I saw the movie Hunter Killer today and today was the 2nd time that I saw the movie. On the first time I missed some of the first part of the movie and on the 2nd time I was partly asleep for a short nap.
Anyway, the movie is interesting because it makes you wonder if the writers were Christian. The reason is that, in order to achieve peace and victory and the restoration of good, the lead US submarine commandeer chooses to help and rescue some trapped Russian submariners.
Then, the Russian sub captain chooses to help the American to achieve what is good and right, and a bit later, the crew of a Russian destroyer chooses to not fire on them, and instead, saves their lives.
And part of how Christianity has achieved some of its politcal, economic and cultural dominance, such as it is, no matter how weak, is to treating enemies with love and respect and at times by rescuing them and saving their lives. And times, then, these “enemies” cease to be enemies and may even be co-opted in fighting battles on behalf of the Christians.
And I thought about the possible upcoming trial on a certain unknown topic.
And I wondered if and how, I might co-opt the police witnesses who are seemingly against me to testify on my behalf.
And it occurred to me that there is another line of questioning, in addition to the one I wrote of in a previous post. The previous post is on the topic of whether or not it is safe to have a conversation at 4 feet away with a man who has malicious and hostile intent.
But here is an additional question, both for Cameron and also for Wood, Hay, Stubble, Monson and Holmes.
So, here are the questions–
Officer, do you have friends with whom you at times discuss personal security and safety?
And, of these friends, are there some friends or family who at times are out in public without a gun in their waistband or pocket and who are at times without a knife?
Now, speaking of those who are at times out in public without a gun and without a knife,
Lets imagine a scenario with the following elements:
1) there is a man who has been following him or her;
2) the man has repeatedly expressed his intent to rape, kidnap or assault the friend;
3) the man is closing on your friend’s position with a brisk walk, from a distance of more than 15 feet and he is now at less than 5 feet away;
4) your friend, male or female, is not regular practitioner at the martial arts studio and not a former Marine;
5) your friend cannot outrun the man;
6) your friend has pepper spray available to use;
7) your friend does not know what weapons the man has on him, if any. As far as your friend knows, the man may or may not have a gun or knife on him.
Would it be your advice to your friend to spray the man and disable him, if possible, or to wait for the man to hit or grab him or her first?
Between these 2 options, and given the above six elements, which is the best option?
Sometimes police have family and friends and have discussions with family and friends about personal security.
Sometimes a dad will have family or friends and have discussions with some of them about personal security.
If your choice is to spray the guy or wait for him to hit or grab you, which is best, and why?
Of these two options, which is the best?
Now, is my case similar, with the exception that I was being threatened with robbery rather than rape or assault to hospitalize?
Are there other differences between my case and the scenario I just gave?
So, the only question is whether or not it is ok to use spray to stop robbery, but we agree that it is ok to use spray to stop rape, kidnapping and assault to hospitalization.
Anyway, it seems to me that the case is about a question of what is right and wrong in the use of force . . .
Is it good and necessary that the police use force to stop robberies? If so, then, is it ok for civilians to use force to stop robberies?