Mr. Mosin said:
@Kleanbore to phrase this plainly... your telling me that Joe Bob who just saw his wife/daughter/mother raped is just... supposed to stand there and act like a mewling kitten ? That goes against the entirety of human nature- against the entirety of man's nature. That one would be capable of standing by while his SO is being raped/molested/beaten... I'd question if he was worth his wife's effort to marry.
First of all, you're mixing two things that are very different when it comes to justification for the use of deadly force.
"...just saw his wife/daughter/mother raped..." This is in the past tense--the crime has already been committed.
"...standing by while his SO is being raped/molested/beaten..." This is in the present tense--the crime is in the process of being committed.
LEGAL deadly force is to
prevent the imminent commission, or to
halt the commission of certain very serious crimes when no other reasonable alternatives exist. Use of deadly force to punish a person for a crime that has already been completed, or to retaliate is not legal.
It may seem justifiable, and it's possible that a jury might not be willing to convict a person under some circumstances even when the law has clearly been broken, but that doesn't change the facts. It is never legal to use deadly force to retaliate for or as punishment for completed actions.
It wasn't always that way, Back in the 1800s, it was legal in TX to shoot a person who had committed certain serious crimes even while they were fleeing, as long as they were within gunshot of the location where the crime was committed. Those days are gone.
Second, you're mixing legality with emotion. The two things are very different. Trying to mix the two things doesn't work. Things that seem very "right" or "natural" aren't always legal and pretending that it makes sense to conflate legality and emotion just leads to nonsense, at best. In this case, it created a situation where it seemed reasonable to insult someone by taking their correct statement of legal principles and pretending that they related to that person's character or nature. Now that it's clear how that can happen, you also, no doubt, understand that it's completely unacceptable.
Third, it's important to keep in mind that intent can be a critical component of whether the use of force is justified or not. If a person provides information that can be interpreted as a preconceived intent to use deadly force, even in circumstances where it isn't legal, and then ends up in a deadly force situation, those comments can certainly be used against them if they are located. It's becoming more and more common for LE to look for information online to use in prosecutions. It's wise to take care when posting to insure that statements can't be misconstrued in a way that might complicate a legal defense at some point in the future.