Quote:
Originally Posted by rjoefish
I've read it and I understand that.
That part specifically states you can use deadly force even if alternate courses of action are available. The part above is specifically crosses out the 'and no more' which makes your last line incorrect.
No, it doesn't make it incorrect. Also, that part I specified doesn't say what you think it says. This is a pretty damn important line you seem to be overlooking.
Quote:
if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party
IOW, if an alternative is available and doesn't threaten your safety (or anothers safety), you're legally bound to use that alternative.
Also, lets re-read reasonable force again wrt deadly force:
Quote:
and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary
Necessary, as in required, as in the only means available that will stop whatever is happening to you. Really, this isn't that hard to figure out.
Last edited by will1530; 03-19-2012 at 04:26 PM.
Reason: removed line about castle doctrine