# Killing in Self-Defense



## SRoper (Oct 6, 2005)

Some recent threads have got me thinking about killing in self-defense. It seems to me that the idea expressed by many here that killing in self-defense (and even in defense of property) is practically a moral duty is rather new. Here is a quick survey as I see it: 

Augustine taught that killing in self-defense was always a sin unless it was done by an officer of the state. However, he did not think that the sin was punishable by the state. [1]

Aquinas taught that killing in self-defense was allowed only if we intended to stop the attack. We could risk our attacker's life, but not intend to take it. In application this would preclude the use of blows to the head which are often deadly. This is the view of the Roman church today (and is closest to my view as well). [2][3]

Calvin retreated from Aquinas's view. He believed that since very few can take a life without any malice, self-defense should not be practiced. [4]

Again, I am open to correction on any of these points as my knowledge is quite limited. How did our modern ideas on self-defense arise?

[1] _On Free Choice of the Will_, Book 1, Ch. 5
[2] _Catechism of the Catholic Church_, 2263, 2264
[3] _Summa Theologia_, II-II, 64, 7
[4] _Calvin's Commentaries_, MATTHEW 26:51-56; MARK 14:47-52; LUKE 22:49-53


----------



## Richard King (Oct 6, 2005)

Taking the self out of it...I always wonder what people who argue this point feel is their moral duty if they see a neighbor being attacked, or a wife or child. Or a weaker person being endangered by a thug? If it is wrong for me to defend myself...would you find it wrong for me to approach a neighbor and say I will protect you and I hope you will do the same for me. 

I didn't answer your question, but I thought I might tell you this because I carry a concealed weapon often and I don't think of it as my protection as much as I think of it as my family's protection...which I think God has given me a part in.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 6, 2005)

*WLC*

Q135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A135: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves [1] and others [2] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[3] subduing all passions,[4] and avoiding all occasions,[5] temptations,[6] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[7]* by just defense thereof against violence*,[8] patient bearing of the hand of God,[9] quietness of mind,[10] cheerfulness of spirit;[11] a sober use of meat,[12] drink,[13] physic,[14] sleep,[15] labor,[16] and recreations;[17] by charitable thoughts,[18] love,[19] compassion,[20] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[21] peaceable,[22] mild and courteous speeches and behavior;[23] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[24] comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.[25]

1. Eph. 5:28-29
2. I Kings 18:4
3. Jer. 26:15-16; Acts 23:12, 16-17, 21, 27
4. Eph. 4:26-27
5. II Sam. 2:22; Deut. 22:8
6. Matt. 4:6-7; Prov. 1:10-11, 15-16
7. I Sam. 24:2; 26:9-11; Gen. 37:21-22
8. Psa. 82:4; Prov. 24:11-12; I Sam. 14:45
9. James 5:7-11; Heb. 12:9
10. I Thess. 4:11; I Peter 3:3-4; Psa. 37:8-11
11. Prov. 17:22
12. Prov. 25:16, 27
13. I Tim. 5:23
14. Isa. 38:21
15. Psa. 127:2
16. Eccl. 5:12; II Thess. 3:10, 12; Prov. 16:26
17. Eccl. 3:4, 11
18. I Sam. 19:4-5; 22:13-14
19. Rom. 13:10
20. Luke 10:33-34
21. Col. 3:12-13
22. James 3:17
23. I Peter 3:8-11; Prov. 15:1; Judg. 8:1-3
24. Matt. 5:24; Eph. 4:2, 32; Rom. 12:17, 20-21
25. I Thess. 5:14; Job 31:19-20; Matt. 25:35-36; Prov. 31:8-9

Q136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A136: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[1] or of others,[2] *except in case of * public justice,[3] lawful war,[4] *or necessary defense*;[5] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;[6] sinful anger,[7] hatred,[8] envy,[9] desire of revenge;[10] all excessive passions,[11] distracting cares;[12] immoderate use of meat, drink,[13] labor,[14] and recreations;[15] provoking words,[16] oppression,[17] quarreling,[18] striking, wounding,[19] and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[20]

1. Acts 16:28
2. Gen. 9:6
3. Num. 35:31, 33
4. Jer. 48:10; Deut. ch. 20
5. Exod. 22:2-3
6. Matt. 25:42-43; James 2:15-16; Eccl. 6:1-2
7. Matt. 5:22
8. I John 3:15; Lev. 19:17
9. Prov. 14:30
10. Rom. 12:19
11. Eph. 4:31
12. Matt. 6:31, 34
13. Luke 21:34; Rom. 13:13
14. Eccl. 2:22-23; 12:12
15. Isa. 5:12
16. Prov. 12:18; 15:1
17. Ezek. 18:18; Exod. 1:14
18. Gal. 5:15; Prov. 23:29
19. Num. 35:16-18, 21
20. Exod. 21:18-36


----------



## Poimen (Oct 6, 2005)

WLC?






