Quote:
|
daddyo I've read all of your posts on this thread and the responses. You insist that "going animal" or something similar is a proper way of describing the mindset that is required to stop a violent attack. You then suggest that not using this sort of language puts someone at risk of looking dishonest to a jury of peers. The problem, in my opinion with this premise is that as thinking humans we have the ability to reason, and respond accordingly. Yes, that response may require swift and decisive violence, but that is measured response to the threat. Using language that suggests a predisposition towards violence is provocative and unnecessary in my view.
|
I'm engaging in a debate, nothing more. I'm simply saying that the same situation which would have me in trouble for suggesting that an animalistic mindset is desirable in dealing with a violent attacker, would have you in jeopardy of not being believed because you are schooled in the appropriate words to use to cloak your animalistic disposition. You guys are on the record for saying that it is unwise to use certain terms and which terms are better to keep you out of legal trouble. It would be easy for a determined prosectutor to spin this in a very bad light.
Thats why I feel like its to late for us. Make double dog sure that your shooting is justified because its not good either way IMO.
And I didn't insist that its the proper way. Its an easy way to get the point across to those who don't understand just how important it is to suspend your normal nice guy disposition in exchange for one capable of getting the job of self defense done against a violent encounter.