Should deadly force be allowed against an unarmed person that has made it clear through actions they intend to do you harm?

[Pterodon]

Yes

No

[jshm2]

Never in history has such a position been allowed.

You cannot kill an unarmed person without absolute proof on intent, even then you need to prove their intent was potentially deadly. Dead people cannot talk, and witnesses/cameras are never fully reliable. There just is no rational way to claim self defence, when you were better armed against the victim.

[Pterodon]

Wrong.

[anylolone]

Actually, as long as you can show with preponderance of evidence that a reasonable person in your circumstance would fear for their life, limb or liberty and that you haven't provoked the person by violating their right to life, limb, liberty or property, then you can use deadly force, though some places come with duty to retreat.

[angeltiny0]

As far as the law goes if someone enters your house and you have to protect your family and your property and you you are allowed to protect it with deadly force. If you have a business you are allowed to protect your livelihood your food your business your company your job with daily Force if you committed a felony and you have gotten off of probation off parole you are not not able to continue to protect your family in your business with deadly

[FreyaRed]

Everyone has the right to defend their life. You can't estimate their intention not to kill you or to check whether the assaulter is really unarmed.

[Renee_IsCool1]

Depends on their actions, but a general rule is "better them than me."

[anylolone]

Depends on the circumstance, but yes, in general yes.

Self defense is a natural right, if you have sufficient reason to believe they pose a threat to your life, liberty or limb as initial aggressors, then you have a right to deadly force.

[Naydyonov]

Yes. The clearest action is for them to pursue you. Simply waiving hands is not enough. But if they actively pursue you, this is a huge indication they mean to do you harm.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

If you mean speaking threaten words then no. Once a person is physically hurting or overwhelming you then it's fine to use deadly force.

[anylolone]

"once it's too late" you mean.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@anylolone: No. To each person is different, but you just can't just deadly force because someone punch you once or twice.

[anylolone]

Actually, if they attack you while you are having a weapon for self defense, threaten you and reach for your gun, yes.

And again, your retarded logic of "once or twice" like a punch is just a hello, or like calling someone a cunt.

"Sir, I' just punched this bitch twice and she drew her gun and shot me, I'm the victim here!" lol!

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@anylolone: You're misunderstood what I tried to say.

[anylolone]

Then please elaborate.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@anylolone: For example someone's who repeatedly kicking or punching you especially in the neck head and chest area non stop where they are overwhelming you or choking you then its reasonable to use deadly force.

[anylolone]

But how do you know it's going to be repeatedly?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@anylolone: You don't til it happens then you must exercise self defense if you truly believe that person is going to kill or seriously physically hurt you very bad.

[anylolone]

I do that sort of stuff. But that's because I don't care about dying and I can take quite a punishment and still walk away better than the assaulter.
If you lift your hand against my loved ones, well, it's kinda different.

But here's the reality, that last standard is the standard the average person has the right to hold for themselves. Including you, by the way. Actually, it's not your right as a 35yo, it's your goddamn duty!
Just your size is more like a deterrent, you think the fucker will be as cautious with your mother? (Who I'd assume is over 55)

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@anylolone: You can defend or try to stop him or her but deadly force must be very justified because in the U. S. if deemed you killed someone when not needed you will rot in jail.

[anylolone]

And what are the standards there?
Life, limb, liberty. All they need to attempt on either of those with a credible treat.
That's literally all that it takes "do you harm".

[ManHater]

Like someone who points a gun at your head but you manage to shoot him first? Absolutely!

[DeeDeeDeVour]

Hopefully, the use of deadly force can be avoided.

[Pterodon]

Yeah well it always can't be. So what are you gonna do. Join hands and sing kumbaya?

[DeeDeeDeVour]

Apparently, you made up your mind no matter what answers we provide. Live with your guilt, if you even have any conscience to feel guilty.

[WowwGirl]

He would be armed though ☺️

[Iron_Man]

No sir