read: render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm) is to disrupt the information going from the brain to the muscles. This is most reliably done by causing the brain to shut down. This is done by two different ways: deprive it of blood, or cause enough damage to make it instantly shut down.

Target area for Law Enforcement is ONLY two areas: Central Nervous System or Central Circulatory System. This means we aim for the Head or the Heart when forced to use Deadly Force. However, shooting someone in the heart is not an instant stop either. A person can live 5 to 10 seconds after being shot in the heart. From personal experience I know I can fire off 10-15 rounds in 5 to 10 seconds meaning a potential of 10 to 15 more innocent causalities. Double However, while shooting a unjust aggressor in the head is a much more reliable way of an instant stop, it is a harder target, but not nearly impossible as striking a gun out of someone's hands.

Granted, if I aim for the head and I miss and hit the unjust aggressor's arm and they stop their behavior and give up, I'm not going to "finish them off" either. That would also be gravely sinful.

Now let's focus on the second half of paragraph 2321: "Legitimate defense is a grave duty of whoever is responsible for the lives of other or the common good."

Are you, as parent, son, daughter, friend, neighbor, in anyway responsible for your family's safety? Or how about the safety of your city? If you knew a murder was going to take place, are you morally bound to report it? You bet. In the same token, per CCC, if you have responsibility for the lives of others, you have the "grave duty" to provide "legitimate defense" to "render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm".

Equally if you have knowledge of Death or Great Bodily Harm (Grievous Bodily Injury) to innocent people, that is IMMINENT (I will define later) and do nothing to try to prevent it is a "grave" matter per CCC and also sinful.

I know you didn't mean to, but I am hurt by the analogy of properly defending the innocent being related to that murderer of George Tiller. The two are NOT the same and Imminence is the difference.

Let me explain imminent with two scenarios:

#1) You are walking with a man. Both of you are 1,000 miles away from your home and family. There is no means of communications with anyone but each other. The man has no weapons beyond just personal / natural weapons (hands, feet etc). The man states, "I'm going to kill your family". This is NOT an imminent threat.

#2) You are in your home with your family. The same man breaks into your house. The man is armed with a loaded gun. The man grabs your youngest child, puts the gun to the child's head. His finger is on the trigger. The man says, "I'm going to kill your family". This IS an imminent threat.

Where the murderer of George Tiller went bad is not understanding imminence. George Tiller was not imminently threatening death or great bodily harm to anyone at the time of the murder. This is vastly different than a gunman entering a church and threatening the priest with a gun and yelling "I'm going to kill you!" or just starting to shoot...

As for Martyrdom being inspirational, I would agree. But a pacifistic death is not the only inspirational "witness" (in Greek 'martyr') one can provide. Again I provide two examples:
Battle of Acre. Acre was the last stronghold of the Latin Kingdom. When the enemy surrounded Acre, the Knights Templar sued for peace - i.e. tried to negotiate. The enemy agreed to let all the women, children, elderly and infirmed, who had fled to the castle for protection, to evacuate to boats. The Knights Templar would then surrender Acre and leave. However, as soon as the gates of Acre were opened, the enemy attacked. The Knights Templar stood in the gap and fought to the last man while many of the innocent escaped to the waiting boats.

Siege of Malta 1565. Tens of thousands of enemy land at the island of Malta. On the island are 3 castles manned by 700 Knights of St. John. The residents of the island flee to the castles for protection. The Knights enroll a couple thousand of the residents into an irregular force - i.e. untrained. The enemy was bent on killing everyone on the island. This is evidenced when the enemy over-ran one castle and executed EVERYONE inside on top of the walls of the castle so that the other two castles could see. Then the enemy attached the headless bodies onto mock crucifixes and floated them across the bay to one of the other castles.