Try the Heidelberg Catechism my friend:

Q107: But is this all that is required: that we do not kill our neighbor?
A107: No, for in condemning envy, hatred, and anger, God requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves,[1] to show patience, peace, meekness,[2] mercy,[3] and kindness [4] towards him, and *to prevent his hurt as much as possible*;[5] also, to do good even unto our enemies.[6]

1. Matt. 7:12; 22:39
2. Eph. 4:2; Gal. 6:1-2; Rom. 12:18
3. Matt. 5:7; Luke 6:36
4. Rom. 12:10
5. Exod. 23:5
6. Matt. 5:9, 44-45; Rom. 12:20-21; Col. 3:12-14

Interesting that the Heidelberg does not mention anything about self-defense. 

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 6, 2005)

You dutch people!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 6, 2005)

WLC wins again. :bigsmile:


----------



## Poimen (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> WLC wins again. :bigsmile:



In your dreams, Presbyterian boy!


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

Exodus 22:22ff

Sometimes the best way to win an argument is to throw out a reductio and force the opposition to swallow it:

Your wife is about to be raped. You have a shotgun within reach. Finish the rest of the story.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Exodus 22:22ff
> 
> Sometimes the best way to win an argument is to throw out a reductio and force the opposition to swallow it:
> ...



I'll finish the rest of the story: Tales from Reformia

Scenario 
Background: The Neo Cons have sided with Hillary Clinton's Commie Nazis and the Southern and Western States, already having experienced a massive revival, have seceeded and formed their own semi-independent commonwealths. They are functionally independent from the statists, but not practically so. Therefore, a tyrannical law would have technical legal force, but no one would enforce it. 

One of the laws at the time is the sacrificing of virgins to the Lord High State. 

Characters in the story:
Billy Wallace, an agrarian freedom fighter who nearly lost his life in the Great Betrayal of '08 (a time when Neo Conservatives betrayed their Christian constituency and joined the Christ-hating liberals). He has been rallying the clans for the resistance movement; of third generation scottish descent. 

<insert beautiful local girl who will marry Wallace/>

Auto Crat
He believes, consistently, that since there is no Law above the law, man's law is absolute and legally binding. He is the sworn enemy of Billy Wallace. 

Auto Nomy, Auto Crat's secondhand man, commander of the Death Troop Guards--a Gestapo like police force operating on the principle that Man's law is absolute.

<more characters to be added later/> 

Time and place: Appalachian Mts, 2012.

Wallace is about to be married to a local villager and the whole parish is rejoicing. Sure, there is the danger of Death-Coat Guards approaching, but the locals walk around armed to the teeth. Furthermore, the terrain provided a natural defense. 

Parson: We are gathered here together...

(troops approach)

Auto Nomy: We claim the right to this girl's virginity, to be celebrated in the yearly festival. Now, hand her over!

Billy Wallace: The h*** you do! 

Auto Nomy: Now, now, play nice. You know that as a Christian you have to obey the law of the land. Now, hand her over!

Wallace: There is a higher law than man's law, and that is what I obey.

Nomy: You are not playing nice. I have read some "principled pluralists" within the Reformed faith and they say that I have to be obeyed no matter what. 

Wallace: Yeah, and I have read John Knox and Samuel Davies, and they say your life is forfeit.

Nomy: My law says you have to obey me!

Wallace: My 12-gauge says otherwise.

Nomy: Guards! Arrest him! 
(The Death Troop Guards approach; In the meanwhile Wallace had positioned Redneck Snipers in certain trees and rock ledges, waiting for Wallace's signal).

