DHJenkins
Member
There's a difference between doing something that's necessary in the immediacy to protect yourself and stay ahead of the curve, and doing something that really can't quite be justified as necessary.
Exactly how would I be "doing something that really can't quite be justified as necessary" if Title 9 of the Texas penal code says "A person is justified in using deadly force against another...to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing...aggravated robbery...from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that the...property cannot be...recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to...recover the...property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury"? (I used the ellipses soley to make the paragraph flow better, page 1 has the fully quoted code)
Jenkins, you may not like it, but the concept of the justifiable use of force in Western society does not permit you to pre-emptively kill, or attempt to kill, someone because of they might come after you in the future. You cannot go kill someone because they have issued you a direct threat that they will come kill you on Friday morning.
I agree, because that was never my position. Someone who's just robbed me at gunpoint and is still within a few feet of me is a threat, regardless of which way they're facing. If having my name and address adds another layer to the "I was in fear for my life" issue, well that's just dandy; however as I've stated repeatedly, self-defense would not have to be my primary justification for the shoot. Basically, my identity is in that bag, and if you've ever had your identity stolen, then you know exactly how valuable that is - it's worth a heck of a lot more than an ipod, laptop, etc...