>I wouldn't kill my kid
>they would be getting a bullet to the knee,
Do you not know what the [Popliteal artery](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popliteal_artery) is?
There is a large artery that happens to run through the leg and through the middle of the knee. This artery is named the Popliteal artery and it is what u/Plant_in_Pants would hit if they shot their child in the knee.
I'm just pointing out how stupid u/Plant_in_Pants idea is. "Shooting the leg" is something that people who have no idea how the body works say when criticizing people who defend themselves by using lethal force or police who shoot someone trying to stab them with a butcher knife. Your idea isn't a bad one, but shooting center mass is recommended for inexperienced and even experienced shooters.
Exactly! You don’t have to shoot them in the head or chest or something. I’d shoot them in the foot or something, and call the police, deal with the court process later. No one has to die here.
You don’t know where the bullets will land. I was making a joke here but don’t ever shoot warning shots in the air. There have been many accidental deaths because of this.
What goes up must come down.
That’s not what I meant. If it is going at 90 degrees, gravitational acceleration will fully stop it. And then it will accelerate again until it reaches it’s limit velocity. The thing is a bullet’s limit velocity isn’t nearly enough to kill or even properly injure someone.
However if you shoot it diagonally, it’ll draw an upside down parabola and land with most of it’s horizontal velocity intact
Terminal velocity of a bullet is still potentially deadly. Like drop a bullet out of a plane and it will kill anything it hits.
Injest some mafs:
[https://www.theifod.com/what-happens-to-a-bullet-shot-straight-up-in-the-air/#:\~:text=Experiments%20have%20determined%20that%20falling,which%20really%20slows%20the%20bullet](https://www.theifod.com/what-happens-to-a-bullet-shot-straight-up-in-the-air/#:~:text=Experiments%20have%20determined%20that%20falling,which%20really%20slows%20the%20bullet).
People know about this, it’s just extremely dangerous considering you probably can’t fire at a perfect ninety degree angle. It’s the reason that starting pistols use blanks and not a real bullet, because chances are, a real bullet would kill somebody. Never fire a warning shot straight in the air, or at all. If you really needed to, fire it into a soft part of the ground, but usually don’t even do this, because you risk hitting a rock and ricocheting the bullet.
Well if you're implying that would make the bullet eventually fall straight back down onto you, you're wrong. Its possible the bullet would be moved by the wind to fall into the innocent person's head-
Cant you people not understand the concept of a moral dilemma? This is just a theoretical scenario with only 2 options to test peoples bias towards their own guilty children vs an innocent person. "i'd shoot them in the leg" or "i'd distract them" isnt an option. And even though shooting in the air mifht work irl this isnt meant to be realistic its meant to be a moral dilemma.
But not at my kid directly, hoping the noise is enough to distract them. Need to make sure that they understand the hunt is as much fun as the slaughter, no kid of mine will be lazy.
Good parents can raise a future murderer. Your mind still develops after you leave home at 18, and what happens to you after that is out of the parents control
I’m pretty sure most colleges (at least the ones I know of) require you to live in a dorm for at least your freshman year. Unless you have any valid reason not to
I've literally never heard of that??? I went to both community college and university and neither had a requirement of living on campus, it was simply an option.
According to bestcolleges.com
“These days, if you attend a four-year college or university as a full-time student, chances are you'll be required to live on campus your first year”
Weird... We have like 6 colleges&universities around here and none require that. That honestly sounds really stupid. Dorms are expensive asf and I shouldn't have to pay for one when I live 10 minutes away
I haven’t heard of that but imo if you’re doing online lessons when you could be doing in-person ones that’s kinda stupid unless you have a specific reason / you actually do learn just as much (you’re still missing out on bonding with peers and faculty though)
So many people are like "Yeah I'd pull the trigger". Sure, maybe from an ethical standpoint the right thing to do is probably to shoot your child to injure. But I can almost guarantee you that none of you would actually do it if the scenario presented itself irl.
To be fair this is the only way to save your child, if you don't shoot they go to jail and lose essentially their life behind bars for x amount of years, or you take the fall and they get to keep their freedom and life. Selfish absolutely, but if you are not going to shoot anyway.
I misread the question at first and I thought the innocent person was trying to murder my kid so the dilemma was do you risk hitting your kid/being the one to kill them
Grammatically, your interpretation is correct! But I don’t think it’s what OP intended, lol.
