Preemptive Counter Violence

I’m curious what your thoughts are on preemptive counter violence? Or a preemptive attack in a long term shtf situation?

Essentially identifying a threat or threats, and taking them out before they have a chance to attack or ambush you.

I’m talking a hypothetical situation outside the norms of normal society. Is there a part of your plan that includes ambushes, assassinations, sniping and so forth?

At what point is preemptive murder justified morally?

Thoughts?

 

God has forced me to do that which would cause a Serbian war crimes monster to vomit. Trust me on this one, I'll do whatever is necessary. I'm already in hell.

 

If things have totally collapsed I will protect those in my care. If someone makes it pretty clear that they are going to be a threat I will drop them before they have a chance to harm those I care for. To me, this is no different from killing wolves on sight if you make your living raising animals for a living. If a group of militaristic thugs enter my area I would check them out. If they were aggressive and bothered anyone else I would take them out without qualms. I've had to do this to dogs on several occasions when people had dumped dogs in our area and they went feral.

 

Move then!

 

"Preemptive counter violence" does not exist. One cannot counter an act that has not taken place, hence, preemptive violence exists only as a concept to attack on a supposition. I am opposed to such attacks as I cannot see a realistic justification. Murdering someone and attempting to pass it off as a preemptive act would only result in a guilty verdict.

 

I agree with what has been stated here. If me or mine felt threatened I would have no qualms about shooting first. That said there is not any part of my plans that would include sniping, murder or assassinations. I guess I would consider it Plan C or D or E somewhere down the road as the situation evolved into it.

 

I have nothing against ambush as long as it's me doing it. I'm also not really worried about the moral issues, more about the risks of starting something that could get away from me. Moral compasses will shift pretty fast after TSHTF, I've no doubt it will be a pretty common occurrence.

 

I can't say that. Honestly, this forum is too public for a frank discussion of this topic.

 

How many here plan to walk around unarmed in such a situation ? If every one took the attitude I am going to shoot anyone I see toting a gun , it would be like that highlander movie ," there will be only one "person left alive . Better hope someone doesn't shoot you first if you are going to go armed .

 

Other threads have recently mentioned good old fashioned good manners. If someone is bad mannered or stupid enough to rock up to your house, while toting an obvious weapon, it is only good sense to have at least one other member of your family/household with a gun lined up ready while you go to "greet" the newcomer and find out his intentions.

 

My comment was re the idea of pre-emptive counter violence - without a previous attack there is nothing to counter, so the idea is an impossibility.

I would hope I would feel comfortable waiting and maybe hiding to see. It would be a fairly foolish move to engage in a shooting match that would endanger you to an extent where you may be killed or injured if it were avoidable.

 

That's a long way short of "gunning them down" just in case.

 

I prefer the Gray Man approach....don't let others know what I have....don't walk around with exposed weapons...only be visible when I have to be. I'm middle aged, overweight, balding, and people will look at me and see just that......old and harmless. If I can't side step the threat or let it slide past, I'll remove it by whatever means necessary.

 

Sadly, there are probably going to be a lot of preemptive killings if things go all the way to total chaos. People are going to be scared and a lot of them are going to be crazy as hell. Being crazy isn't always detrimental to your chances of survival. Sometimes insanity is about the only sane response to an INSANE situation.

After the fall a lot of people are going to be judging other people by their appearance more than ever. You will be well served by NOT looking like a gangbanger or some sort of militaristic raider out of an apocalyptic science fiction movie. I know of places where race is going to matter and if you are the wrong race you could be shoot on sight.

Along with YOU personally deciding at what point you might shoot someone preemtivly, you also need to consider the things that you might do to ensure that you weren't threatening to people that you might encounter off of your place.

OK, now I'm going into the Twilight Zone cue the music da da doo dooo da da doo dooo... The preemptive shooting as has been pointed out refers to shooting someone that has not attacked you...YET. I offer another possibility. In the big cities, food is going to get scarce real quick. Starvation will become a very real threat and very few people have ever experienced real hunger. You don't have REAL hunger when you missed or were late eating your lunch. when your body starts eating itself to keep your primary systems operational a lot of ugly things become a possibility and may land on your menu.

Cannibalism in history is very common. You don't read about it much because people get mad if it is inferred that people, where they live, might have ever done something like that. It is GOING to happen. People are going to get hungry and once someone crosses that line once it gets a lot easier. There are going to be a lot of people that once they go there are going to start seeing people as game and just easier to hunt than animals.

At first no doubt, it will be a case of opportunity when they kill in defense or bodies from a fight. History seems to indicate that this is something that can become an epidemic after some sort of societal collapse. What people eat and don't eat is very much a cultural thing and NOT any real instinctive behavior. Where I live people eating horses, dogs or cats is looked at as almost as bad as cannibalism. In other places, it is just another type of meat.

I'm not suggesting this as something to do. I'm just wanting you to consider it as a possible threat to you if people start seeing you in an unimaginable way. When people go crazy and are starving there is very little, no matter how unimaginable now, that may become a real possibility.

 

Yes, but it's just too easy to get into a paranoid frame of mind, I really don't want to end up like some sort of crazy man however caution is only sensible and there may be difficult choices. I see this thread as a bit like an extension of the thread where we were discussing self defence.

 

One of the problems that a lot of people are going to have has to do with the misconception that human life is somehow sacred and valuable. If stable first level nations this is something believed to the point of people thinking that it is instinctive. It is not and life is cheap in places where there isn't enough of most anything.

