Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5846757" data-attributes="member: 8835">I like this answer.  No fuzzy fluffy emotional "you'll feel bad if you do." just cold hard logic.  I'm going to ignore this point Crothian makes, but I think it is an excellent reason.Though I might counter that this MIGHT sway some people from committing crime in the first place.  It will also greatly reduce the total population of criminals, thereby reducing the crime rate (which in America, isn't all that high for other reasons).  The bad guy may get away with a few attacks, but eventually he will be plugged.  Problem solved.  His victims will be martyrs in the war on crime.  There's cultures now that see that as OK.i think the line is drawn under the rules of engagement for an immediate hostile event.  Bad guy attacks you, you get to kill him.  If you hear about a bad guy six blocks away, you do not get to kill him because you did not personally witness the crime being perpetrated by the bad guy.I differentiate the two because as the direct and immediate victim you are more qualified to act as judge, jury and executioner than anybody else on the planet.  To anybody else, the bad guy "allegedly" did the crime, but technically it could have been his evil twin or some other mistaken identity (which happens to real people who are in jail right now for crimes they did not commit).Whereas, having just been almost shot by the bad guy and successfully thwarted that attack and have a clean LOS to his noggin, there is no doubt, short of super-fantastic quantum reality shifting going on, that the guy in front of you is guilty.I will offer my own counter to my "It's OK to shoot bad guys" idea.Abuse of the system.I suspect that's why the legal system exists.  It's not about the obvious cases of "bad guy held up a convenience store and Apu wrested the gun away and shot him on tape."  While I'm OK with the initiator of a violent crime getting the axe, that's not really the problem.  Let Apu win in those cases, the jury should vote by their conciense and let Apu walk.The problem is when the cops get a 911 call from a wife who claims her husband attacked her with a 9mm but she managed to dodge and run through the house to shoot him with a .38 she kept by the bed.  If the cop didn't call in TVland's CSI team to do their magic, the wife could have faked that scene well enough to seem plausible.Basically, people could abuse the "defensive homicde" rule to hide murders.  That seems like a decent reason to discourage allowing them, so as to remove that tool from bad guys' belt of evil tricks.</blockquote>

Verification