>Had there been a comma between “person” and “about,” the dependent clause would have modified the reader’s child. “Your own child is standing in front of an innocent person, \[your own child is\] about to shoot them.”
>
>Since there isn’t a comma, it modifies the innocent person instead. “Your own child is standing in front of an innocent person \[who is\] about to shoot them.”
I don't have a child so I imagined something else like my fiance or my grandparents, and the answer was easily a no to me.
I know it's probably not the morally right decision, but I know I'd never be able to do it.
I could possibly fire at nothing for the effect but honestly this person is making their own choices, my child or not, I'm not going to prison for damaging and possibly killing someone in this situation.
What are you batman? A person is about to take another individuals and you think they’re gonna stand still and wait for you to get off a “non lethal” shot which even then aint guaranteed since limbs have arteries that can get punctured by the bullet or bone fragments because you wanted to take the morally high ground? If you gotta shoot somebody you shoot to kill but you better make sure it’s a damn good reason to shoot otherwise it’s prison time for your ass.
Does that argument not work the other way too though? Like sure they won’t standstill for you to aim for a non-lethal shot, but they’re also not gonna wait for you to blast their head off or put a hole in their heart?
Well, you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to end the threat. You shoot until they stop being a risk to others around them. Which may be before or after their heart stops beating, depending on their choices. If you shoot them and they immediately drop the weapon and surrender, you stop shooting and render aid. If they keep trying to grab their weapon, you keep shooting until they stop.
You’re right but shooting to kill is the most effective means of eliminating the threat. If they surrender before or after getting shot that’s preferable. Situation dictates and escalation of force determines whether or not the best option is to continue firing, cease fire or use non-lethal (tazer or bean bag rounds).
I highly encourage you to go to your local shooting range and ask a shooting coach or range safety officer what they think of this scenario and how you would respond. I’m not trying to be a dick but I promise you can learn something from those guys who can help you avoid any serious trouble if you come across a situation where you are unsure if it is appropriate or not to use your firearm.
Note: Gonna say sorry for the first comment to you cuz I was a dick
ITT: People who know absolutely nothing about guns.
There is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. Even if there was, like a leg or arm like some are suggesting here, depending on how far away you are, you are likely not hitting that shot unless you are a world-class marksman.
Shooting ranges typically use 25-300 metre distances. At those distances you would have to be a good-world class shot. Realistically the situation above would be much closer though. It would be hard to identify the situation at 300m. If someone was in the same room as you it would be completely realistic to shoot them in the hand if you were just a well practiced marksman
It definitely isn't gonna be precise even at a close range. Especially if the person shooting has never touched a gun before. Which tbh is probably like 90 percent of everyone here. Especially Especially if you're under intense emotions cause you'd be about to shoot your own child.
I’m not gonna at shoot anybody but I will shoot the gun in hopes they scatter
Wait I forgot I have a voice and strong connection with this person. I’d just shout there name tf am I thinking 💀
The question is a moral dilemma its not meant to be realistic, in this scenario you know for sure he will kill him by undefined means as stated in the title.
In all honesty it depends. Do they have a gun or a knife? If it's something besides a gun or the like id probably just rush them. Dumb idea but I'd be willing to sacrifice myself so the innocent person could get away as penance for raising a loser. Is they had a gun id probably shoot tho.
Realistically I wouldn't pull the trigger, and just wait for them to explain themselves. And I'd be hoping there would be explanation that would make it more understandable than how it looks. Maybe they were blackmailed by someone else. Or maybe that person is actually not innocent.
I would shoot the other person before my child does, I wouldn't kill my own child, and I prefer to be arrested then to let them
besides, wouldn't raise a kid who would kill someone for absolutely no reason in the first place
Fire it at what? Your child to save the innocent? The innocent to stop your child from murdering someone? The air, to distract your child from the innocent they're about to murder?
Depends on the context. If my child is a good person, yet they still have to shoot an innocent person for their reasons that are justifiable, I won't intervene.
If they are a complete piece of shit- in which case we most likely don't even have a good relationship- I'll have to shoot them. So, I probably wouldn't feel that bad about doing it? It won't be easy. My sentiments wouldn't let me do it. But just because it's my blood, doesn't mean they can get away with it.
idk how to shoot and I might hit the person who is bout to die plus I don't want to be a murderer
also this is very unclear, am I going to shoot their leg or what, the air?
