Recent content by Normal User

I say again, I've never said the kid exercised lethal force, just that he exercised a level of force that was out of proportion to the thread. I have said that lethal force does not have to cause death in order to be considered lethal force; again, a gunshot that does not kill is still...

Have you seen the video? The bullied kid did not simply throw the bully to the ground. He picked the bully up a few feet off the ground and dropped him. That is not throwing something to the ground. Also, I never said the bullied kid exercised lethal force; I simply used analogies to illustrate...

In the manner in which he did? It absolutely is. You clearly don't like the law; that's fine. There are plenty of laws I disagree with.

:cringe: I wasn't saying that this kid exercised lethal force, just using that as an example of how the result of an action is not necessarily connected legally to the action itself. Lethal force can be non-lethal. Intent is irrelevant. You don't get to (for example) shoot someone in the face...

In the case of self-defense, intent doesn't really matter. One is expected to be able to determine the level of force necessary to defend oneself if one chooses to exercise self-defense as a response to a threat. If you can't, then don't do it. And the child does not really get to argue...

I can. For one thing, it seems obvious from his behavior that he was seriously injured, but even if he was not, that does not decrease the seriousness of the force. For instance, if I hit you over the head with a lead pipe or shoot you in the face and in either case end up not killing you, that...

Completely false. The bullied kid clearly exercised a level of violent force in self-defense that was way out of proportion to the threat, which means he has committed a crime. He probably won't be charged or convicted, though he should be (along with the assailant).

The Simpsons.