a) Yes, actually a number leading that way, with Castle Rock v. Gonzales the crowning Supreme Court decision. Logic says that of course the police can't always be there in time to help, but the case says that police don't even have an obligation to try. I guess it hammers home the self-defense angle, but it's not actually the root of the right to defend one's self.
b) That seems to state the standard for LEOs. My whole screed there was in regards to the peculiar assumption that a person can only use force equal to the attacker's force. If the only reasonable way a victim can stop someone from turning his face to jelly is deadly force, then it should be permissible. Again, why should an attacker get to determine the limits of the defender's response. It's not a matter of "fair sport pip pip wot wot!"
no subject
a) Yes, actually a number leading that way, with Castle Rock v. Gonzales the crowning Supreme Court decision. Logic says that of course the police can't always be there in time to help, but the case says that police don't even have an obligation to try. I guess it hammers home the self-defense angle, but it's not actually the root of the right to defend one's self.
b) That seems to state the standard for LEOs. My whole screed there was in regards to the peculiar assumption that a person can only use force equal to the attacker's force. If the only reasonable way a victim can stop someone from turning his face to jelly is deadly force, then it should be permissible. Again, why should an attacker get to determine the limits of the defender's response. It's not a matter of "fair sport pip pip wot wot!"