Originally Posted by tomrkba
...She was absolutely in the moral right to draw he gun and point it at him. Whether or not this satisfies the silly legal requirements of her state is a different problem. Most of us know the law has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a bunch of idiots sitting in a room in the capitol deciding how everyone should behave.
And in this case, especially, you're wrong. The law of self defense has its roots in the Common Law of England. Those roots are 500 or so years deep.
We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally hurting or killing another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.
Originally Posted by Elapid
I can't cite anything on this, but I believe in Texas you can protect your property with deadly force without fear for you life. Texas has some lenient laws on the use of deadly force. I'm sure somebody from Texas can clear this up for me....
Yes, Texas law is especially lenient in this regard, but it isn't as simple as you make it out. There are a number of requirements that would need to be satisfied to make the use of lethal force justified.
However, a discussion of Texas use-of-force law is off topic for this thread.