I can't speak about the sanction, but these laws are here so that a thief (who is a criminal, but not automatically a murderer) would not get killed out of someone overreacting, because dying over a few dollars is a punishment disproportionate to the crime. But don't make me say what I don't think, the dad dying over said dollers would have been worse. The intent of using the weapon is the main point, all people who use a weapon for intimidation don't intend on using it, the problem is how said intent is determined. It could be good to determine this as clearly as possible in texts and I can only hope each case is examined with care.
Let me simplify the issue for you, and everyone who "thinks" like you.
If you don't want to die, don't fucking attack people. I don't care if it's over 2 dollars or a pedo after a 2 year old, and neither should the law.
Dont wanna find out? Then don't fuck around.
Indeed, that's what I call a simplification. I used to think primitively like this when I was 5. If it's such a brilliant solution, tell me why it's not implemented?
In free states, it is. We call it "Stand your ground", "constitutional carry", "jury nullification", "affirmative defense: justified", and finally the legal principle that whoever commits a crime is responsible for every injury to take place because of it, to include homicide on the victim's part.
"Primitive"?. Don't pretend you're some kind of enlightened entity. The fundamental human right is self-defense. Nobody ever has any obligation to run away or surrender in anyplace that respects the right to live.
According to Wikipedia, they're based on reasonable use of force when people think it's their last resort, both points I expressed in my first comment. So not "see someone stealing 2 dollars, shoot them on principle."
I'm not enlightened, I just dislike being spoken to in a condescending tone so I did the same.
At the point where the thief was no longer actively a threat, the poster admits the father struck when the thief was distracted, the father has a duty to retreat in most states. Based solely on what is said here he had ample opportunity to retreat, the law requires there be both a subjective and an objective threat of bodily harm for self defense, it also assumes a thief who is in the process of collecting a wallet that is no longer focused on the victim isn’t an objective threat, you can retreat without risking your life.
You can sit there and argue technicalities all you want, but the victim (the father) was absolutely threatened at knife-point by the assailant (the thief). Regardless of the assailant's "intent," the fact of the matter is that there was a factual threat to the safety of the victim. To suppose that the victim needs to be some cold, rational machine capable of every de-escalation tactic in the book (or at least, be capable of algorithmically determining what the "legal" course of action is) demonstrates no understanding of the human psyche, and I have no hope for a fair legal system to be built on such a callous mentality.
No free state has Duty to Retreat. Any that do ought to be torn down and replaced with actual human leadership.
Self-defense is the fundamental right.
Thankfully most of the US is free, some states are significantly freer. But in all of them criminal trials are decided by juries, not paper.
Shouldn't have called the cops. Should have hit him twice, grabbed his wallet, and told no one. You want to threaten people? Prepare to be treated like a threat.
If you don't want to die, don't fucking attack people. I don't care if it's over 2 dollars or a pedo after a 2 year old, and neither should the law.
Dont wanna find out? Then don't fuck around.
"Primitive"?. Don't pretend you're some kind of enlightened entity. The fundamental human right is self-defense. Nobody ever has any obligation to run away or surrender in anyplace that respects the right to live.
I'm not enlightened, I just dislike being spoken to in a condescending tone so I did the same.
Self-defense is the fundamental right.
Thankfully most of the US is free, some states are significantly freer. But in all of them criminal trials are decided by juries, not paper.