# Lethal force justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 29, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104 "2015-10-29T17:18:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/121 "2015-10-30T22:30:35Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > The OP described no such thing (no “here,” for one thing); any of the versions **slash2k** described _could_ have fit into it. To say this, wouldn’t we need assume that the OP is totally incapable of differentiating between a “puppy dog” man who is developmentally equal to a 5 year-old, and a cognitively normal man who means him harm? Why, yes, we would have to make that assumption. That seems like an awfully big assumption. I also question why the absence of “here” matters. Said in a belligerent tone, it is just as hostile. If the OP was standing and waiting, “what are you doing?” should have been self-evident. He was standing and waiting. I find myself agreeing with **Frylock** , and I actually don’t want to because he’s injecting some uncomfortable candor into this thread. Perhaps I would feel differently if I saw more posters at least acknowledge that the encounter would put a reasonable person on edge, but nope. Even that seems too much to grant the OP. Instead, I see people holding up the existence of overly curious, mental impaired people as a way to dismiss the OP’s feelings of fear. I see people reducing rudeness to “just a question” without taking into account how it might’ve been said. I see people implying the OP actually posed more a threat to the guy merely because he was carrying a concealed blackjack. And I don’t even think the guy had cause to act in self-defense, based on what was reported. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/122 "2015-10-30T22:36:39Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > To say this, wouldn’t we need assume that the OP is totally incapable of differentiating between a “puppy dog” man who is developmentally equal to a 5 year-old, and a cognitively normal man who means him harm? Why, yes, we would have to make that assumption. > … > I see people holding up the existence of overly curious, mental impaired people as a way to dismiss the OP’s feelings of fear. No, there are more scenarios–some of which I have personally experienced, from both sides–in which such an encounter requires neither hostile intent nor mental handicap. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I see people reducing rudeness to “just a question” without taking into account how it might’ve been said. It’s only rude _if_ it was said certain ways, which I don’t see attested. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/123 "2015-10-30T22:39:44Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > I’m going to take the opposite stance. It’s morally wrong because if we lived in a society where people killed each other at the slightest twitch, an enormous amount more people would die than one where it took clear provocation. > > Look at it another way. If the man with the wood actually wanted to kill the OP, and he wasn’t insanely stupid, he would follow the following procedure. > > 1. Wait til the OP’s back is turned. > 2. Draw some kind of firearm with reasonable range (rifle, shotgun, etc) > 3. Aim down the sights > 4. Pull the trigger > > OP dead. Instantly. No chance to react or defend himself. > > This is why police should not be permitted to kill people unless there is clear and defined proof, written down as guidelines in an actual law, that the suspect actually has a weapon and is about to use it. If the cop can’t see the physical gun, he should have to wait til the suspect fires. > > Why? Because if the bad guy really wanted to kill the cop, the cop would already be dead. If a cop approaches a suspect who’s hands aren’t completely visible or the suspect makes a sudden twitch, what’s more likely? > > a. The suspect actually had a gun, even though the cop doesn’t see it at the moment, and is a champion pistol marksman who can get a headshot on the cop before the cop can react > 2. The suspect is not armed, or not willing to use deadly force > > But if \*\*a \*\*is true, the cop would already be dead…This is why cops kill hundreds of people every year and tens of cops are killed by bad guys. I agree with all of the above. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/124 "2015-10-30T23:14:37Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I agree with all of the above. So have I actually changed someone’s mind with reasoned arguments? Above you were arguing that since cops have the legal right to shoot a suspect standing near them disrespectfully holding a weapon, the OP morally should have the same right. (since legally he doesn’t - cops are \*not \*treated the same as regular people by the legal system) You’re agreeing with me that neither cops nor private citizens should be permitted to shoot at the slightest provocation, self defense should be limited to clear cut cases because it otherwise means thousands more people are going to die. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/125 "2015-10-30T23:28:56Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > So have I actually changed someone’s mind with reasoned arguments? Above you were arguing that since cops have the legal right to shoot a suspect standing near them disrespectfully holding a weapon, the OP morally should have the same right. (since legally he doesn’t - cops are \*not \*treated the same as regular people by the legal system). > > You’re agreeing with me that neither cops nor private citizens should be permitted to shoot at the slightest provocation, self defense should be limited to clear cut cases because it otherwise means thousands more people are going to die. > [@One man's ponens is another man's tollens](#): > > There’s an expression in philosophy that goes, “One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens”, describing a common impasse in arguments. Both parties agree that A implies B, but one person thinks A is obvious, and therefore B is true (by modus ponens), while the other person thinks B is absurd, and therefore A is false (by modus tollens). (Above explanation from this page: [Skeptic's Play: One man's modus ponens, another man's argument from morality](http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2012/07/one-mans-modus-ponens-another-mans.html)) I