Amazon.com Widgets

Do you believe self-defense laws should cover disproportionate acts?

  • Yes, I do,

    The reason self defense laws should cover disproportionate acts is because the disproportionate reaction may not be on purpose. If you are attacked, punch the attacker, and then wind up paralyzing the person or killing them, it is still self defense and wasn't your intent at all. So yes, self defense laws should cover this.

  • yes i do

    Yes, I think that this needs sto be covered under the self defense laws, and I think that the self defense laws are very important here in the nation. I think that we need them to make sure that if you are attaacked you have the right to protect yourself.

  • You can only figure out what disproportionate was in review.

    Yes, I do believe that all self defense laws need to cover so called disproportionate acts. You see, the thing about such acts is that it's almost always impossible to know what's disproportionate until after the fact. You simply cannot expect people who are under stress and feeling threatened to be able to accurately assess the situation.

  • That is escalation.

    No, I do not believe that self-defense laws should cover disproportionate acts, because self-defense should only be in kind to the force that was given. A person who raises the bar by using more force than is necessary has become an assailant themselves. Self-defense should not be an excuse to really attack someone.

  • No, they should not.

    These laws should not cover disproportionate acts because they are acts of self-defense, of personal want and need, of something that cannot be changed in the moment. They should not be included with such names as disproportionate acts because it would be wrong to the offender and to the defender.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.