Quote:
Michael Hackett wrote:
Don, even if you are acquitted in your use of force scenario, you have lost in many respects. Just the actual cost of bail, your defense team, loss of work, and a new go-to-court suit, you and your family may end up bankcrupt. Yes, I know the old adage of it being better to be tried by twelve than carried by six - I even agree with it. Take it from one who has investigated a lot of homicides over the years, it is a big, big step to take a life in any terms. Even if you're right, it can be costly in many ways. If there is any viable option, it may be the best course of action.
Unfortunately, without thinking, you have already placed yourself in legal jeopardy if you ever do take a life. Your earlier statements here will be found by the prosecution and they will amazingly pop up in court. I once worked a double murder in which one the participants made the bad joke that he bought his revolver to "shoot cans. Mexicans, Africans, Puerto Ricans." He also shot two Mexican nationals and had to explain his tasteless joke. That wasn't the tipping point, but he's doing 25 to life in prison today.
This ain't easy stuff to deal with and again, common sense goes a long way to lubricate our society. Sad too that common sense isn't all that common.
|
I thought long and hard about what I wanted to say, from that exact viewpoint. I don't think I've said anything damaging. I've stated I hope to never have to kill anyone. But I have also stated, that if I feel it is the safest option for keeping my family safe within the realms of the law, that I will use it. That is a lot different then saying "If anybody messes with me, I'm going to shoot them!".
In the situation above, I attempted everything I thought could be reasonably and safely done to avoid confrontation. Once that is done, the only reasonable alternative is self defense. And I firmly believe the only safe mode of self defense is to disable or kill your attacker. With three caveats:
1) You should have no concern for your attacker. Mean to kill him, but if he is disabled, then you can leave. If you meant to disable then you have concern for your attacker, and you put yourself at far greater risk.
2) If you are not willing to kill, then you are ill prepared to stop an attacker who truly wants to hurt you.
3) Notice the use of the word attacker. I use this almost always. A self defense situation is not a fight. This is not a mutual throwdown between two drunks in a bar. That is not self defense. The guy who wants to beat you up for talking to his girl is not a self defense situation. To me, a self defense situation is when you are facing potential death. In my example in the above posts, you have an attacker who is irrational, angry, and by his actions it can only be taken that he means to harm us. If I was on the street and getting mugged, I'd hand my wallet over before I pulled a weapon, unless I thought he ment to harm or kill me. If I was attacked by a guy in a bar, unless I thought he had a weapon, I would evade and block until the bounces took him out.
But I am a man of principles. I would rather rot in jail then let anyone harm my wife.
Plus, I love the duality of martial artists, they talk about how they train to kill with a single blow, or to give and take life with a whim, or how they are too deadly to even spar. Yet they seem to shirk away from talking about the truth of what they are learning this for. If it is a battlefield art, as spouted often, then it is for killing.