argued (this is an oversimplification of my own argument but just to illustrate): If police could be excused for using lethal force in this situation, so could the OP, for similar reasons. People would excuse the police for using lethal force in this kind of situation So people should allow the OP to do so as well. You went “tollens” on that, as follows (again, an oversimplifying illustration): If police could be excused for using lethal force in this situation, so could the OP. We should not allow the OP to do so. Therefore we shouldn’t excuse police for doing so. All that aside, what I think is that what you described is the ideal. Wherever I have said it might have been okay for the OP to use lethal force in his situation, I wasn’t expressing an ideal about how things ought to be in the end, but instead, was allowing for a certain kind of exception with a particular context and purpose in mind. There’s also the legal/moral distinction: I think you’re talking more in terms of law, while I meant my claims more in terms of morality. Sometimes there are morally acceptable acts that should not be legal. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/126 "2015-10-30T23:33:04Z")
Hmm. I think we’re also using different morality definitions. I’m saying “ignoring all the pieces of bullshit made by old white men (the law), a world would be a better place if less people get gunned down. Period. Even if it means for a small number of people, their individual chance of being shot actually has to go up slightly.” (for instance I proposed a modification to the law where ordinary cops approaching a suspect aren’t allowed to shoot if they don’t see a gun. The European approach of denying firearms to ordinary cops at all may actually be an even better solution. The unarmed cops of England kill far fewer people and are also gunned down far less often themselves) You’re saying “since society lets person A protect themselves with gunfire, we’re a more principled society is we let person B also protect themselves”. I think your argument is [Deontology - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) while my argument is from [Consequentialism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) . ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/127 "2015-10-30T23:38:22Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Hmm. I think we’re also using different morality definitions. I’m saying “ignoring all the pieces of bullshit made by old white men (the law), a world would be a better place if less people get gunned down. Period. Even if it means for a small number of people, their individual chance of being shot actually has to go up slightly.” (for instance I proposed a modification to the law where ordinary cops approaching a suspect aren’t allowed to shoot if they don’t see a gun. The European approach of denying firearms to ordinary cops at all may actually be an even better solution. The unarmed cops of England kill far fewer people and are also gunned down far less often themselves) > > You’re saying “since society lets person A protect themselves with gunfire, we’re a more principled society is we let person B also protect themselves”. > > I think your argument is [Deontology - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) while my argument is from [Consequentialism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism) . Oh man, from a moral theoretic standpoint, my view is a mess :D. Something like “Consequentialism is basically right, but we get the best consequences by usually acting like deontologists.” But I _think_ you and I are on similar enough pages for federal work, as they say. I’m basically saying I wouldn’t necessarily blame the OP for feeling his life was in immediate danger and reacting accordingly. I wouldn’t necessarily feel harshly towards him. Meanwhile, you’re saying we can’t sensibly make an actual _rule_ that allows a person in the OP’s situation to pro-actively try to kill the other guy. I tend to agree–the consequences of making a law like that would be bad. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/128 "2015-10-31T00:15:35Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I absolutely do not get this. > > A man approaches me, whom I have nothing to do with, holding a board in hand, and asks me “what are you doing?” > > Absolutely one of the thoughts that goes through my mind is “somebody’s looking for a fight.” > ( the op wasn’t asking if the guy was up to no good, he asked if ihe would have been justified in killing the guy. I don’t even see a raised voice in the story. So no, he doesn’t get to attack and kill the guy in self defense for being near him with a 2x4. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/129 "2015-10-31T00:52:40Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > the op wasn’t asking if the guy was up to no good, he asked if ihe would have been justified in killing the guy. > > I don’t even see a raised voice in the story. So no, he doesn’t get to attack and kill the guy in self defense for being near him with a 2x4. I like the part you snipped out of my post when you quoted it. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/130 "2015-10-31T02:18:01Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Most of the posters in this thread have gone out their way to dismiss the OP’s assessment of the guys tone and demeanor. > > If from the outset, you’re skeptical that the OP accurately read the guy’s non-verbal signs of hostility, I question why you would even entertain his question. Because his claim to self-defense largely depends on whether he would had good reason to believe the man posed an imminent danger to him, and that’s largely a subjective judgment. WHAT assessment of the guy’s tone and demeanor? There’s nothing in the first post that actually addresses any part of the guy’s demeanor or non-verbal signs of hostility, and the OP has yet to articulate clearly why he thought the man posed an imminent threat. There are vague references to “that demeanor”–okay, what demeanor? What specific verbal or non-verbal signs is the OP relying upon? Yes, it’s a subjective judgment. However, unless it is a REASONABLE judgment, the case is not self-defense but murder. Without even knowing what signs the OP was reading, why should we assume his reading was accurate or reasonable? > [@Why do so many African leaders have english/western first names?