Brooklyn_teacher wrote:I find the first part of this to be a judgement call on your part. There is a difference between the rightness of a law and the rightness of the practical execution of that law. That the law has been used "numerous time" to let people get off "scot free" when they had committed unjustifiable murder is not something I could agree with without looking at the cases. Again, it's a judgement call and you and I will probably judge it differently in some cases.
You're right, it is a judgement call. Let's game some scenarios:
If you're a gangbanger and you are involved in a turf war, do you have the right to defend your ability to sell drugs on your corner by shooting a 15 year old kid with an illegal AK 47?
If you catch a guy stealing the radio from your truck do you have the right to chase him down the street and stab him in the back with a Bowie knife?
If you are involved in a drug deal which goes awry do you have the right to initiate a car chase with the guy who ripped you off, a chase which hits several other vehicles, firing at the other car until you put a bullet through his eye and he crashes it into a bush?
If you encounter an aggressive panhandler in the street who won't take no for an answer should you remove yourself from the situation or do you have the right to put three bullets in his chest?
If Florida Power and Light workers come to your house to cut off your electricity do you have the right to storm out of the house armed with a rifle, beat one of them in the face with the butt and fire shots over their heads as they run away?
If you fear burglary to your business, do you have the right to set a lethal booby trap that will one day electrocute a burglar?
I wouldn't agree with anyone not being prosecuted in these cases as you presented them assuming there is not more to each case.
You are a smart guy and you know that the initializing of stranger rapes and kidnappings generally take one of two forms: either a blitz style assault from hiding i.e. leaping out of an alley, hiding in the back seat of a car etc.... in which case deadly force is obviously and instantly justified... OR.... some form of coercive bargaining, lying and subterfuge for example the classic 'Come with me to the woods, I want to show you something cool' in which case you're dumb as shit if you allow yourself to be manipulated but you plainly DON'T have legal justification for use of deadly force at that point. That's where threat assessments, situational awareness and soft skills come to the fore.
Take a look at Geoff Thompson's "3 Second Fight" and Nick Hughes "Be Your Own Bodyguard". The "interview" stage of an assault usually plays out in sort of a middle ground and is much more commonly seen. There are various verbal distraction tactics allowing the attacker to close the distance and then use a blitz style assault from plain view. There are specific cues that you can train to recognize. There are specific tactics that you can train in using (verbal and physical) that will allow you to effect the "interview" stage to the point you can tell what the attacker is wanting to do. Personally I think studying that would be extremely valuable for anyone since it's not just one of the main tactics leading to a rape, but also to a mugging, purse snatching, or sometimes murder. That's where the threat assessments you mentioned really come into play. The goal for the criminal is that you never have a chance to respond. Ideally for them you do not recognize that violence is coming until you are incapable of responding. They're putting you into the ambush "kill zone". One of the strengths of gaining this kind of training to recognize the cues is that you can then tell Law Enforcement that you reacted based on the same cues that they are trained to look for.