Bikenut wrote:
...A "strategy" is a "plan".
No law abiding person has a "strategy" to shoot any persons, armed in the conventional sense or otherwise. Law abiding folks only have a "strategy" to protect themselves by stopping the attack. Any attack. Using what ever means will work. If stopping the attack using shooting as a means is required because of the attacker's actions that is tragic and unfortunate (and entirely the attacker's own fault) but the shooting certainly wasn't the defender's "strategy"/plan.... the "strategy" or "plan" was only to stop the attack. Hence, HankT's "postulate" is baloney for the concept of self defense...
Actually, you just explained right here why the statement is true. I'm not advocating the use of HankT's postulate as any sort of rule to live by, and I agree that it is completely unclear and ambiguous despite the seemingly specific language.
If you break it down, the postulate could also be worded as such: "It is always a bad over-all plan in life to shoot any person who does not have in his or her in possession a deadly weapon." By your definition of "deadly weapon", it could be pretty much anything--including the appendages of an attacker.
Rationally, his statement is true, but you're right that I would never present it to someone who is uninformed as to the loaded wording. I'd hate to be responsible for someone taking it to mean that they should not shoot a rapist or other attacker who is only armed with his or her appendages.
In my personal opinion (and INAL), if you fear for your life or the life of another, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself or that other person, whether the attacker is "armed" in the traditional sense or not.