If someone has been shooting at you, trying to kill you, is it still WRONG to shoot them in the back?

Question

If someone has been shooting at you, trying to kill you, is it still WRONG to shoot them in the back?

Answer 1

Put one in the buttocks and when they turn around put one between the eyes

Answer 2

it is not wrong. it'd be wrong (depending on your beliefs i guess) to just let them

Answer 3

...survival is rule number one...

...survival of the fittest is a golden rule...too...

Answer 4

Well, legally I would think that shooting them in the back is not self defense, but you posted this in the philosophy category.  Hmmmm, I'd hate to kill anyone, even if they're trying to kill me.  I like weapons that are not deadly, like tranq guns.  Once caught, I would try to learn from him.  Why is he trying to kill me?  What has brought him to accept violence as a solution to problems?  etc...  You might be surprised, a man that was trying to kill you may become a good friend.  If all else fails and the man can't be taught a basic respect for life and just agree to disagree, I would make a vegetable of him whether it's wrong or not, but I wouldn't kill him.  He would die a slow death because nobody will take care of him.  Actually, I'm all talk, I probably would just give him a merciful death.  On the other hand, there are too many powerful control freaks out there that would prevent me from doing what I want.

Answer 5

well, if they are running away, it might be hard to convince a judge and jury that you weren't wrong.. clearly you weren't defending your life,against someone, with their back turned on you.

Answer 6

This is wholly difficult to resolve without knowing the environment in which such actions occur.  Generally, a person who shoots another in the back may or may not be free from culpability to the crime.

Say if one finds oneself in a war or war-like environment, shooting is part of this, and whether shot in the back or elsewhere is thus rather moot, for the essence of war is violence.  That is, you had 'better' shoot  an enemy in the back lest he return later and shoot you!

This gets tricky, however, as regards police actions and civilians that increasingly come to bear in cities: here, any assertive acts that trifle with police, for example, are at once subject to the fitness of war.  Police officers are not civilians.  Among other things they administer, they are a special category of combatants and are licensed and empowered to do what the military is not allowed to.  And civilians tend to overlook this.  

Let's extend that a bit further: say one breaks into your home; you have a pistol or automatic weapon, and just as you obtain your weapon, the criminal makes an exodus out of your home, enroute to the outside and whose focus is not on you but now on his or her freedom, but not before you "take aim" and shoot, in which the bullet strikes him in the back, either maming or killing him or her at once.  Notice here that the homeowner "takes aim."  That is, there is a measure of  planning or say, "pre-meditation."    

Say again a similar scenario happens in which the homeowner runs out to chase the criminal and shoots him or her out there on the street.  That is still a whole new set of variables, because the shooting did not occur "in" the homeowner's residence.  Little in life is as simple as black and white.  Life subsists by the gray areas.

These scenarios are extremely provisional, because the person was not approaching but egressing, has no weapon drawn upon you, and whose entire intention is to get away from you and the premises, and for which there is now no self-defense issue at hand.  In this instance a court and jury may find the shooter -- that is the homeowner -- liable for the injury or death of the criminal and by default becomes a criminal himself.  'Strange but true.  

As to if back-shooting is wrong, all we might say is, it all is provisional, depending upon the circumstance, which is subjective and thus subjected to scrutiny by a court trial system to mediate the complexity.  We know the criminal will be hit with charges for breaking and entering -- that is simple -- which ironically would not now be the primary issue if shot.  The real issue would then would be about the shooter -- the homeowner, not to mention the laws of the state in which the crime occurred, which may or may not allow that any person can bear arms without a state license to own and carry a weapon.

The legality comes to bear first and last is the ethic involved, which some might allude to as the moral aspect.  The legality aspect would be comparatively easy; but the morals is another matter altogether.  In any case, proving self-defense wherein the criminal is turning and running "from" someone is more difficult to settle, especially if there should exist no precedent when factoring in all the variables.

Answer 7

Self-defense is never wrong.

Answer 8

h**l no! you the right to protect yourself!

Answer 9

It is never wrong to protect ones life , even if that entails taking someone else's life to achieve it . The right to exist is above any other right on the face of this planet, and the same applies to the right to take ones life as well . We are the masters of our lives , whether it is for living or for dying .

Answer 10

traditionally, it's wrong to kill anyone unless it's in self defense. so, if the person is shooting at you while facing the other direction i would say you should defend yourself but that scenario seems highly unlikely.