Killing in Self Defense

[Nessa]

Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

We might have a right to defend ourselves but there are times when it is better to give up that right in order to accomplish some higher good. Jesus could have asked God to send twelve legions of angels to keep him from being crucified but he chose to submit to death because that was the only way we could be redeemed. Sometimes his followers need to follow his example and submit to death when carrying out the job of telling others the gospel.

A long time ago I read a book about the missionaries whose deaths are the subject of the film and I recall that they discussed what they would do if attacked. Someone mentioned the possibility of shooting the attackers in the legs to stop them without killing them. Evidently they didn't have a chance to do this.

I dont reallly get that? Missionaries with guns? Like do they hold the gun in one hand and the bible in the other?

A bible in one hand, and a gun in the other hand. Now you're getting it Nessa. It's called tough love. If only I could remember where someone was talking about tough love being part of agape love. I wonder who said that? Hmm....

Tell that to that 12 and 15 year old kids who intrudes into your place with a gun. I'd rather use a broom (see sword thread)

No, I dont consider that tough love, I consider that a tough (hard) heart in THIS instance.

[RickD]

Nessa,

I'm trying to follow your logic on this self-defense/gun issue. If you'll humor me, and play along, perhaps I can see where you're coming from.

The issue has been about people, specifically Christians, in America having guns for personal protection, and for the protection of others.

So, my question to you, is do you think police officers, Christian or not, in America should be armed with guns? Yes or no, and why?

[Nessa]

Nessa,

I'm trying to follow your logic on this self-defense/gun issue. If you'll humor me, and play along, perhaps I can see where you're coming from.

The issue has been about people, specifically Christians, in America having guns for personal protection, and for the protection of others.

So, my question to you, is do you think police officers, Christian or not, in America should be armed with guns? Yes or no, and why?

Kurieuo already mentioned in a previous post that when cops use guns they are trained. Not just trained on how to physically use one but on all different aspects that are involved. They cant just shoot and ask questions later. Abe already said he would do that to save on being sued. A good cop should have the right mentality when using a gun. He should be objective. Can you be objectve when a guy aims a gun at your child? Also the statistics of the reality of owning a gun for personal protection arent that great. Innocent people get shot..more victims.

[Nessa]

I dont see anything wrong with police having lethal weapons to use to enforce the law.
To me, its about the right context. Sex in marriage good. Sex outside of marriage bad. Does that make sex bad or good?

Im not against guns. Neither is Mel or kurieuo or anyone else who has spoken up about this.

[RickD]

Nessa,

There is firearms training here. It's needed to get a permit. At least in Florida. So, most people are well trained, have regular target practice, and know how to handle a gun.

But back to my question. Why do you think police should have guns? Specifically, what gives them the right to carry a gun?

[Kurieuo]

Police (and even police it seems especially in the US don't get it right because they can be too gun-ho), are trained to not just use a gun, but in proper procedure that is suppose to give the person a chance to back down. Furthermore, it is proper that police carry weapons since they need to uphold the law and protect society at large. That is their primary responsibility.

BUT, this thread isn't necessarily about guns, although such is a related issue.
Rather killing in self defense, specifically for the Christian.
And there are other ways that one can kill than needing to use a gun.

Notwithstanding Christians, especially the man is head of his house and charged with protecting unto laying down his life for his family -- defending our self versus protecting other people are two related issues but nonetheless different also.

Going back to that video of the missionaries trying to reach out to the Auca people.

To me, Christians are representatives of Christ. In a sense, we're all missionaries in our lives.
Like those missionaries made a specific decision to go in and try help the Aucas, so too when we come to Christ we made that decision.

Simply because we get caught up in social life like getting a job, cars, houses and family life in our society AND the culture of our society -- when we become Christian we have "given up our life" to Christ, right? So then, as far as we're concerned, we're not protecting our lives anymore, but rather our life is Christ's life to either sustain or take.

We are suppose to be that light in a world full of darkness. We are ambassadors for Christ whether we like that or not. We are those missionaries and the Aucas are people in our society. The Aucas are those thieves who break in to steal, or youth who wind up in gangs.

I can't help but see that a Christian, alone by himself, shooting a teenager who's breaking in to steal because it is his right to protect his home or simply "defend" himself -- as allowing the darkness in the world to overcome, rather then letting their light shine in the darkness.

[RickD]

You Aussies are a bunch of mankini wearing, lolly bagging, pansies!

[Kurieuo]

There's a reason you were wanting to move to Australia right Rick?

[Philip]

We are suppose to be that light in a world full of darkness. We are ambassadors for Christ whether we like that or not. We are those missionaries and the Aucas are people in our society. The Aucas are those thieve who break in to steal, or youth who wind up in gangs.

I guess it's all how you look at it. Personally, I see those who stop violence and murder through defensive actions as heroes! Guy goes into a theatre, he's gonna ruin countless families' lives, and someone with a gun stops it, keeps some nutjob from killing kids and teenagers - you gonna tell me that not trying to stop this guy with whatever is most likely to stop him is the unChristian thing to do? That's completely brain-dead thinking!

