- Messages
- 1,293
- Reactions
- 4,798
"In this case the bad guys had a weapon, but really ...holding someone at gunpoint is incredibly complicated situation you better be sure your life is in danger. Is protecting your property a life threatening situation?"I thought there was an old law saying you could use lethal force to defend property you were dependant on that property for revenue?
Both of the examples you shared the thieves were armed which isn't the same as what the sheriff stated in the quote I shared.
And how, exactly, does one make an accurate assessment of the lethality or intentions of a total stranger that is not obviously in possession of something other than their empty hands and feet? I'm certain beyond any doubt that, even at 80 years old, I'm more than capable of exercising lethal force with nothing more than my bare hands and feet.
Just my opinion, but I don't view displaying the ability to exercise lethal force as being the equivalent of using lethal force.
As an example; Thief caught in the act advances with hands at the ready and clearly means to inflict bodily harm. Would I be legally required to allow the confrontation to continue on a "parity of force" basis considering that I have no idea what level of harm said thief is capable of inflicting? Or, would a reasonable and prudent man display his ability to exercise superior force? I would posit that the display of superior force is the most likely response to end the confrontation with the least amount of physical injury to either party.