Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol

[Duke of Gloucester]

The Right to protect one's property and life should have no contraints other then your action will be reviewed by the legal authorties to ensure that the application of deadly force meet the standards established by law (that a reasonable man would of acted in such a matter.)

Agreed.

What we believe as individuals to be common sense - should have no bearing on the right for someone to protect their property and life. If our actions are not reasonable when reviewed - then the individual should deal with the legal and civil consequences of their unreasonable use of force.

This is true for any society governed by the rule of law, but little consolation to someone killed by an "unreasonable" person.

Just because there are unreasonable and irresponsible people does not mean our right to defend our property and life should be restricted to prevent the unreasonable and irresponsible from the consequences of thier actions. Nor should your definition apply - its the application dicitated by the society in which will judge your actions through the judicial process.

Which definition?

Incorrect - it is a responsiblity.

Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.

Reasonable application of force is the standard that must be judged, not the blanket removal of certain abilities to apply a reasonable measure of force to the situtation to protect one's self, family and property. To advocate that a home-owner under no circumstances should ever use deadly force to protect themselves and their property is as irresponsible as the individual who leaves a loaded gun laying on the table for kids to play with.

Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made. I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.

The previeced fear of danger when someone breaks into your dewelling can and will often result in just that situation, especially if the break in is happening during the hours of darkness.

I agree. However their is a big difference between saying "I killed this man because I was afraid he might hurt me" and "I killed this man because I thought he might steal my stuff." The former may be acceptable, the latter certainly isn't.