DarkKnight01 wrote:
XavierBreath: u do make some valid points, but im not sure if such a physical threat would warrant murdering them...
First of all, the word "murder" is not appropriate in describing defensive shootings. "Murder" is a specific legal term with a specific meaning that does not apply to killing someone in defense of your life or your safety.
In order to successfully claim justification in killing someone, there must be a few different elements met, and what you'll commonly hear about is the "reasonable man" standard - that is, if a reasonable person, given the facts, would have come to the same conclusion you did.
There is also the doctrine of "competing harms" - that is, if breaking a particular law will result in less harm than obeying the law, then that is a defense against breaking the law, unless you were reckless or negligent in bringing about that choice of harms - e.g., screaming "you're a p*ssy!!!" in the face of a large man who's threatened you could well be considered reckless, and if you shoot him when he lunges for you, you may have a hard time making a case for your defense against a murder charge.
In order to use deadly force under the law, the fundamental principle is that the individual must reasonably believe that the attacker is imminently about to use deadly force or commit "great bodily harm" (i.e., an "ass-kicking") on the defender or another person.
An old man who is not being allowed to graciously retreat from a confrontation with a 200-pound musclehead would certainly have a reasonable belief that he was about to suffer great bodily harm at least. You don't have to wait until he throws the first punch under the law before responding with deadly force - such an attack being reasonably believed to be "imminent" is sufficient.
If the attacker would not permit a completely safe retreat, then "He COULD have beat me to death, I'm just an old man," is all the defense he would need under the law.
You and I and old men are not cops, we are not required to use the least amount of force necessary to apprehend a suspect with pepper spray, tasers, Monadnocks, and what have you. We are merely required to use our best efforts to de-escalate and escape from a confrontation, and refrain from using deadly force unless and until we are put in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm by the attacker.
Finally, I submit that it is not normal for a young man to go around picking fights with people to "prove his dominance," "red-blooded" and "full of testosterone" or not.
Perhaps you are from a someplace where the right to armed self-defense is sharply limited or prohibited, such as Boston, DC, NYC, Chicago, or San Francisco, where young men feel they can be rude, aggressive, and threatening to weaker strangers without any risk or consequences, or somewhere where young men from those places tend to gather - Mardi Gras? Spring Break in Florida?