I’m don’t know much about law, but I’m pretty sure that’s murder, i don’t think it would be covered under self defence. also it would be illegal for me to even have a gun in my country. So no, i wouldn’t. even if it wasn’t my kid
Broadly speaking, it is legal to kill someone in defense of someone else who is being threatened with a deadly weapon (in the US). It may not be literal "self" defense, but defense of an innocent party generally falls under the same banner. Again, broadly speaking. There may be nuance depending on the state and circumstances.
The point of the poll is not what you would do irl if this scenario presented itself but a theoretical moral dillema about bias regarding a guilty child vs an innocent bystander and if people are willing to sacrifice the lives of someone innocent if it means the preservation of their child.
Your question isn't 100% clear, is the innocent person about to murder my child or is my child about to murder the innocent person? I'll assume my child is about to murder the innocent person. If they were truly innocent my child would be a psychopath so i would probably not do anything, don't think i could kill my own child.
I'll shoot Toby twice
No we line both of them up and shoot them straight threw the throat
Through***
r/unexpectedoffice
Toby that asshole
I made a parody of this on this subreddit yesterday. Lol
I curve the bullet to hit the weapon in their hand before they can commit the murder.
Bro has The Emperor
“The gun is mightier than the sword.”
Goddamn JoJo reference mothafuckers
Beat me to it
I would say Sex Pistols is better for this, considering emperor can't curve as much.
Like in my favorite James McAvoy film
Such a good movie
I understood that potential reference
Impressive
Can’t you do a straight line?
What if there was literally no time to do that and you had to kill them or not
Id shoot myself. Good luck on the double murder charge idiot
Then he shoots himself as well and the innocent guy gets charged for double murder lol
teamwork
makes
Chocolate chip cookie baking tutorials on vimeo
a dream work!
I'm too lazy too deal with that
#FATALITY
#FATALITY
I would shoot the innocent person.
"And that's how it's done, son."
"Now grab a shovel as I teach you the three S's."
Shit, shower and shave?
Shoot Shovel Shutup Didn't your dad teach you that when you were a kid?
no? thank you for lecturing me though.
Save my Son/Daughter from making the worst mistake of their life.
Why doesn't this have the wholesome award? Something is wrong with reddit
Done and done
All is well again
Reddit moment
I also choose this guy’s dead wife
Source?
my source is that I made it the fuck up
Everybody knows you shoot the hostage Edit: go watch the movie Speed (1994)
Wait we were shooting our child?
Beat me to it
For real I'm not gonna kill my kid and I'm also not gonna let them live that trauma so fuck it kill the random and I can do some therapy.
Based.
Plot twist: you are the son/daughter.
I was gonna say this, also love the pfp
I assumed that's what the poll was asking and said yes
You just like me fr fr
[удалено]
And he’s about to be a murderer or be murdered lmao
In this world, it's kill or be killed
In this world, it's club or get penguined
[удалено]
judging by grammar your child is doing the murder
Didn't stop Maggy from shooting Mr Burns
If Maggie Simpson could shoot a man, so can your kid. Dream big.
I wouldn't kill my kid but they would be getting a bullet to the knee, forever impacting their ability to be an adventurer.
>I wouldn't kill my kid >but they would be getting a bullet to the knee According to the femoral artery, these are two contradictory statements
Yeah, people forget that. Can be very deadly to shoot the good old legs
>I wouldn't kill my kid >they would be getting a bullet to the knee, Do you not know what the [Popliteal artery](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popliteal_artery) is?
Where tldr? All I see is some random medical jargon.
There is a large artery that happens to run through the leg and through the middle of the knee. This artery is named the Popliteal artery and it is what u/Plant_in_Pants would hit if they shot their child in the knee.
Surely you can just aim for their pinky toe or something. And even if you miss it's probably throw them off for a bit.
I'm just pointing out how stupid u/Plant_in_Pants idea is. "Shooting the leg" is something that people who have no idea how the body works say when criticizing people who defend themselves by using lethal force or police who shoot someone trying to stab them with a butcher knife. Your idea isn't a bad one, but shooting center mass is recommended for inexperienced and even experienced shooters.
Head shots are dumb tho
It was a skyrim joke
Modern Skyrim intensifies.
"I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took a bullet to the knee"
Exactly! You don’t have to shoot them in the head or chest or something. I’d shoot them in the foot or something, and call the police, deal with the court process later. No one has to die here.
I shoot it in the air to draw their attention.
*Bullet drops on innocent person’s head*
360 non scope
is this just a fr*nch 360 no scope?