The enemy planned on using Malta as a base of operations by which they would re-invade Europe after a 400 year absence, the most logical place to start would have been Italy. The Knights of St. John held out for several months - killing thousands of enemy - until the enemy withdrew because of the changing seasons and lack of supplies. The Knights of St. John's Commander Jean de Valette was 70 years old at the time of the battle, but was the first one to a breach in the wall and fought there for 10-12 hours until the attack withdrew.

I pray for the intercession of the witnesses - martyrs - of these battles and more.

I also understand there is a time for peace and a time to go to the lions singing praises to God. But there is also a time to grab your .45 and M-4 and sing praises to God.

I believe the culture of Christianity (different from Christianity if you catch the difference) has done a great dis-service to the vocation of Warrior - the just Knight. It is this pacifistic view of Christianity, in part, that has many men leaving Christianity in droves.

God Bless You,

[Marc Anthony]

Originally Posted by PoorKnight

I would have to, lovingly and respectfully disagree.

Let me start with paragraph 2321 of CCC "The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good."

To render someone 'unable to inflict harm' may easily mean death for the unjust aggressor. Anyone who is motivated can shrug off a bullet wound. The book "Lone Survivor" tells the real-life story of a squad of 4 Navy SEALs who were ambushed by over 300 Taliban. 3 out of the 4 SEALs were killed but not before each of them - including the author (the lone survivor) - received 4 or more bullet wounds. The last SEAL killed actually to a round that entered his head at one temple and exited at the other. That SEAL still fought down to his last pistol magazine. So the whole idea of "just shoot them in the leg" will not reliably render an unjust aggressor UNABLE to inflict harm.

The whole "Lone Ranger" shoot-the-gun-out-of-their-hand is next to impossible. Mythbusters had an episode trying to replicate something similar. They declared their experiment a "one-in-a-million" shot. Hands are constantly moving making a 2" x 1" target (the size of a LARGE sized pistol pointed at you) virtually impossible to reliably hit. This too certainly NOT a reliable way to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.

Other mythical "guaranteed to stop anyone but not harm anyone" methods either do not stop or do not exist. Tazer is limited to 21 feet and TWO barbs fired out at different angles must BOTH hit. At the maximum range the two barbs are at 3 FEET apart. Tazer's long range solution is currently unreliable and has recently been removed from the market. The 40mm rubber bullets hit harder than a Mike Tyson punch. The target area is usually lower abdomen, legs or buttock area. If a person is on a pain killing drug - i.e. PCP - they won't even know their hit.

Nets - as I've heard suggested on a radio show - do not prevent anyone from pulling a trigger.

Instant stick foams, sound-wave guns and Star Trek "set-to-stun" guns do not exist.

Making someone "Unable" to inflict harm means they stop their dangerous behavior. The quickest, most reliable way to stop someone (read: render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm) is to disrupt the information going from the brain to the muscles. This is most reliably done by causing the brain to shut down. This is done by two different ways: deprive it of blood, or cause enough damage to make it instantly shut down.

Target area for Law Enforcement is ONLY two areas: Central Nervous System or Central Circulatory System. This means we aim for the Head or the Heart when forced to use Deadly Force. However, shooting someone in the heart is not an instant stop either. A person can live 5 to 10 seconds after being shot in the heart. From personal experience I know I can fire off 10-15 rounds in 5 to 10 seconds meaning a potential of 10 to 15 more innocent causalities. Double However, while shooting a unjust aggressor in the head is a much more reliable way of an instant stop, it is a harder target, but not nearly impossible as striking a gun out of someone's hands.

Granted, if I aim for the head and I miss and hit the unjust aggressor's arm and they stop their behavior and give up, I'm not going to "finish them off" either. That would also be gravely sinful.

Now let's focus on the second half of paragraph 2321: "Legitimate defense is a grave duty of whoever is responsible for the lives of other or the common good."

Are you, as parent, son, daughter, friend, neighbor, in anyway responsible for your family's safety? Or how about the safety of your city? If you knew a murder was going to take place, are you morally bound to report it? You bet. In the same token, per CCC, if you have responsibility for the lives of others, you have the "grave duty" to provide "legitimate defense" to "render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm".

