3 ms·

You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states whe

You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to kill the intruders, victims had no right to do so because whatever happened to them was not punishable by death?

ceejayoz 7y ago
> In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios. Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- pandaman 7y ago
  I am not arguing how simple or complex it is. I am arguing against the claim that "you cannot kill a perpetrator who, most likely, was committing a crime, which does not warrant a death penalty". If you make such an argument you also must agree that in a state without death penalty you have no right to kill any perpetrator during any crime, which seems like an extremely ridiculous position to me.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Ah, in that case, we agree.

ceejayoz 7y ago

> In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.

sokoloff 7y ago
> you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Self-defense and defense of property are related, but not the same. The castle doctrine doesn't change the rules on self-defense; it permits similar use of force in non-self-defense scenarios. Specific facts of each case will matter, but things that cause serious injury tend to get into the life-threatening realm.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
pandaman 7y ago
I am not arguing how simple or complex it is. I am arguing against the claim that "you cannot kill a perpetrator who, most likely, was committing a crime, which does not warrant a death penalty". If you make such an argument you also must agree that in a state without death penalty you have no right to kill any perpetrator during any crime, which seems like an extremely ridiculous position to me.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Ah, in that case, we agree.