Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Well, to be frank, that's kind of the point of the article. Giving yourself some more options.
And, harsh as it may seem, having problems with the way the law is written doesn't change how it is written or interpreted. The reality is, regardless of how we feel about it, the law generally requires that the defender's response is on a similar level to the attack. If two people are pretty evenly matched in physical capability, it's going to be a hard sell to explain why the defender decided to shoot the unarmed attacker. The defender will need to provide reasons that explain why it was the only resort.
|
I was going to say that the law doesn't require us to "give ourselves options," the law presumes that we should be free to do anything legal without being assaulted. But ... we live in clown world today, so I should modify that to: I don't think the law requires us to carry "options" and, if it does, then IMHO the law needs to be changed.
Any physical assault carries with it the danger of serious injury, if not death. If I didn't invite an assault, then IMHO I should not have to worry about having to decide what I can or can't use to defend myself. That said, I'm a senior citizen with a mechanically repaired heart and an artificial hip that has not recovered well from the surgery 10 months ago. It would
probably be easier for me to justify resorting to a firearm for self-defense than it would be for someone in their prime who is built like a professional wrestler and who is a black belt in multiple martial arts disciplines.
That said, I don't think even a martial arts expert should be required to go mano a mano with someone who assaults him (or her).