I actually met him at a ham radio get together. Nice enough guy, just wants to be left alone.

Repeat it all you want. It's not murder and it's not overkill. If I had to do life in prison to save my child then so be it. Although it's doubtful anyway. Still waiting for you to make a rational point.

I had a guy jump into my car and stick a gun in my face to rob me. Had I won the wresting match that took place for the possession of the gun I would have shot him. At that point he would have been perhaps unarmed. Are you advocating that I would have been wrong? It ended with me being battered with the gun and robbed.

Overkill is the wrong term to use.

Overkill is using a 2000# bomb to kill one person.
Overkill is not caring about collateral damage.
Overkill is emptying a magazine into the criminal and then reloading and doing it again, and again.

Overkill is not putting two in the criminal, one to make sure he knows why and one to do the job.

that is good. I didn't see this before.

Greater force than necessary? Certain stoppage, right now and forever. Just the right amount of kill. Final question: do you have children?

how so?oh yes, perhaps in NY. Bernard Getz. I often think about how the state stuck it to him. I thought this was a moral discussion. I would suggest "overkill" would be something like-I came back two days later. You have a strange view of self defense and might I add, emotional. You haven't answered my question. Are you for gun control laws?

I repeat: murder is "overkill" - beyond self-defense.
Yes - no right to shoot where unnecessary. It would also be stupid since it would give you life in prison.

Did I ever say that?
The repetition should have no meaning when it comes to initiating greater force than necessary. Recognizing that "overkill" puts you in jail, not just the abuser.

Of course not - he was not the one doing the murdering.

I already answered that: do what you have to do, not what you might feel like doing.

Certainly not.

Had a case here in TX where a man caught a man molesting his 9 yr old dau and beat him to death with his fists. Guess what? No billed by the grand jury. Same would go for a weapon, of any sort, were I on the grand jury. They are not people but mad animals to be destroyed for the good of the community. I'm not saying to kill them out of hand with no proof but once there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (and I mean a reasonable doubt by today's standards of forensic science), then bye-bye.

the smallest response time after dialing 911 is 2 minutes. the average in smaller communities is 7-10 minutes. For sexual crimes it can be as much as 54 minutes.
I am on my own. A lot can happen in two minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AQ1WBb8...

No, that is not what he said. He said Every dad who walks into a situation where their child was being raped-he wished they'd blow their brains out. He is advocating self defense. If he intended murder he would have said"-I'd take out all the child molesters." He is advocating the right people have to protect themselves.
By your logic, in these two cases, because the perpetrators did not have weapons, the victims would not have had the right to shoot them once they were free?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoEH1XZx...
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06...

Shooting him isn't murder either. YOU won't answer the question. What would you do? Grab a check sheet and assess? Hmmm, does he have a weapon? Could he physically kick my ass if I try to push him? Does he seem the type to hold my child hostage if I intervene..or worse? Heck ask him his name and discuss the next move over tea. He might be a nice guy with a little problem he can't control. pssst. killing him would stop him FOR GOOD. No other victims either.

And you would let them continue molesting? You walk in, see it, and do nothing because you don't want to be the "initiator"? "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing". YOU look up 'initiating'... look up repeat offender rates for molesters too while you're at it.

Yes....I know... so you're saying the perp isn't initiating force then? If so, then what IS he doing? OR are you insinuating the child is complicit?

Yes, kill the abuser, period. No one but you has brought up feelings. I'm still waiting for you to make a rational point, and to answer how you would propose handling said situation. Try making that answer your 'point'.

No I didn't....there was no point. You're implying that a child's perspective is null and shouldn't be taken into account. The negative effects are endless...Personal self worth, privacy, respect of the individual, inappropriate behaviors, perverted abuse of power, sexual deviance,.... the list goes on and on.... but you say it's irrelevant. Wow. So back to the moral question I posed to you......

Absolutely

I did not read Nugent 's statements as advocating murder. Do you support gun control?

He would kill every abuser! Look up "initiating."

Within the context of 2 nd Amendment Rights if I had a gun and caught someone sexually abusing my child, attempting to kidnap, violent assault -I shoot to kill . Things are happening quickly, a quick objective decision is made. I don 't know what weapons the have, if in a rage, can they harm me as well as whomever they are assaulting? That is self defense. In those situations you aren 't given time to mull over lots of least harm options.

...and they are against initiating force beyond reason.