Equally if you have knowledge of Death or Great Bodily Harm (Grievous Bodily Injury) to innocent people, that is IMMINENT (I will define later) and do nothing to try to prevent it is a "grave" matter per CCC and also sinful.

I know you didn't mean to, but I am hurt by the analogy of properly defending the innocent being related to that murderer of George Tiller. The two are NOT the same and Imminence is the difference.

Let me explain imminent with two scenarios:

#1) You are walking with a man. Both of you are 1,000 miles away from your home and family. There is no means of communications with anyone but each other. The man has no weapons beyond just personal / natural weapons (hands, feet etc). The man states, "I'm going to kill your family". This is NOT an imminent threat.

#2) You are in your home with your family. The same man breaks into your house. The man is armed with a loaded gun. The man grabs your youngest child, puts the gun to the child's head. His finger is on the trigger. The man says, "I'm going to kill your family". This IS an imminent threat.

Where the murderer of George Tiller went bad is not understanding imminence. George Tiller was not imminently threatening death or great bodily harm to anyone at the time of the murder. This is vastly different than a gunman entering a church and threatening the priest with a gun and yelling "I'm going to kill you!" or just starting to shoot...

As for Martyrdom being inspirational, I would agree. But a pacifistic death is not the only inspirational "witness" (in Greek 'martyr') one can provide. Again I provide two examples:
Battle of Acre. Acre was the last stronghold of the Latin Kingdom. When the enemy surrounded Acre, the Knights Templar sued for peace - i.e. tried to negotiate. The enemy agreed to let all the women, children, elderly and infirmed, who had fled to the castle for protection, to evacuate to boats. The Knights Templar would then surrender Acre and leave. However, as soon as the gates of Acre were opened, the enemy attacked. The Knights Templar stood in the gap and fought to the last man while many of the innocent escaped to the waiting boats.

Siege of Malta 1565. Tens of thousands of enemy land at the island of Malta. On the island are 3 castles manned by 700 Knights of St. John. The residents of the island flee to the castles for protection. The Knights enroll a couple thousand of the residents into an irregular force - i.e. untrained. The enemy was bent on killing everyone on the island. This is evidenced when the enemy over-ran one castle and executed EVERYONE inside on top of the walls of the castle so that the other two castles could see. Then the enemy attached the headless bodies onto mock crucifixes and floated them across the bay to one of the other castles.

The enemy planned on using Malta as a base of operations by which they would re-invade Europe after a 400 year absence, the most logical place to start would have been Italy. The Knights of St. John held out for several months - killing thousands of enemy - until the enemy withdrew because of the changing seasons and lack of supplies. The Knights of St. John's Commander Jean de Valette was 70 years old at the time of the battle, but was the first one to a breach in the wall and fought there for 10-12 hours until the attack withdrew.

I pray for the intercession of the witnesses - martyrs - of these battles and more.

I also understand there is a time for peace and a time to go to the lions singing praises to God. But there is also a time to grab your .45 and M-4 and sing praises to God.

I believe the culture of Christianity (different from Christianity if you catch the difference) has done a great dis-service to the vocation of Warrior - the just Knight. It is this pacifistic view of Christianity, in part, that has many men leaving Christianity in droves.

God Bless You,

Two thumbs up, sir!

The most devout Catholic I know is my former theology teacher. When he was younger he was a Federal Marshal. He never had to actually kill anybody (he told us this) but he was trained to use deadly force when necessary. He got shot in the shoulder and shrapnel from the bullet became lodged in his spine, in a spot too dangerous for Doctors to remove. If the bullet shrapnel was an inch higher or an inch lower he would have been paralyzed.

He also refused to go and break up a group of protesters outside of an abortion center despite orders to do so.

God Bless the Catholic Knights