TexasCHLforum.com

HerbM wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Herb, I think there is a world of difference between grieving over the deaths of the two perps, and feeling terrible that you had to kill someone. The latter would describe me. Would I kill somebody if I had to? Sure. I wouldn't even hesitate. But I believe that all human life is precious, even if it needs to be taken for reasons of self-preservation. For me, it's a religious thing.

Something like 250,000 human beings died yesterday. Almost all of them bother me more than those 2, or the 2 who committed the murders in Garland.

Well naturally - assuming that those 250,000 weren't killed in the commission of a felony, and most particularly because those 250,000 weren't out to try and kill you. I would feel that way too.

HerbM wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: I would still sleep at night (well, perhaps after a couple of nights had gone by and I had time to settle down a bit), and I would be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning, because my conscience would be clear. But I would still feel terrible that two people had to die. I'm not going to apologize for it, and if others can't understand it, well, that's on them, not on me. I just don't want to have to face my Maker some day and confess that I considered one of His creations to be no better than a bug when I killed him. That's just me. BTW, I'm a hunter too, but I don't see any conflict in killing one of his animal creations because, in my particular belief system, God put the animals here and gave man dominion over them. Shooting a white tail deer might be more fun and have deeper significance than wringing a chicken's neck, but it is still boils down to harvesting meat. But God didn't give me dominion over my fellow human beings, so for me, killing one of them might be a necessary thing, and it might even find favor in God's eyes under the right circumstances, but that is His judgment to make, not mine. I'm just trying to survive, and I don't want to rejoice in another man's death - particularly if he dies unsaved.

If someone else isn't freighted by the same things that give me pause, well, OK for them, and I hold no opinion against them for their particular examination and conclusion on the matter. I'm just saying what works for me, and why - and why in particular I think that distinguishes me from a predator.

Then (as far as I know) I give you pause -- I would not feel terrible, guilty, responsible (in a moral sense) for a necessary action.

And that is fine. You don't give me pause, and I'm not making judgment about how you would react. I'm only talking about my own feelings - which, by the way, do not include guilt. As I said, I would have a clear conscience. I just don't think that, for me personally, even a justifiable killing is not something I could just shrug off without any feelings about it. It would be a momentous event in my life, and it is something which I would feel compelled to examine with a great deal of sobriety and reflection. Again, that's just me. If others don't feel the same way, that's fine.

Remember, on this subject (at least) we are NOT arguing but merely talking about our (expected) feelings.

Exactly. Not making value judgments, just talking about my own heart in the matter.

I don't think you should APOLOGIZE for your feelings, but I do think you are putting that on yourself unnecessarily. If God gave you dominion over animals for hunting, then God either forbids you to kill someone in self-defense, or recommends you use whatever force is necessary when your life is in danger and no practical alternative is available. (Personally I don't use religious argument to justify anything that I do or don't do, but if that is your criteria this only seems logical.)

For the record, I am not able to turn my faith on and off, and I am unable to view the world through any other filter than through my faith. But I fully recognize that, in a largely unbelieving world, one has to be able to make logical secular arguments either for or against a given proposition. For instance, I mentioned the issue of abortion in another thread yesterday, not because I was making a point about abortion, but because I was making a point about legislation from the bench. I mention it the same way now. My personal sentiments about abortion are based in my religious beliefs. However, I fully recognize that a large segment of the population, possibly a majority, do not share my religious beliefs. Therefore, if I am to construct an argument against abortion to convince a non-believer that it is wrong, it has to be a secular argument, because that's how the other person is connected to their world view. That tactic would be necessary here in this thread if we were having a discussion about the legality of killing in self defense. We are not. Therefore, I don't feel that I need to make that secular justification about how I should or should not feel after having killed in self defense. I know that was long-winded, but does that make sense to you?

The assumption that, because God gives men dominion over the animals but not over other men, one may not kill in self defense doesn't necessarily follow. In fact, there are verses which tend to support the notion that Jesus did not disapprove of going about armed with lethal weapons, or that those weapons would be used for self-defense. There is even a passage in Luke where Jesus tells his disciples to take their swords with them, and if they don't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one. Furthermore, the oldest stricture against the taking of human life in the Bible says "You shall not murder," not "You shall not kill." That is an important distinction. The Old Testament goes on to make very clear distinctions between accidental and negligent homicide, and justifiable killing and murder. The implication is that in God's economy, there are situations in which one may justifiably take another person's life. So for me, there is no conflict there - only the realization that I would be taking the life of one of his creatures over whom I do not normally have dominion. I hope that makes some kind of sense to you.