I can't help but see that a Christian, alone by himself, shooting a teenager who's breaking in to steal because it is his right to protect his home or simply "defend" himself -- as allowing the darkness in the world to overcome, rather then letting their light shine in the darkness.

A classic theoretical example that is totally clueless. If someone is breaking in: 1) You will almost certainly not know exactly what he is up to (robbery, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.); 2) Especially in the U.S., if a man (OK, some "young, mostly harmless, misguided kid" ) attempts to breach a family's threshold while they are home, you must assume A) that he is armed; B) He's either on drugs or a lunatic; C) He's likely capable of anything you might imagine; 3) You will likely not know what age he is, nor will you care; 4) You may well not be able to merely wound - this isn't the movies, we're not all Navy Seals or Wyatt Earp!

So, what would a Christian who DOES care about the criminal - to the extent the dangerous situation allows him - NOT do? Well, you surely wouldn't shoot at anyone outside in the yard, that you don't yet know of any violent motivation. You would not shoot until you hear and see them trying to break a door or window in - and then you might first fire a warning shot or to and scream for them to cease and desist. The interesting thing is that some here want to make a Christian seem responsible for his response to an armed, murderous gunman threatening his family. As WHO is really at fault.

Also interesting. Someone (Kurieuo?) mentioned that killing a murderous thug would send him to hell without a chance to repent. Well, what if that thug is on a killing spree - think he's ONLY going to kill Christians? Course not, he's likely to kill more unbelievers (depends where this happens) than believers (due to the spiritual demographics of society). So the armed hero who stops some lunatic is also probably preventing many from immediate hell! So, given the choice that your armed intervention might well send ONE person to hell, and that your failure to confront might result in many going to hell - WHAT'S YOUR CHOICE?

The other thing I notice is that people are cherry picking what part of the Bible they want to use to promote the view that armed resistance is wrong. So was GOD causing sin when He told Israel how to deal with her enemies? Context is everything!

OK, what does the Bible say about whose guilt is the killing of a thief breaking in during the night?
"If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,"

Aha, you say, but look at the very next verse: " but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him."

"but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." (Exodus 22:2-3)

First, let's note exactly what the one breaking in during the night actually is: He's a "thief" - he's not a murderer. But, it's nighttime, therefore the persons in the house have absolutely no way of seeing if this is a mere thief or a murderer. But if it happened during the day, the accountability rises because one could theoretically see that the intentions of the intruder is mere thievery and likely not murder or some other violence. Also, note what the passage does NOT cover: a murderous, violent-intended individual breaking in - which is far different from a thief. But the clear implication is that when someone comes to break in while you are home, even if only perceived as potentially being there to kill, then the person who kills that intruder has NO guilt! Why? Because he must act BEFORE and without KNOWING the intentions of the intruder.

It might be helpful for some to read C.S. Lewis essay, "Why I Am Not a Pacifist." And in thinking this issue through, we must not draw conclusions outside of context. Lewis reminds that the backdrop of New Testament Israel was of a "private people in a disarmed nation."

[Kurieuo]

You kind of went off-track Phil:

BUT, this thread isn't necessarily about guns, although such is a related issue.
Rather killing in self defense, specifically for the Christian.
And there are other ways that one can kill than needing to use a gun.

Notwithstanding Christians, especially the man is head of his house and charged with protecting unto laying down his life for his family -- defending our self versus protecting other people are two related issues but nonetheless different also.

[theophilus]

I dont reallly get that? Missionaries with guns? Like do they hold the gun in one hand and the bible in the other?

It is more likely that they hold the Bible in their hand and carry the gun in a holster where they can reach it quickly if they need it.

[Nessa]

I dont reallly get that? Missionaries with guns? Like do they hold the gun in one hand and the bible in the other?

It is more likely that they hold the Bible in their hand and carry the gun in a holster where they can reach it quickly if they need it.

I was being sarcastic at the time, sorry.

[Kurieuo]

I've been trying to get a video clip, of Blake Layman, who tells in his own words the story of what happened from a TV series I saw. But, I couldn't get a hold of it. I'm sure, however, that this story is familiar to others in the US.

Blake Layman made one very bad decision. He was 16, an unexceptional teenager growing up in a small Indiana town. He’d never been in trouble with the law, had a clean criminal record, had never owned or even held a gun.

That decision sparked a chain of events that would culminate with his arrest and trial for “felony murder”. The boy was unarmed, had pulled no trigger, killed no one. He was himself shot and injured in the incident while his friend standing beside him was also shot and killed. Yet Layman would go on to be found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 55 years in a maximum-security prison for a shooting that he did not carry out.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... il-indiana

Sadly, the best video I could find on this, was with the Young Turks
(who also talk a lot of smack against Christians, but nonetheless this one is generally fine):



Towards the end the hosts have the following exchange:

• Cenk Uygur: If I'm the guy whose house it is, I don't shoot the kids... I think... I hope... well I know
  'cause I don't have a gun. Right? By the way, if he didn't have a gun all those kids are alive today. Right? Or the one kid's alive, none of them get shot.
  
