Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The way I had the previous law explained to me was that a person must use ALL available means to remove themselves from the assault before being allowed to use deadly force, meaning that person had to have made an attempt(s) to run, hide, and escape the area and unless they were backed in to a corner with nowhere left to go, then they could use deadly force. This new law removes that handicap by allowing a reasonable defense to the use of deadly force.
|
I'm sure a stupid case has happened, but generally, by all available, they do mean reasonable methods. I.E. if a perp attacks you, certainly you have the right to act in defense. Yes, if he attacks you and hides in a building and you go after him, then that might be seen as not taking a reasonable opportunity to escape. But if you are on the street and are attack, no court is going to require that you first turn your back on him and run for a while and only if he keeps shooting can you return fire. Like I said, there are sure to be some stupid cases where courts messed up, but in general are there really a lot of people being locked up for murder when in reality they were only doing reasonable self-defense? I'm open to the evidence, but I haven't seen a lot of these cases.