Chad Sloman wrote:
I don't understand. Why do we have to kill our attacker? Why do we have to use more force than is warranted? If we have the tools to bring peaceful resolution from conflict, then why don't we use them?
No one said you had to kill your attacker. I think the question was 'to what extent will you go to prevent harm from a real attacker'
To the most of what I have been reading, most say that they will us enough force to stop him but would hurt the oponent rather be hurt themselfs.
Personally I believe in the old Haiku "Don't start nothing there will be nothing'