4 ms·
In most countries, the default is whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used and that the defense is proportional to the attack. Ther
by hluska 1y ago
In most countries, the default is whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used and that the defense is proportional to the attack. There’s nothing insane about that - there’s zero reason to arm yourself and millions of reasons not to.
- giantg2 1y ago"whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used" But that's the point - if the courts have found that defense is lawful, then it becomes a question of why it's possession (not even use and proportionality) would not be. Then you end up in a weird state where people can make up reasons to have a hammer or something else on them rather than have something potentially more reasonable/effective like pepper spray. Allowing some limited non-lethal tool seems reasonable if defense is actually something to support.
- CalRobert 1y agoWhy isn’t self defence a reason?