“What is purportedly ‘allowed’” vs “What is ‘reasonably necessary’”
My friend and colleague, Andrew Branca, in his instruction on the subject of lethal force used in legitimate self defense, makes liberal use of the term, “reasonableness”
We should all listen to him carefully!
Many students, and practicing instructors, in our Art spend a great deal of time quoting state and federal statutes, as well as Supreme Court rulings, and then add their own personal interpretation.
I routinely hear from the lips of the naive, “The law says I can do this…,” as if the personal decision to apply lethal force to another human being hinges upon a mathematical calculation!
When asked how recent case law might impact their self-assured point of view, they usually wax a little less surefooted!
In our civilization, any application of lethal force upon another human being is a
fantastically high-stakes affair!
Either you get seriously injured/murdered at the hands of the VCA, or you get harmed/bankrupted at the hands of what we all laughingly call our “criminal/justice system,” not to mention our civil court system.
Either way, you are going to get hurt, and there is no way it will be a pleasant, nor an inexpensive, experience!
It is thus in our best interest (particularly for those of us who go armed) to adopt a personal philosophy where any use of force, particularly lethal force, be reserved only for those times when it is absolutely necessary in order to prevent harm to our persons, or to our loved ones.
In addition, we need to adopt of personal lifestyle that makes these kinds of circumstances/contacts unlikely.
When your gun becomes displayed, you are in “felony territory,” whether it actually discharges or not. Our System regards the public display of weapons a very serious matter!
So, be skeptical when you hear glib phrases on this subject, particularly where human life is trivialized.
The naive may be amused.
Our Court System is not!
/John