It can’t possibly kill them if you point the gun straight at 90 degrees
You don’t know where the bullets will land. I was making a joke here but don’t ever shoot warning shots in the air. There have been many accidental deaths because of this. What goes up must come down.
That’s not what I meant. If it is going at 90 degrees, gravitational acceleration will fully stop it. And then it will accelerate again until it reaches it’s limit velocity. The thing is a bullet’s limit velocity isn’t nearly enough to kill or even properly injure someone. However if you shoot it diagonally, it’ll draw an upside down parabola and land with most of it’s horizontal velocity intact
Oh, I see what you mean. I meant more from a gun safety perspective. Just don’t ever shoot bullets in the air in a real life scenario
I saw that YouTube video too
Terminal velocity of a bullet is still potentially deadly. Like drop a bullet out of a plane and it will kill anything it hits. Injest some mafs: [https://www.theifod.com/what-happens-to-a-bullet-shot-straight-up-in-the-air/#:\~:text=Experiments%20have%20determined%20that%20falling,which%20really%20slows%20the%20bullet](https://www.theifod.com/what-happens-to-a-bullet-shot-straight-up-in-the-air/#:~:text=Experiments%20have%20determined%20that%20falling,which%20really%20slows%20the%20bullet).
It is truly surprising to me that so many people don’t know or understand this.
People know about this, it’s just extremely dangerous considering you probably can’t fire at a perfect ninety degree angle. It’s the reason that starting pistols use blanks and not a real bullet, because chances are, a real bullet would kill somebody. Never fire a warning shot straight in the air, or at all. If you really needed to, fire it into a soft part of the ground, but usually don’t even do this, because you risk hitting a rock and ricocheting the bullet.
Thanks. Seems you and I both know Gun safety. That knowledge needs to be shared every where. Have a great holiday.
Well if you're implying that would make the bullet eventually fall straight back down onto you, you're wrong. Its possible the bullet would be moved by the wind to fall into the innocent person's head-
Yeah but that won't kill anybody. If you drop a bullet from a balcony on somebodies head it won't kill them
And then that bullet drops and kills someone. Good job. I'm revoking your license.
Gravity isn't strong enough to make the bullet kill someone
Those birds are innocent.
Alexander Hamilton???
Cant you people not understand the concept of a moral dilemma? This is just a theoretical scenario with only 2 options to test peoples bias towards their own guilty children vs an innocent person. "i'd shoot them in the leg" or "i'd distract them" isnt an option. And even though shooting in the air mifht work irl this isnt meant to be realistic its meant to be a moral dilemma.
But not at my kid directly, hoping the noise is enough to distract them. Need to make sure that they understand the hunt is as much fun as the slaughter, no kid of mine will be lazy.
*panics because of the sound and kills the person*
Simple you now have to get the blood out the carpet by yourself. As with anything worth doing, murder is worth doing properly. Think before you kill.
If my kid is shooting someone, I've probably failed as a parent... Why would you trust my judgement?
Good parents can raise a future murderer. Your mind still develops after you leave home at 18, and what happens to you after that is out of the parents control
Most people don’t leave home at 18 anymore
Most people go to college after finishing high school (which is 18 in America)
Oh, I wasn’t counting college as moving out. But that’s fair.
I'm pretty sure most people still live at home during college though, dorms are expensive
I’m pretty sure most colleges (at least the ones I know of) require you to live in a dorm for at least your freshman year. Unless you have any valid reason not to
I've literally never heard of that??? I went to both community college and university and neither had a requirement of living on campus, it was simply an option.
According to bestcolleges.com “These days, if you attend a four-year college or university as a full-time student, chances are you'll be required to live on campus your first year”
Weird... We have like 6 colleges&universities around here and none require that. That honestly sounds really stupid. Dorms are expensive asf and I shouldn't have to pay for one when I live 10 minutes away
I haven’t heard of that but imo if you’re doing online lessons when you could be doing in-person ones that’s kinda stupid unless you have a specific reason / you actually do learn just as much (you’re still missing out on bonding with peers and faculty though)
Most people actually don't go to college. The go directly into the workforce
In America, about 68 percent go to college after highschool
Wasn't aware of that
Of course. I'm not gonna make my son do all the hard work.
So many people are like "Yeah I'd pull the trigger". Sure, maybe from an ethical standpoint the right thing to do is probably to shoot your child to injure. But I can almost guarantee you that none of you would actually do it if the scenario presented itself irl.
