Originally Posted by ziffy321
The problem isn't just your narrow minded thinking but how woefully you try to defend it. According to the law, an assault is an assault and by your own words, that gives the person being attacked the right to kill. And that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. As I said, some fights I've seen over the years really did involve the attacker trying to harm someone and no one ever got killed. What happened across the river from here was a fight. And I stand by my opinion that an unarmed kid's life shouldn't be taken because he was involved in a fight. It's murder, not defense.
And by the way, how are you gonna prove I got in my car and ran someone over on purpose after I was drinking???
You know, based on your collective comments so far and how you continue to conduct yourself with over the top sensationalism, if this were any other website I would assume that you are trolling, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Narrow minded should not be used to describe someone that has a different point of view than you do, by the way. I have never claimed that the legal definition of assault is in itself an excusable use of deadly force, nor will I, nor does the law necessarily. One thing you should be aware of is that what constitutes assault (and all criminal offenses) varies depending on jurisdiction. As a general rule, and my view is in agreement, deadly force is acceptable in situations where the individual feels another is putting is or intends to cause serious bodily harm or death (whether the offender is armed or otherwise).
Before you criticize someone as being a coward or as being deserving of the death penalty (your words), perhaps you should consider that neither of us will never know the full circumstances of the incident. From reading the two links and the links from it to previous stories, both of the attendants had retreated after initially being attacked. They locked themselves into a room when the kid busted into it. This is not a case of a juvenile fight where both parties actually want to fight. There is something called the duty to retreat which generally states that if you can remove yourself from the situation rather than use deadly force you should. The attendants had tried to withdraw themselves from the attack and the kid and his father essentially backed them into a corner. One thing you forget is that another person does not inherently have the right to cause serious bodily harm or death to you. From the information available, this is nothing more than a case of justified homicide brought about by the reckless actions of the father. Defending yourself from serious bodily harm or death after trying to retreat is certainly not cowardly; it is an unfortunately incident, but one that is justified nonetheless.
Anyways, I have conveyed my opinions well enough, of which I certainly stand by. If you feel that makes me narrow-minded because you disagree then by all means label me as such. I will not continue this debate, though, as this is certainly not the appropriate place for it.