Quote:
|
I think that some here are questioning the right to use deadly force to defend ones self and one's property.
|
Let's distinguish between the two.
The right to defend one's
self exists everywhere in the country. In some places, there exists a requirement to retreat.
I haven't heard anyone question that right.
There are laws providing for the use of deadly force to prevent certain serious felonies in some states. I haven't heard any challenges to that, either.
In some states, breaking into a dwelling or car provides a presumption of reasonable belief that there exists imminent danger to one's self or other persons. Some have interpreted that as justifying the use of deadly force against a person "as long as he is in the home." That's questionable at best in a number of states, but nothing I've seen has questioned the right to self defense per se.
There are limited rights to use deadly force to defend property in Georgia and Texas. That's not true where I live.
Quote:
|
Some have even claimed that it's our "obligation" to try and not hurt those that threaten us whenever possible.
|
Not I.
I have said I would use deadly force only as a last resort.
I haven't addressed the original question--morality. It's just that as a practical matter, there will always be some legal risk, and unless the use of deadly force is demonstrably unavoidable, it may be very difficult to justify.
And win or lose it could take years and many, many thousands of dollars to litigate. I'd like to avoid it.