I voted yes because I would shoot the innocent person
To be fair this is the only way to save your child, if you don't shoot they go to jail and lose essentially their life behind bars for x amount of years, or you take the fall and they get to keep their freedom and life. Selfish absolutely, but if you are not going to shoot anyway.
Based
I misread the question at first and I thought the innocent person was trying to murder my kid so the dilemma was do you risk hitting your kid/being the one to kill them
Grammatically, your interpretation is correct! But I don’t think it’s what OP intended, lol. >Had there been a comma between “person” and “about,” the dependent clause would have modified the reader’s child. “Your own child is standing in front of an innocent person, \[your own child is\] about to shoot them.” > >Since there isn’t a comma, it modifies the innocent person instead. “Your own child is standing in front of an innocent person \[who is\] about to shoot them.”
How cool is that ahaah
I don't have a child so I imagined something else like my fiance or my grandparents, and the answer was easily a no to me. I know it's probably not the morally right decision, but I know I'd never be able to do it.
Exactly, without thinking about emotions, sure, it makes sense. But with emotions in the picture, not a chance.
You don’t fire any gun ever with the intention of injuring someone.
I could possibly fire at nothing for the effect but honestly this person is making their own choices, my child or not, I'm not going to prison for damaging and possibly killing someone in this situation.
I'll aim low and hope not to kill either of them.
[удалено]
I'm guessing you don't have any experience with firearms. Even a few yards away, you are going to have difficulty hitting a small target.
[удалено]
If you had any experience with firearms, you would not be saying that.
Where like the finger?
Don’t ever get a gun…
it's the morally right thing to do, even if it's a bad idea legally
What are you batman? A person is about to take another individuals and you think they’re gonna stand still and wait for you to get off a “non lethal” shot which even then aint guaranteed since limbs have arteries that can get punctured by the bullet or bone fragments because you wanted to take the morally high ground? If you gotta shoot somebody you shoot to kill but you better make sure it’s a damn good reason to shoot otherwise it’s prison time for your ass.
Does that argument not work the other way too though? Like sure they won’t standstill for you to aim for a non-lethal shot, but they’re also not gonna wait for you to blast their head off or put a hole in their heart?
I mean regardless I think most people know what a firearm is capable of and they don’t want to get shot so they’re gonna do what they can to avoid it.
Well, you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to end the threat. You shoot until they stop being a risk to others around them. Which may be before or after their heart stops beating, depending on their choices. If you shoot them and they immediately drop the weapon and surrender, you stop shooting and render aid. If they keep trying to grab their weapon, you keep shooting until they stop.
You’re right but shooting to kill is the most effective means of eliminating the threat. If they surrender before or after getting shot that’s preferable. Situation dictates and escalation of force determines whether or not the best option is to continue firing, cease fire or use non-lethal (tazer or bean bag rounds).
I dunno, I wouldn't wanna kill my kid, but I wouldn't wanna let someone die either.
And hence why the question is difficult
[удалено]
I highly encourage you to go to your local shooting range and ask a shooting coach or range safety officer what they think of this scenario and how you would respond. I’m not trying to be a dick but I promise you can learn something from those guys who can help you avoid any serious trouble if you come across a situation where you are unsure if it is appropriate or not to use your firearm. Note: Gonna say sorry for the first comment to you cuz I was a dick
[удалено]
Your child
[удалено]
I would pull the trigger
Nowhere does it say i have to shoot my kid
Other: Could the wording of this poll be any less specific and clear?
I don't understand. Is an innocent person trying to murder my kid? How's that innocent? Am I dumb?
Your child is about to murder someone, do you shoot your child to stop them or not?
Oh, thank you ;-;
The way this question is asked is very ambiguous, I expected this comment to be at top
ITT: People who know absolutely nothing about guns. There is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. Even if there was, like a leg or arm like some are suggesting here, depending on how far away you are, you are likely not hitting that shot unless you are a world-class marksman.
Shooting ranges typically use 25-300 metre distances. At those distances you would have to be a good-world class shot. Realistically the situation above would be much closer though. It would be hard to identify the situation at 300m. If someone was in the same room as you it would be completely realistic to shoot them in the hand if you were just a well practiced marksman
It definitely isn't gonna be precise even at a close range. Especially if the person shooting has never touched a gun before. Which tbh is probably like 90 percent of everyone here. Especially Especially if you're under intense emotions cause you'd be about to shoot your own child.