I also don't think you should hold it against anyone, or judge them untrustworthy or 'giving you pause' if they don't share those feelings. It's impossible to say what feelings I actually would have but my goal would be to remove any such remorse IF I had done precisely what was necessary to save the life of my wife and myself.

Let me repeat that your thoughts do not give me pause, and I pass no judgment on it one way or the other; Nor do I judge you untrustworthy because you have the reactions you have. Possibly I have not adequately made clear that I would have a clear conscience. Remorse does not enter into it, because there is no guilt for wrongdoing. It is just that, for me, the notion of taking another human life, even if perfectly justifiable in both spiritual and secular terms, is a very sobering thought, and I would hate to have to do it - even though I would do it, and do it with a clear conscience.

I realize that these must be conflicting propositions to you - that I would both hate that I had to do something and would feel bad about it aftward, and that I would do it nonetheless with a clear conscience. I also realize that it therefore seems illogical. All the same, that is probably how I would feel. As you point out, none of us really knows how we'll react in the aftermath until we actually have to do it. I can only speak from what I know about myself already. But sometimes I surprise even myself.

I might feel bad if the person were mentally incompetent and I couldn't find another solution, but notice that it would be predicated on: Did I have a choice? Did I do what I could to prevent something that wasn't necessary (even if it was legal)?

No choice => no guilt. No guilt => no feeling bad.

If you can show me where Billy Jackson had any practical choice then THAT I might feel bad about.

You might as well feel bad for not sending aid or money to someone who died yesterday in Africa or Asia -- at least here you had a choice if you have more than enough to just get by for you and your family.

I don't believe Billy Jackson had any practical choice - other than to just lay down and die, and that's not a realistic choice. I completely understand your logic, and it makes sense to me. My reticence is simply because I am incapable of not giving due consideration to God's prerogatives.

BTW, I am enjoying this conversation very much. Thank you.

Herb, I think there is a world of difference between grieving over the deaths of the two perps, and feeling terrible that you had to kill someone. The latter would describe me. Would I kill somebody if I had to? Sure. I wouldn't even hesitate. But I believe that all human life is precious, even if it needs to be taken for reasons of self-preservation. For me, it's a religious thing.

I would still sleep at night (well, perhaps after a couple of nights had gone by and I had time to settle down a bit), and I would be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning, because my conscience would be clear. But I would still feel terrible that two people had to die. I'm not going to apologize for it, and if others can't understand it, well, that's on them, not on me. I just don't want to have to face my Maker some day and confess that I considered one of His creations to be no better than a bug when I killed him. That's just me. BTW, I'm a hunter too, but I don't see any conflict in killing one of his animal creations because, in my particular belief system, God put the animals here and gave man dominion over them. Shooting a white tail deer might be more fun and have deeper significance than wringing a chicken's neck, but it is still boils down to harvesting meat. But God didn't give me dominion over my fellow human beings, so for me, killing one of them might be a necessary thing, and it might even find favor in God's eyes under the right circumstances, but that is His judgment to make, not mine. I'm just trying to survive, and I don't want to rejoice in another man's death - particularly if he dies unsaved.

If someone else isn't freighted by the same things that give me pause, well, OK for them, and I hold no opinion against them for their particular examination and conclusion on the matter. I'm just saying what works for me, and why - and why in particular I think that distinguishes me from a predator.

I found interesting his comments about his own anguish in the aftermath of it. On another board, I was once ridiculed for saying that I would feel bad about it if I had to kill another man, but this gentleman expressed my own viewpoint pretty accurately. I would hate to have to do it, but I would do what I have to do to survive. I don't think my conscience would bother me, because the self-defense is absolutely justifiable, and I don't think I would lose any sleep on that account. But, I do think that I would be pretty shaken up, and that I would feel the same kind of anguish and sorrow over having to kill someone as this man does. Note that he said he was a combat veteran, and he was just doing what he'd been trained to do. Lots of good men come out of combat with clear consciences over what they've had to do, but anguished none the less over having had to do it.

I think that is a good thing, otherwise there's not a lot to separate me from people like the two blackhearts he had to shoot.