XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Sat, 03 May 2014 11:30:10 +1000, Dechucka wrote:   
      
   > "Murff"  wrote in message   
   > news:lk1dqi$gkp$2@dont-email.me...   
   >> Guns are not relevant here. Stick a domestic kitchen knife in an   
   >> attacker, or break their skull with a bottle and the legal question is   
   >> identical to shooting them.   
   >   
   > Certainly are as they are an easier way to kill and are more lethal   
   >   
   Guns aren't *special* here. And nor in the first instance is the question   
   of whether force applied was lethal: the first question in law was   
   whether any reaction was "proportionate" (i.e. justified by the   
   situation).   
      
   If the answer to that is "yes", then there is no further case to answer.   
   Only if the reaction was judged not proportionate would it matter whether   
   the case was one of manslaughter versus assault (substitute your local   
   legal term as appropriate).   
      
   >> That is to assume that the person killed was innocent. What if they're   
   >> not ?  If we're talking here about legal self-defence, then there has   
   >> to be an answer to that. There is, in law. but that case has to exist   
   >> before the law can be asked to decide.   
   >   
   > and pity the innocent dead victim   
      
   Which innocent dead victim ?  The burglar who wakes you in the middle of   
   the night ?  Or the mugger ?   
      
   --   
   Murff...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)