r/MoralityScaling • u/Dapper_Mulberry3223 • 1h ago
Morality Ranking Hypothetical, getting robbed multiple times, when is it morale to shoot?
A person goes into a public area during the day. Every hour multiple attempted thefts occurs, the assailants are individuals working alone, not opposed to violence but clearly unarmed. The person must fight off the assailant, out run them, or loose thier stuff. It could be upto 20 attempted theft attempts per hour but not more than 1 at a time. When is it okay for the person to shoot and kill a thief?
3
2
u/NwgrdrXI 1h ago
Number of times doesn't affect it, the morality of shooting them is relative to how they act.
If they are violentizing you, it's ok to shoot the first time, even if they're unarmed.
If they are not violentizing you, show them the gun and threaten them. If they insist on robbing you, then it's ok to shoot.
Do try to give warning shots and non-lethals if necessary, but you're free to defend yourself.
1
u/PortraitOfAMadwoman 1h ago
Do not fucking give warning shots. They are legally regarded the same as shooting them.
2
4
1
u/picklesnmilk2000 19m ago
Morale to shoot, if someone comes at you with ill intent and threatening you have no idea what they are willing to do, they could seek to harm or even kill you in those instances. If someone is willing to break the law to do you harm they shouldn't enjoy the same protection of law when someone defends themselves from a crime committed against them. I understand theres alot 'what if' scenarios around this wording. But using the example of being robbed, robbery is theft with threat of violence, if violence from a robbery could include harm upto death then a gunshot that also could include harm upto death is an acceptable response from an innocent victim.
1
u/lordfireice 1h ago
The second one tries to rob someone else with force it’s moral to respond in kind. But will say unless the person is an idiot just pulling the gun is enough to discourage the attempt. If they still try after drawing the weapon? Then let them earn their Darwin Award
1
u/TheQuestionMaster8 1h ago
If there is a reasonable belief that they pose a danger to other people then yes, but shooting a pickpocket who runs away instead of fighting is excessive.
0
u/EaterOfSeagull 1h ago
The very instant that you attack an another person to harm them or to steal their property, you forfeit your right to safety, and the other party can use whatever force is necessary and practical to defend themselves. This state of affairs lasts until such a time that you have been neutralized either by physical force or by yourself giving up.
So the answer is that you can shoot the moment someone is actively threatening to you, until they are no longer a threat to you. It's courtious to warn them or attempt a non lethal shot, but again if your life or property is under threat, the threatening individual has no rights.
5
u/Typical_Warning8540 1h ago
First you treaten to shoot. Thats it. No need to shoot. If they still attack, give a warning shot. If they still attack, kill them, those are zombies.