I agree with the principle of being able to use force and potentially lethal force to defend yourself and/or others around you, but it's that "feel" clause that has me a bit wary. "Feeling" that you or another person is in danger is a lot different from you or another person actually being in danger. Take an intruder in your home for example. I believe that in such a scenario, there are too many variables for a one-size fit all approach. Did you know the intruder? Was he or she armed? etc. Now I don't believe in those spineless progressive laws which state that you cannot use force unless they use/attempt to use force first, and/or you cannot escape (bullcrap if they think I'm going to flee my own home), but I also don't believe that you should be able to wake up one morning and decide to shoot your cousin or really close neighbor who always visits your home even uninvited without being guilty of some crime. I think maybe a better law instead of the "feel" clause would be to define some general requirements in order for danger to be recognized by the law. Ex, your relation to the perpetrator, their disposition, etc.
English
-
I agree completely.