It wasn't that long ago in the US that kids that parents didn't want often ended up dumped on the streets. when a big city had too many street urchins they would gather them up and ship them out into the countryside on orphan trains that were basically offering them as nearly cost-free slaves to work on the farms. Most primitive people have ways for tribes/clans to "shed" unneeded people in tough times.

As an individual, I hope to hang on to my humanity as long as possible but I also need to be aware that many won't be able to do that. People that have lost most of their loved ones are going to have a hard time caring very much about other people or their problems.

We are going to have to be aware and watch people closely because if you wait until they shoot at you to put them down you aren't going to last very long. You can't go into hell with a forgiving and trusting manner or you will buy a farm in the size of a shallow grave.

I will try hard to make it so I can deal with strangers in as safe and humane a fashion as possible BUT they are going to be like a strange dog. I like dogs and am not going to kill them on sight for no reason, but the first growl at me that they make will be their last growl ever.

 

"Preemptive counter violence" is just "violence".

If you don't wait to find out, you may be killing someone coming to offer something you need.

Shooting at everyone you see just because they are armed will insure you will become an instant target.

 

It’s an interesting thing to consider. I think we don’t define such terms in enough detail. And our definitions are once again too casual for real world decision making. I do know that shooting someone from a logical believe that if you don’t they will hurt you, is way different morally than shooting them because you want to victimize them in some way, or just see them as less human than you.

I have my own definitions of violence, counter violence, and preemptive counter violence, and they are very unique and in some ways personal.

 

This is an interesting thread. The more remote and deeper in the very sparsely inhabited wilderness, one is riding out the storm, they should expect that anyone who shows up is not bringing truckloads of supplies. More likely about as desperate as a human can get. Which is not something I want to encounter.

 

If anyone has not seen this movie..........it is this thread.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...+you+tube&form=IE11TR&src=IE11TR&pc=EUPP_DCJB

 

I define violence as: Someone who doesn’t care what you say, think or feel, who is willing to initiate hurting, killing or threatening you to get what they want. And by the nature of it see you as less human or important than them. Violence is something you choose.

Counter Violence is: A RESPONSE a REACTION to someone who doesn’t care what you think or feel, or how much love you have in your heart. By the nature of employing violence against you, they don’t see you as having equal value as a person. So talking isn’t going to help you, you need to physically stop them at that point.

You always choose violence and I’m anti-violence. I’m so against violence I have a plan to stop it unlike passive people. Making me more anti violence than a passive person who at some level is okay with it happening.

In regard to preemptive counter violence I think it isn’t the act that’s the crux of the issue, rather the condition of the heart. Is it choosing you, or are you filled with hate and violence. Are you using the situation to justify violence, or is it a professional use of preemptive counter violence? Killing doesn’t bother me, but I’m not okay with being a violent person. However you don’t get to hurt me.

 

Sadly I don't know now that I am going blind. I had a wonderful plan, for surviving for three years with near zero human encounters. But now I am disassembling all the caches which will take months, maybe all of this summer, to retrieve them all.

I no longer have a plan. Nearly everything now, will depend on the time of the year that the SHTF.

I truly think "ALL" human contact will be very high risk. Even dear friends that you have known for decades, even family. Humans a calculating, deceitful, monsters.

Humans are the most dangerous animals on earth.

 

Think about this..........Last weekend (April 6th and 7th) in a 24 hour period 24 people were SHOT.
In one city.....in America. Worth noting that no one had missed any meals.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-09/warm-weather-sparks-out-control-shootings-chicago

 

I’m going to let my martial arts nerd side show and explain the three concepts in simple terms:

1. Someone comes at you with a knife to cut you (violence)

2. You block the knife and punch them in the face causing them to fall down and drop the knife (counter violence)

3. They begin to get back up. You don’t know if they are going for the knife or going to run away. But regardless you kick them right in the face (preemptive counter violence)

You were not being attacked in that exact moment but had a reasonable belief that you were about to be. Just one example but a clear one I think in terms of illustrating moral differences and motivations.

 

Why do you keep insisting on preemptive "counter" violence as a term? It is not possible to counter an act that has not yet occurred, it is simply preemptive violence - or just violence depending on your viewpoint.

 

I understand what BrownBear is getting at here. This may seem like splitting hairs but definitions are by their very nature definite, neither personal nor unique to any one person. Preemptive violence or counter violence make sense but as they're mutually exclusive linguistically the phrase preemptive counter violence is in fact nonsense.

 

That's merely a continuation of your response to their initial attack.

There can be no "counter" without a prior action.

You can't change the meanings of words.

 

Only when you are certain there are no other options.
Which means practically never.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war

 

If I have a reasonable expectation that violent conflict is imminent then a "Pre-emptive attack" is required if I want to survive!

I have no problem with that, if I need to act I will.

 

I would argue against that. I think that if it wasn't violence I would say, "yep, it's your decision" quite happily, but as it may result in injury or death it becomes an altogether cloudier issue.

The question that I have is this: How does one decide what a "reasonable expectation of violence" actually is?

You are a sensible and responsible person and I have no doubt your level is set quite high on this, but there may be others that would kill first and attempt to justify later, and those people, in my opinion, have no business making that type of decision. It is logical to assume that most, if not all, on this forum are of sensible mind set and would only use that violence under a degree of duress or serious threat, but societally they are those who may be flippant in the circumstances outlined.

 

What is a wrol?

 

Without Rule Of Law, it's another one of those silly prepper phrases.

 

The question that I have is this: How does one decide what a "reasonable expectation of violence" actually is?

First kick brain into gear then apply to situation.