• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Couple threatened for defending themselves agains a mob who broke in their property ?

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Not sure about "correct," but seeing how the MCloskeys presented a direct and immediate threat to the people in the crowd, if anyone in the crowd had a firearm, I think they would have been justified in firing on the McCloskeys.

Of course you didn't answer my question. I wonder why that is.

So it's ok for protesters to kill someone trying to defend their own property and lives, but it's not ok to defend yourself to begin with. Unbelievable.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Of course you didn't answer my question. I wonder why that is.
There's no single "correct" action. If you can't handle ambiguity, that's really your problem.

So it's ok for protesters to kill someone trying to defend their own property and lives, but it's not ok to defend yourself to begin with. Unbelievable.
It's okay to kill someone who's trying to kill you.

And it's reasonable to conclude that someone pointing a gun at you, with their finger on the trigger, is trying to kill you.

Obviously, it's better to get away if you can, but when someone has their gun trained on you and they're ready to shoot, we're talking about a split-second decision.

BTW - why do you think self-defense is "unbelievable?"
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
There's no single "correct" action. If you can't handle ambiguity, that's really your problem.


It's okay to kill someone who's trying to kill you.

And it's reasonable to conclude that someone pointing a gun at you, with their finger on the trigger, is trying to kill you.

Obviously, it's better to get away if you can, but when someone has their gun trained on you and they're ready to shoot, we're talking about a split-second decision.

BTW - why do you think self-defense is "unbelievable?"

Many are saying these people handled it wrong. Since you seemed to be one that thinks that way. I asked you how they should have handled it. It's just odd how people critique them, but have no advice as to what they should have done.

I never said self defense is unbelievable. What I can't believe is how so many think it's wrong for these people to defend themselves. And then some such as you appear to believe it would be justified for someone in the mob to shoot them. That's what seems so hard for me to believe.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Many are saying these people handled it wrong. Since you seemed to be one that thinks that way. I asked you how they should have handled it. It's just odd how people critique them, but have no advice as to what they should have done.
They should have stayed inside.

Or a better option: they could have joined the march.

Or even better, considering they're lawyers: they could have handed out business cards and told the protestors that they'll represent them pro bono if they're arrested, beaten, or gassed.

I never said self defense is unbelievable. What I can't believe is how so many think it's wrong for these people to defend themselves.
But they weren't defending themselves. They were threatening to murder people for walking along the "private" street that many people who are strangers to the McCloskeys walk or drive along every day.

And then some such as you appear to believe it would be justified for someone in the mob to shoot them. That's what seems so hard for me to believe.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone about to be murdered should have a right to self defense?
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
They should have stayed inside.

Or a better option: they could have joined the march.

Or even better, considering they're lawyers: they could have handed out business cards and told the protestors that they'll represent them pro bono if they're arrested, beaten, or gassed.


But they weren't defending themselves. They were threatening to murder people for walking along the "private" street that many people who are strangers to the McCloskeys walk or drive along every day.


Why is it so hard to believe that someone about to be murdered should have a right to self defense?

Sorry but to me your post is ridiculous.
 
Top