- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 47,483
- Reaction score
- 53,188
- Location
- Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The simple fact that these laws contain the wording "feel threatened" instead of "are threatened" give the level of certainty away to an emotional state and creates a fuzzy non-specific reason to kill.
When the weight of reason is applied only to a feeling and not to solid evidence of a real threat the law panders to those who like the idea of knee-jerk shooting instead of well considered responsible defense.
The wording matters. Any form of the word "feel" has no place in any law concerning life and death.
You haven't read the law, apparently. I have. It doesn't say "feel".
It says:
"If the person was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, or believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, and if a reasonable man in the same circumstance would also believe himself to be in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm..."
This is a necessary and ESSENTIAL provision that is in almost every state's laws. It is necessary to deal with situations where, for instance, a robber points what appears to be a real gun at you and says "your money or your life!"... and it turns out to be a fake gun after he's shot dead. Yes, this has happened. This is why the "reasonable man test" is there for "believed there to be a threat."
It would be nice if people would try to have a little knowledge about a topic before pontificating on it.