Wallace then unloads both barrels into Auto Nomy. His Redneck Sniper Corps responds by cutting down Nomy's Death Troop Guard. Wallace draws to six-shooters from his belt and runs to his fiancee's side, protecting her with pistol fire. He then escorts her, along with some of his finest men, to a secret grove where she will be protected. He then heads back to the village square to finish off they tyrants. 

It is either God's Law or Tyranny
God's Law or Chaos
God's Law or judgment. 

Samuel Davies exhorts,
""When [our enemies] would enslave the freeborn mind and compel us meanly to cringe to usurpation and arbitrary power; . . . what is then the will of God? Must peace then be maintained? Maintained at the expense of property, liberty, life, and everything dear and valuable? . . . No; in such a time even the God of Peace proclaims by His providence, "To arms!" Then the sword is, as it were, consecrated to God; and the art of war becomes a part of our religion."


----------



## SRoper (Oct 6, 2005)

Ah, thank you. The WLC is much clearer than the WSC on this.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Your wife is about to be raped.



Not if I have a shot gun in reach!


----------



## SRoper (Oct 6, 2005)

"Your wife is about to be raped. You have a shotgun within reach. Finish the rest of the story."

I'll attempt to play Augustine's advocate.

It is a lesser evil for a rapist to be killed than for a woman to be raped. However, if one kills a rapist in this instance, he is acting out of inordinate desire for the temporal blessings of his wife. He has made his wife into an idol and has put his love for her above his love of God's Law (which forbids an individual from taking another's life).

"Evodius: ... As for chastity, who would doubt that it is located in the soul itself, since it is a virtue? So it cannot be taken away by a violent assailent. ... I can't think of any way to defend those who do the killing."
-Augustine _On Free Choice of the Will_


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> He has made his wife into an idol and has put his love for her above his love of God's Law (which forbids an individual from taking another's life).
> 
> "Evodius: ... As for chastity, who would doubt that it is located in the soul itself, since it is a virtue? So it cannot be taken away by a violent assailent. ... I can't think of any way to defend those who do the killing."
> -Augustine _On Free Choice of the Will_



God's law, eh? I will play my trump card? 
Exodus 22:22ff
Augustine's views on sexuality are warped in some areas. I don't put much stock into them. He doesn't need to worry about defending me. I can do alright by myself.

Furthermore, in reading City of God I got the distinct impression that he turned chastity itself (properly defined only b y him) into an idol.


----------



## Richard King (Oct 6, 2005)

Here is my plan...if I ever see a child being raped, 
an elderly person being beaten to death, 
a black man being dragged behind a pickup truck...etc. 
I will first ask the offender to stop as I am required to do.
If he chooses not to, I will shoot the offender dead and have faith in God's grace 
and assume it was Providence that had me there in that time and space.

Is that a spiritually flawed plan?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 6, 2005)

This is the one issue that would have made me a terrible mennonite. Blame Uncle Sam for enlisting me as a B.R.A.T. (yep, she's trying to make it in her daddy's world...trying to balance that with ladylike sensibilities)


----------



## pastorway (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "Your wife is about to be raped. You have a shotgun within reach. Finish the rest of the story."
> 
> I'll attempt to play Augustine's advocate.
> ...



Sorry - but that is hogwash. A husband must by DUTY protect his wife and family. 

"Sorry dear. I love you but not enough to kill this wicked man that is about to ravage you. Just love your enemies dear and it will be over soon."

God's law forbids MURDER. Killing a man who is harming your family and breaking the laws of the land is not murder - it is justifiable homicide. And specific to the USA, we have laws (in many states at least) that allow for killing a criminal for a number of reasons with justification. It is not murder.

Beside that, IF what Augustine believes in this case is true, then God is a sinner, for He commanded the Israelites to kill whole populations of wicked nations - men, women, and children.

So not all killing is murder, and not all killing is sin.

Let a man try to touch my wife and he will be beside himself in a bad way and my conscience will be clear! It will have been his last sinful impulse upon this earth.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 7, 2005)

> So not all killing is murder, and not all killing is sin.
> 
> *Let a man try to touch my wife and he will be beside himself in a bad way* and my conscience will be clear! It will have been his last sinful impulse upon this earth.



:bigsmile:


----------



## alwaysreforming (Oct 7, 2005)

Maybe I missed it but I took the main thrust of this thread to be self defense vs. "killing" in self defense. But by our answers here we've only given ONE application of self defense and that's a death blow.