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-so-many-african-leaders-have-english-western-first-names/735546/68): > > Did the OP describe a scenario involving a grown man acting like a puppy-dog five year old? I thought he described a situation involving a grown man acting like hostile jerk. What specifically in that first post (“A random guy walks up to me with a 2 by 4 in his hands and asks me what I’m doing”) conveys hostility as opposed to curiosity or some other emotion? What in this sentence, or any other sentence of the OP, demonstrates that the approach was pointed and aggressive? If the story is that the guy came out of a house 200 yards away and immediately started shouting at **split p&j** very loudly while running towards him swinging a four-foot length of 2x4, those are relevant details that would change my opinion. Those are details not present in the OP, and I’m not willing to read them into the account unless **split p&j** tells me that’s what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/131 "2015-10-31T02:29:48Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Without even knowing what signs the OP was reading, why should we assume his reading was accurate or reasonable? Without even knowing what signs the OP was reading, why should we assume his reading was inaccurate or unreasonable? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/132 "2015-10-31T02:50:51Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Can you. Not. Fucking. _IMAGINE_ what kind of behavior we would justify in a white policeman should a black man have approached the police officer holding a two by four and asked “what are you doing”? I would expect the police officer to be charged with murder. I know it doesn’t happen that often because we give police a big benefit of doubt, but if an officer was in the situation described in the OP and responded with deadly force, he should be convicted of murder. He should have de-escalated, not reacted with deadly force. I have no doubt that the OP felt on edge in this situation. My problem is that he didn’t even make the slightest attempt to de-escalate and was about to use deadly force until his ride happened to show up. Just because he felt on edge is not reason to respond violently. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/133 "2015-10-31T02:56:10Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I would expect the police officer to be charged with murder. I know it doesn’t happen that often because we give police a big benefit of doubt, but if an officer was in the situation described in the OP and responded with deadly force, he should be convicted of murder. He should have de-escalated, not reacted with deadly force. > > I have no doubt that the OP felt on edge in this situation. My problem is that he didn’t even make the slightest attempt to de-escalate and was about to use deadly force until his ride happened to show up. Just because he felt on edge is not reason to respond violently. I agree such an officer should be charged with murder. What I’m remarking on in the post you quoted is the sure fact that in reality, the officer would not be charged, and people would be in the Pit defending him because how was he supposed to know the black guy with the two by four wasn’t imminently about to take a swing at his head? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/134 "2015-10-31T02:58:37Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > No, there are more scenarios–some of which I have personally experienced, from both sides–in which such an encounter requires neither hostile intent nor mental handicap. But unless the OP agrees that all these various scenarios are similar to the one he experienced, what is the point? It’s like trying to argue your experiences and imagination are substitutes for someone else’s reality. > [@](#): > > It’s only rude _if_ it was said certain ways, which I don’t see attested. Nope, it’s pretty much always rude to ask a stranger that kind of question. Just like its pretty much always rude to ask a stranger anything personal, as if such information is owed to you. If a stranger asks me why I don’t straighten my hair or why I’m eating at a restuarant by myself or why I’m not smiling (this has happened numerous times, btw), then guess what? It doesn’t matter if they say that shit “nicely”. They are being rude. This is kindergarten stuff. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/135 "2015-10-31T03:04:29Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Without even knowing what signs the OP was reading, why should we assume his reading was inaccurate or unreasonable? He is asking us to tell him that his judgment was reasonable, when we have no facts upon which to base such a finding. I’m not going to tell the man, “yes, you have permission to use lethal force” unless I have very firm grounds to do so. When in doubt, don’t. When the OP can’t or won’t articulate reasonable grounds, he can’t have permission to kill. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/136 "2015-10-31T03:25:03Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I absolutely do not get this. > > A man approaches me, whom I have nothing to do with, holding a board in hand, and asks me “what are you doing?” > > Absolutely one of the thoughts that goes through my mind is “somebody’s looking for a fight.” > > Add in the racial aspect? If I were black, I’d be damned terrified, for good reason. > > I am frankly amazed you guys don’t get this. ☹ The best part of this thread. Frylock’s point is critical and it didn’t occur to me. I think we all including the OP are focused on the wrong thing here. The major issue isn’t the 2x4, which we can assume is a intended as a weapon. After all, the OP carries a weapon in this area, someone living there might feel the same way. The real question is why did this person come out of the house and approach the OP at all? Should he have done that? Assuming he should have (no one argues that he didn’t have the right-we all agree that he has the right to exit his home and walk on public property) what steps should he have taken to minimize the possibility of confrontation? Several posters have talked about this but from what I can see a race neutral manner. They talk about what should have been said between two people of the same race. But the races aren’t the same. What should have happened given the facts on the ground? Frylock’s point needs to be considered when discussing how best to avoid a confrontation. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/137 "2015-10-31T03:25:42Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > He is asking us to tell him that his judgment was reasonable, when we have no facts upon which to base such a finding. I’m not going to tell the man, “yes, you have permission to use lethal force” unless I have very firm grounds to do so. > > When in doubt, don’t. When the OP can’t or won’t articulate reasonable grounds, he can’t have permission to kill. I read the question of the OP as “A man was in a mood to attack me with deadly force. Did I have a duty to wait til he attacked, or was I within my rights to pre-emptively attack him instead?” Your response is to question whether the man was in fact in a mood to attack with deadly force. But as I read the OP, this is not a point that’s up for grabs. He is stipulating that the situation is one in which someone is ready to hit him hard enough to kill. The question is, in such a case, is there a right to pre-emptively attack. Questions about how he knows etc are beside the point. They’re evading the question he’s asking. If you’re really uncomfortable just taking the assumption for granted, you can always qualify it with an “if”. But to refuse outright to answer the question, while nevertheless participating in the thread, and to instead focus on other questions instead, is a derailment. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/138 "2015-10-31T04:29:19Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I read the question of the OP as “A man was in a mood to attack me with deadly force. Did I have a duty to wait til he attacked, or was I within my rights to pre-emptively attack him instead?” > > Your response is to question whether the man was in fact in a mood to attack with deadly force. But as I read the OP, this is not a point that’s up for grabs. He is stipulating that the situation is one in which someone is ready to hit him hard enough to kill. The question is, in such a case, is there a right to pre-emptively attack. As I read the OP, this is a point that is up for grabs. I read the question as “this guy came up to me. Do I have to wait until he makes an overt move, or can I just assume he’s a bad dude and preemptively attack?” Focusing on the questions of why the OP thinks he’s an imminent threat isn’t a derailment because those are the questions the OP will need to be able to answer if he does go on the offensive. If the OP uses lethal force offensively, he is at the very least going to have to explain to the police and DA why he made that decision, and very well may find himself in front of a jury. Even if we assume Random Dude really was a bad guy bent on mayhem, if it is the OP that uses lethal force first then the OP is the one whose actions come under scrutiny. If the OP can’t articulate reasonable grounds for that offensive action, _even if Random Dude really is Murderous Thug_, it is the OP who will be languishing in prison. While I don’t know every state’s laws about ‘stand your ground,’ the vast majority of states still have requirements that are not demonstrated to be met here. DEFENSIVE actions such as retreating may very well be good choices in this particular situation; OFFENSIVE actions like lethal force demand very visible evidence of overt and imminent threat. “I believe this guy is in a mood to attack with deadly force” is a different proposition than “I will be able to show in a court of law that a reasonable person will agree that this guy will preparing to attack with deadly force.” If the OP cannot meet the second standard, then no, the OP was not justified in using lethal force. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/139 "2015-10-31T14:19:45Z")
> [@rbroome](#): > > The real question is why did this person come out of the house and approach the OP at all? > Should he have done that? Assuming he should have (no one argues that he didn’t have the right-we all agree that he has the right to exit his home and walk on public property) what steps should he have taken to minimize the possibility of confrontation? If he was just dying to know what the OP was doing, he should have started out with some small talk. Yes, small talk. Some kind of greeting (Hey, how you doing?) Some kind of innocuous remark about the weather (What a nice night out here, not too chilly and not hot, right?) And then some kind of explanation for what he’s about to ask (So I noticed you’ve been standing out here for a while and it just got me wondering. Is there something wrong? What’s up?) Notice too that by asking “Is there something wrong?” there is no direct request that the OP explain _himself_. The OP could say “nope, everything is fine”. or “nope, just waiting for a ride”. In contrast, “what are you doing?” is far more likely to provoke defensive silence or an angry “fuck off.” In short, we rely on social graces not just to be “nice” but to prevent unnecessary conflicts and misunderstandings. If we take the OP’s word that the only thing out of the man’s mouth was “What are you doing?” then we have someone who has abandoned all pretense of polite discourse and is operating on some other set of rules that is indifferent to conflict prevention. It is natural to be wary of people like this; I daresay it is even baked into our DNA. People who are slow to recognize when they are being approached by a threatening person are slow to protect themselves and are more likely to be whacked in the heads by people carrying 2x4s. Of course, I expect people to now retort with the rather Bricker-like “it’s not illegal to be impolite” defense. And so I will now preemptively point out that I’m not talking about the law; I’m talking about what should have been done by the stranger if his goal was to approach the OP without raising his defenses. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104/140 "2015-10-31T14:40:47Z")
None of this really matters–the OP has yet to articulate reasonable fear for his life or of grave injury, there is no legal justification for him attacking the man. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lethal-force-justified/736104.md?page=8)