(Let it be noted that the law in TX regards the threat of deadly force in the same regard as deadly force itself. That works out in favor of the self-defender.)
Jay mentions at the beginning of his post:
On its face, and this is a point the anti-gun folks like to make, is that the contents of your wallet are not worth killing someone over. From a very superficial standpoint, this is absolutely correct - I tend to not carry much cash on me, maybe $20-30 at any given time. That's not worth taking someone's life.
He goes on to clarify a very good position on self-defense, wherein the goblin gets custom ballistic body piercing. But for me, my 'splaining stops right after the aforementioned paragraph. It's the first half of the next sentence that says all I need to say:
When someone threatens me with deadly force for my wallet...
That's it. At that point, I'mma drill his ass, and it ain't got a damned thing to do with the wallet or its contents. Goblin's going down for threatening me with deadly force. Full stop. Fortunately, and due in large part to TX's definition of lethal force I mentioned earlier, I don't have to engage a big thought process over how much money I have in my wallet (none, usually). I don't need to weight out what the bad guy's trying to take. I shouldn't have to, and if I did I'd likely be wasting precious seconds when I should be acting.
It ain't pretty, it ain't pleasant, and the aftermath of having to shoot someone is simultaneously not something I'm going to pretend is easy and a discussion for a separate post. I can certainly plan for what's going to happen before and when I pull the trigger (God forbid), and it's not going to be over enough cash to cover fast food for two if it happens.
tweaker
Correct: The notion that the contents of a wallet are not worth killing anyone over applies FIRST to the retard goblin who suggests you give him yours OR ELSE... "Or else" is his signal to you, to shoot him.
ReplyDelete