Scott, are you not asking if during self defense we should try to stop the attack but preserve life itself if possible?

Could the person attacking a neighbor, or child, or wife not be shot in the leg(s) or shoulders if possible to render the attack impotent and handed over to the authorities for justice?

Is the rush to kill our simply taking justice into our own hands when we could have stopped the attack and let the state handle justice?

(Now the above questions require the circumstances to be such that a non-lethal blow could be made without risking further harm to the victim.)


----------



## Richard King (Oct 7, 2005)

I went by the title of the thread.

If you want to warn someone you can fire into the air. If you are going to point a gun and pull the trigger at a human it should only be to kill.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> I went by the title of the thread.
> 
> If you want to warn someone you can fire into the air. If you are going to point a gun and pull the trigger at a human it should only be to kill.



Ditto. Asking a rapist to stop is probalby wasting your breath.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> Here is my plan...if I ever see a child being raped,
> an elderly person being beaten to death,
> a black man being dragged behind a pickup truck...etc.
> ...


That sums it up. And the law of the land permit such a response.


----------



## Herald (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> Some recent threads have got me thinking about killing in self-defense. It seems to me that the idea expressed by many here that killing in self-defense (and even in defense of property) is practically a moral duty is rather new. Here is a quick survey as I see it:
> 
> Augustine taught that killing in self-defense was always a sin unless it was done by an officer of the state. However, he did not think that the sin was punishable by the state. [1]
> ...



Let me put it in simple terms: if you enter my house in the middle of the night and I perceive you are a threat to my family, I will use any and all remedies (including deadly force) to stop you. If you attack me and put my life in jeporady, same thing. Is that theologically correct? I don't know.


----------



## SRoper (Oct 7, 2005)

"God's law, eh? I will play my trump card?
Exodus 22:22ff"

No doubt the state has the power to execute rapists. What does this have to do with killing in self-defense?

"Augustine's views on sexuality are warped in some areas. I don't put much stock into them."

You are correct, but that has nothing to do with the subject unless you think it is warped that he believed a woman who was violated is still chaste.

"Sorry - but that is hogwash. A husband must by DUTY protect his wife and family."

No doubt, but that does not mean that a man is permitted to sin while protecting his wife. If his wife falls overboard he has a duty to rescue her. If she is attacked by a wild animal he has a duty to stop the attack, killing the animal if necessary. However, it does not necessarily follow that he may kill another man in defense of her.

"Killing a man who is harming your family and breaking the laws of the land is not murder - it is justifiable homicide. And specific to the USA, we have laws (in many states at least) that allow for killing a criminal for a number of reasons with justification. It is not murder."

Augustine's purpose in the reference I cited above was to show that there are laws that are just and give people freedom, but it is still a sin to commit certain acts within that freedom. There is not a 1-1 correspondence between the Eternal Law and man's judicial law (even if that law is just).

"Beside that, IF what Augustine believes in this case is true, then God is a sinner, for He commanded the Israelites to kill whole populations of wicked nations - men, women, and children."

No, because killing by the state in the prosecution of war is permissable according to Augustine. He just does not see any justification for an individual to kill in self-defense.

"Scott, are you not asking if during self defense we should try to stop the attack but preserve life itself if possible?"

Actually I was looking for a more complete survey of ideas on killing in self-defense throughout Christian history. I do agree that life should be preserved where possible and that it is sinful to _intentionally_ kill an attacker. In application this would mean that use of a poisoned sword would be wrong. I don't think it is as extreme as only striking the extremities. Shots to the center of mass are far more effective at incapacitation and often are not fatal (the majority of such victims survive). In the end it is a matter of the heart. When someone breaks into your house there is a world of difference between thinking, "I am going to stop this threat to my family" and, "I'm going to kill this person for breaking into my house."

"If you want to warn someone you can fire into the air. If you are going to point a gun and pull the trigger at a human it should only be to kill."

Obviously I disagree. It should only be to incapacitate the man with the full knowledge you may kill him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

Sixth commandment; reformed Westminsterian interpretation:
Protect life to the fullest extent. Applications are scenario-sensitive.
Scott: 
Don't take this the wrong way but that philosophy is unlivable (at least I hope for your sake is).


