This comes from the recent video "Argument Over Keys Escalates To Fists And Bullets"
Y'all made it pretty clear in the Lessons that you assess the defender's use of deadly force was not justified. For awhile now, I've benefited from understanding Moral Defensive Use of Force, but your stance on this one confuses me.
I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around how this won't be seen as justified.
1) Larger, stronger man.
2) Has proven a willingness to harm me.
3) Castle doctrine.
4) I have no place to retreat.
If I don't strike back effectively, the outcome I can reasonably expect is to be backed into a corner and pummeled into unconsciousness.
I agree that a fist full of POM would have been a better choice -- but that wasn't available.
I also get that I'm not able to articulate two factors of force disparity (the camerawoman hardly qualifies, by what we see in the vid at any rate, as contributing to any kind of multiple attacker scenario). So we only have the one (bigger/stronger/etc.).
But if I assess that my fists will not be effective against his, how can it be that I am not allowed to defend myself IN MY OWN HOME? Am I really expected to just take it until my face is disfigured and bleeding? I don't get it.
I generally don't win arguments with you, John, I instead generally learn something new.
Looks like school is in. But I'm failing the pop quiz.
What am I missing here?