I composed this post in response to another topic that got locked before I could post it. I felt it was a notion worth sharing, and getting the take of others, so I decided to start a new thread for it.
"Would I be justified in using lethal force if..." It's a question that comes up a lot in defensive circles. My experience as a firearms instructor is that it particularly comes up a lot with new shooters, for some reason especially new female shooters, who really start to get themselves twisted up in the intricacies of the law when contemplating carrying a firearm for self defense. I've had many a new shooter actually express that perhaps they shouldn't carry because they are overwhelmed by the legal aspects.
I once heard a compelling argument about the use of lethal force and the question of what is and isn't legal. I wish I could give credit to the source, but honestly I just don't recall who it was. I know it was a lecture in a self defense course, possibly even an instructor course, but nothing more than that.
This will inflame some, but the argument is that it doesn't matter what is and isn't legal and you shouldn't give it a second thought because life and death situations aren't the time to be mulling over statutes and case law. If you have to ask whether or not it is justifiable to use lethal force in a given situation, it probably isn't. If you are in a situation where lethal force is truly required, you will know it.
If your standard for the use of lethal force is that it is an absolute last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another innocent, as it should be, then to hell with the law. If you know for certain that you, or a loved one, would have been killed had you not pulled the trigger, and you find yourself jailed over it, you should wake up in jail each morning and be thankful for it. You should be thankful because you will know in your heart that had you not pulled the trigger you or someone you love would be buried in a box, from where there is no appeal, instead of you being in jail.
The law and order types will no doubt sputter "but, but, but" but to me this makes a lot of sense.
Thoughts?
"Would I be justified in using lethal force if..." It's a question that comes up a lot in defensive circles. My experience as a firearms instructor is that it particularly comes up a lot with new shooters, for some reason especially new female shooters, who really start to get themselves twisted up in the intricacies of the law when contemplating carrying a firearm for self defense. I've had many a new shooter actually express that perhaps they shouldn't carry because they are overwhelmed by the legal aspects.
I once heard a compelling argument about the use of lethal force and the question of what is and isn't legal. I wish I could give credit to the source, but honestly I just don't recall who it was. I know it was a lecture in a self defense course, possibly even an instructor course, but nothing more than that.
This will inflame some, but the argument is that it doesn't matter what is and isn't legal and you shouldn't give it a second thought because life and death situations aren't the time to be mulling over statutes and case law. If you have to ask whether or not it is justifiable to use lethal force in a given situation, it probably isn't. If you are in a situation where lethal force is truly required, you will know it.
If your standard for the use of lethal force is that it is an absolute last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another innocent, as it should be, then to hell with the law. If you know for certain that you, or a loved one, would have been killed had you not pulled the trigger, and you find yourself jailed over it, you should wake up in jail each morning and be thankful for it. You should be thankful because you will know in your heart that had you not pulled the trigger you or someone you love would be buried in a box, from where there is no appeal, instead of you being in jail.
The law and order types will no doubt sputter "but, but, but" but to me this makes a lot of sense.
Thoughts?