  I know what everybody is going to say, "Ohh noo, but they're in your house, you have to panic you have to murder everybody." No you don't. It's a scary situation. I have sympathy for the home owner. No question with these a**holes coming in buglarizing your house, right? It's terrible that they broke into your house you've got to be terrified. You call the cops, you have a bat, something, right? You want to defend yourself. I know, it's America they could be armed, ok...
  
  Ana Kasparian: It's America they're likely to be armed.
  
  Cenk Uygur: No, but, I just wouldn't go in shooting, just wouldn't go in shooting. Oh, there's somebody in my house, I don't know who it is, f**k it I'll just kill them all. Arrrrhg! I know everybody thinks that he's probably a hero, the guy who shot the kids who burglarized his house. Now a young guy is dead.
  
  Ana Kasparian: I mean, look he was asleep when they entered his home.
  
  Cenk Uygur: Scary ...
  
  Ana Kasparian: Yah.
  
  Cenk Uygur: ... super scary, I get it -- I wouldn't have shot people.

In my eyes, it seems we have Atheists here more in line with Christ.
And all they're talking from is their inner moral intuition that, as far as they see it, has no grounding in anything but themselves. They don't believe in loving others as Christ loves us or that they'll live on after death. And yet, Cenk doesn't own a gun nor would he have shot.

Aside from the story that the friends were charged with felony murder and sentenced to pretty much a lifetime of prison for the home owner killing one of them...

I'd be interested to know who agrees that home owner was justified in shooting?
AND secondly, perhaps more importantly, would such an action be valid as a Christian?

[Philip]

Kurieuo, give it up! We realize you don't believe defending against likely dangerous home invaders is the "Christian" response, so you seek out some extreme circumstances like this sad tale.

First place, we don't have adequate info. Was it dark in the house?

FURTHER details:
At 2:30 p.m., Rodney Scott, who was taking a nap, awoke to the sound of a loud bang. In a police affidavit, he stated that his house felt as if it were “shuddering.” Arming himself with a 9mm handgun and his cell phone, Scott rushed downstairs. There he encountered Blake Layman, 16, Jose Quiroz, 17, Anthony Sharp, 18, and 21-year-old Danzele Johnson. (Another conspirator, Levi Sparks, 17, waited on the porch of a house across the street to act as a lookout.)

Scott, on seeing four strangers in his residence, opened fire.

Describing the break-in, Quiroz stated that Danzele Johnson kicked in the back door and the others followed him inside. He said Anthony Sharp carried a .22-caliber pistol, and that he and Layman armed themselves with steak knives from the kitchen.

Investigators ruled that Scott had acted in self-defense and would face no charges.


So: Guy is home - probably assumed these guys knew that - hears his door kicked in during broad daylight - and he finds four men in his home. One has a pistol, two others have knives. Did the homeowner/shooter see these weapons? Did he feel or sense an imminient threat? If so, he had every (legal AND moral) right - and probably good reason - to shoot. These guys might have been murderous drug crazies, for all he knew, as they had kicked his door in 1) while he is home and 2) during daylight. I don't blame him for thinking the worst. The other thing is, only lunatics that are armed would go in a home if they know someone is home. The homeowner had no way of knowing they didn't know he was home. The other issue is, when being confronted by intruders, you have only seconds to react, or else you might well be killed. As if they HAD been armed crazies, the homeowner may well have been fortunate to survive it.

Now, IF the homeowner had plenty of time to 1) see and be SURE they were not armed and 2) he could have KNOWN and seen they were ONLY there for petty thievery, THEN, of course, he should not have fired his gun. You don't shoot at what you can't see. You don't shoot someone not attacking you that is still in the yard. But once an intruder is INSIDE, THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

OK, so, exactly whose responsibility is this death? Ultimately, it was the one killed! HE took the risk by doing something incredibly dangerous and unbelievably stupid. YES, it's a great tragedy. YES, key variables should prevail to make these kids' sentences FAR less.

This is a terrible case to try to cast as an immoral action by someone who very likely feared for his life. The HOMEOWNER didn't create this situation, the KIDS did! And, just as in the Ezekiel passage, the blood is not on the defender's hands. I'll take the Lord's Scripture as a definitive answer to such a situation, that 1) it's reasonable to use deadly force if your home is invaded AND you have no way of knowing either the intentions nor the level or armament or danger posed, and 2) a death in such a situation is not the homeowner's fault.

Instead of cherrypicking court cases, you better be able to show that God says it's wrong to defend yourself and/or your family against perceived great danger or violence. And this, Scripture does not teach! What you have is a PERSONAL view that this is wrong.

[Nessa]

Not enough 'adequate info'? Good point. Especially when you're holding a gun about to take a teens life who had no gun himself.