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "
> Obviously I disagree. It should only be to incapacitate the man with the full knowledge you may kill him.


If you incapacitate the man you ruin his life and he will sue you for the rest of your life. How do you like being in debt for the rest of your days? Keep in mind we have a justice system that criminalizes the victim and victimises the criminal.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 7, 2005)

Put your faith in God and keep your gunpowder dry.
~Oliver Cromwell


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Put your faith in God and keep your gunpowder dry.
> ~Oliver Cromwell



And to put that quote in context--kill tyrants!

Patrick Henry spoke thus:

Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the I his Cromwell, and George III his...


----------



## SRoper (Oct 7, 2005)

"If you incapacitate the man you ruin his life and he will sue you for the rest of your life. How do you like being in debt for the rest of your days? Keep in mind we have a justice system that criminalizes the victim and victimises the criminal."

References to actual court cases? The fact is this rarely happens, and even if it was widespread it does not follow that one should make an immoral decision because of an unjust legal system.

Does this mean you should make sure a person you shoot is dead by finishing him off? That seems unjustified. Besides, I personally know someone who went to jail for that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "If you incapacitate the man you ruin his life and he will sue you for the rest of your life. How do you like being in debt for the rest of your days? Keep in mind we have a justice system that criminalizes the victim and victimises the criminal."
> 
> References to actual court cases? The fact is this rarely happens, and even if it was widespread it does not follow that one should make an immoral decision because of an unjust legal system.
> ...



I have argued over and over that a lot of this is case sensitive. No, I would purposefully take out a guy's kneecap. That is stupid, cruel, and you will lose the lawsuit. Secondly, it is a smaller target. 

I really don't know how to respond to you. I threw out several reductios ad absurdum with the implication being you weren't supposed to agree with it. But you swallowed the reduction (which is odd).



[Edited on 10--8-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Richard King (Oct 7, 2005)

Here's a bedtime story to think about:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry44.htm


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

Pratt's a genius.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 7, 2005)

shoot a man to wound him and it may just take him longer to die. Hit him in the leg and sever the femoral artery - what a way to go! The fact is, if you are shooting NOT to kill then you should not be shooting at all.

Shooting to kill is the most humane way to shoot.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 7, 2005)

Here is something that I found very interesting - from Dr. Payne's class. He told us that the military has an extremely complex and organized set of rules and regulations about killing. You see, for those who have to kill, they can't just make up a couple of reductios and run off from there. They have to do it all the time, and so they have ot have precision as to when one can kill and when not.

The point is that when killing is not necessary, they don't do it.

He told us a very interesting story. His son in law is an Army Ranger. A man broke into his house and he heard him. Payne said that he presumed he would have shot him and killed him. But the Ranger's answer was, it was not that simple. He needed to take into account a myriad of factors (and do it in a split second - that is what separates a trained killer/warrior from a wannabe). "Like what?" Payne said. "If he was armed, if he knew how to use the gun, what he wanted, could he be incapacitated instead of killed, what the danger was, etc...."

So what happened?

The Ranger turned on the light, with his gun pointed right at the man. The man saw him, and likely the guns and military paraphenalia on the walls and dropped the gun and put his hands up. I have no doubt that if he had not done that right away, the Ranger would have shot him.

My point? Self-defense is right, but we need to be very sober about killing. I have to admit that I thought very differently about the issue, and my own bombast before hearing that story. That was a very good class that day.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 7, 2005)

don't kill unless you have to - but if you have to, don't hesitate!

(will any of us ever be in a situation where we might have to? Honestly, probably not!)


----------



## alwaysreforming (Oct 8, 2005)

To the scenario Fred presented above with the Ranger...

I think that is a good way to go. Basically, if you have the right scenario, its a good idea to handle the situation just like a police officer would. I'd have my gun drawn on them (with authority!) and shout, "Get your hands up!!! Don't move!!! Get down on the ground!!! Do NOT move!!!" etc, etc.

With the right tone, he'll either think you ARE a cop and he's under arrest, or he'll think you're right on the brink of blowing his brains out (which in reality you are).

This is the way I'd proceed with any situation, God willing! (At least that's the way I rehearse it in my mind)

And if you have a pair of handcuffs in the house, don't go over and try to put them on; always keep your distance so the gun cannot be taken away from you. Just call the police and let them do it!


----------

