Quote:
|
WA's original question was that if you were in a situation where you were legally allowed to shoot someone, but through some sort of divination KNEW that if you tried tried to retreat you could do so succesfully, would you still exercise your legal right to self defense?
|
Yes it was. And that question begs the question, how would one
know that he was legally "allowed" to shoot someone if he had any alternative at all?
Yeah, if he's coming at you with a gun, the legality may be obvious to you, but then escape wouldn't be a viable option anyway. Entering (or in some places attempting to enter) your occupied home unlawfully and with force? Legality may not be at issue, but it is likely that even if you were alone in the home, retreating outside wouldn't be assuredly safe. Chances are, I would reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary--and therefore legal--in either case. With luck, the legal system would concur, hopefully forthwith.
In many scenarios, however, the legality, though perhaps evident to the shooter, will probably be determined later by someone else. If I am accosted outside and can safely retreat and would, by so doing, avoid the potential for spending money I don't have in bushels, while waiting a year for a trial, perhaps without a gun, I'll do it.
Operative word there is safely, of course. I'd have to be alone, and in close proximity to a safe have, I don't run at the track anymore, and my wife cannot move swiftly.
That's a practical, and not a moral, perspective.