FrankDrebin
Moderator
Frank, yes I do.
I have no requirement under law to submit to physical damage when I have attempted to avoid it. Neither do you.
Like I said...good luck if you ever kill an unarmed man in a bar fight....Around here, the rule is that you have the right to shoot someone when you reasonably fear death or GREAT bodily harm. Great bodily harm is a lot different than "bodily harm". Granted, if you're 80 years old, what might be great bodily harm for you might not be for a younger person. Be that as it may, I'd love to see your state law that says you have the right to kill someone because you feared mere "bodily harm". I never said you had to "SUBMIT" to an assault. I'm telling you, you'll be in deep trouble if you kill an unarmed man over an assault and battery, and then go in there and tell the prosecutor you had the right to kill him because he threatened you with "bodily harm". You may think it's an inconsequential dispute about semantics, but there are a lot of people in prison based on simple semantics.
AZ law says a citizen has the right to self-defense if he fears for his life or bodily harm.
Can you cut and paste the applicable law? Does it say you have the right to use deadly force for anything less than a reasonably perceived threat of death or GREAT bodily harm? The force used in self defense must be proportionatly reasonable to the threat. That doesn't mean killing someone because they punched you in the nose in a bar fight. You hear a lot of people in these discussions throwing around the "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" cliche. You DON'T hear a lot of people doing 12 to 20 for second degree murder or manslaughter using that expression.