I'm curious what your local laws and such say about Stand your ground and such in this regard. What's a good way to only use a baton, tactical keyfob/kubotan or knife that you own legally but have no reason to use for utility that you carry just in case.
Like, at what point are you just overstepping your bounds as a citizen by not retreating using a morally ambiguous defensive weapon.
I don't want any argument of the laws, but just say how you interpret local...nuances.
For example here any situation where you're breaking the law and have to defend yourself is super vague, even if the LA Riots led to some landmark stuff in that regard for WA legislation, we went a step backwards with i-594 a bit ago, imo. Made everyone scared that anyone *technically* breaking the law is being too boy-crying-wolf if they complain period.
Statutory versus judiciary law, I mean, it's a weird case on the West Coast, sadly, but I'm wondering where Castle Doctrine is too vague and statutory for Reasonable Man standard to apply with no jury involved.
Like, at what point are you just overstepping your bounds as a citizen by not retreating using a morally ambiguous defensive weapon.
I don't want any argument of the laws, but just say how you interpret local...nuances.
For example here any situation where you're breaking the law and have to defend yourself is super vague, even if the LA Riots led to some landmark stuff in that regard for WA legislation, we went a step backwards with i-594 a bit ago, imo. Made everyone scared that anyone *technically* breaking the law is being too boy-crying-wolf if they complain period.
Statutory versus judiciary law, I mean, it's a weird case on the West Coast, sadly, but I'm wondering where Castle Doctrine is too vague and statutory for Reasonable Man standard to apply with no jury involved.