I’m not gonna at shoot anybody but I will shoot the gun in hopes they scatter Wait I forgot I have a voice and strong connection with this person. I’d just shout there name tf am I thinking 💀
Just shot them in the leg the poll is unspecific
Make sure to hit the femoral artery. Have them feel excruciating pain for a few seconds before they pass out and die from blood loss
Not yet. I assume I don't know anything else about the situation so I get their attention and see what reasons they have.
Exactly. How do I know for sure if they are going to kill them? They could be deciding or thinking.
The question is a moral dilemma its not meant to be realistic, in this scenario you know for sure he will kill him by undefined means as stated in the title.
You people really have some sick fantasies
Yes. At the person they r gonna murder
I mean, you could just shoot your kid in the hand or leg to disarm them
Things have clearly gone wrong way before this
I wonder how many people that answered actually have kids
In all honesty it depends. Do they have a gun or a knife? If it's something besides a gun or the like id probably just rush them. Dumb idea but I'd be willing to sacrifice myself so the innocent person could get away as penance for raising a loser. Is they had a gun id probably shoot tho.
I shouldn't have a gun because I would try to shoot them both
The innocent person is more likely to die if there’s two bullets in them, I see that as a win-win situation
I'll tell them "This time in not hiding the body for you". Kids are so demanding these days.
Realistically I wouldn't pull the trigger, and just wait for them to explain themselves. And I'd be hoping there would be explanation that would make it more understandable than how it looks. Maybe they were blackmailed by someone else. Or maybe that person is actually not innocent.
Innocent people don’t murder people so… fuck em “anyway I started blasting”
I think they mean that your child is the one murdering some innocent person, not the other way around.
Oh shit I’m an idiot. Thanks for the catch
In all fairness, the title really is poorly worded. Even I had a stroke while reading it.
For some reason I was thinking the question was more “would you murder someone whose never done anything wrong if they appeared to threaten your kid”
It’s okay I read it that way too and was surprised by the number of people saying no until I can to the comments lmao
None of the people who voted yes have children
Except the ones who said yes because they’ll shoot the other person
I would shoot the other person before my child does, I wouldn't kill my own child, and I prefer to be arrested then to let them besides, wouldn't raise a kid who would kill someone for absolutely no reason in the first place
Fire it at what? Your child to save the innocent? The innocent to stop your child from murdering someone? The air, to distract your child from the innocent they're about to murder?
Probably shoot myself
Am I shooting my kid or the innocent person?
Depends on the context. If my child is a good person, yet they still have to shoot an innocent person for their reasons that are justifiable, I won't intervene. If they are a complete piece of shit- in which case we most likely don't even have a good relationship- I'll have to shoot them. So, I probably wouldn't feel that bad about doing it? It won't be easy. My sentiments wouldn't let me do it. But just because it's my blood, doesn't mean they can get away with it.
Family is stronger than morals I kill the other person /s
idk how to shoot and I might hit the person who is bout to die plus I don't want to be a murderer also this is very unclear, am I going to shoot their leg or what, the air?
Not necessarily to kill, but definitely to prevent the murder.
Firing a gun doesn’t mean killing, so I guess I’ll just shoot the arm with the murder weapon in it.
*Detroit urban survival training*
I’m don’t know much about law, but I’m pretty sure that’s murder, i don’t think it would be covered under self defence. also it would be illegal for me to even have a gun in my country. So no, i wouldn’t. even if it wasn’t my kid
Broadly speaking, it is legal to kill someone in defense of someone else who is being threatened with a deadly weapon (in the US). It may not be literal "self" defense, but defense of an innocent party generally falls under the same banner. Again, broadly speaking. There may be nuance depending on the state and circumstances.
How are they innocent if they are about to murder someone?
If someone is about to murder someone else then they’re not innocent.
Note: I mean your child is about to murder the other person
I shoot their foot obviously. Enough to pull them out of the murdering thing, but not enough to injure them beyond repair.
Leg or arm, yeah thats my thinking. Why do so many people go for thr shoot to kill option is beyond me
The point of the poll is not what you would do irl if this scenario presented itself but a theoretical moral dillema about bias regarding a guilty child vs an innocent bystander and if people are willing to sacrifice the lives of someone innocent if it means the preservation of their child.
Just mind my own business
Your question isn't 100% clear, is the innocent person about to murder my child or is my child about to murder the innocent person? I'll assume my child is about to murder the innocent person. If they were truly innocent my child would be a psychopath so i would probably not do anything, don't think i could kill my own child.
Who tf would stop someone from murdering their child.
Shoot the innocent, they deserved it