General Discussion

If it was legally unjustifiable, then it would also must needs be immoral.

This is how we ended up with 'Castle Doctrine' laws in the US. People would be cleared as having used deadly force in self-defense for justifiable reasons, and therefore not charged, or cleared by a grand jury. Then they spend the next 2-5 years and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves in civil court from various 'you did an immoral thing and I'm mad' lawsuits. Frankly, those people can go fuck themselves.

But the side effect is this: in passing legal protections against civil suits where no crime was committed in the act of using deadly force in self defense, they ALSO altered, in the case of some states, who/how much investigation is done into whether the act was justifiable. I think it should go to a grand jury, because it IS important that we know if the act was legally justifiable.

But lawyers/assholes pulled the pendulum too far one way, conservative lawmakers decided to pull the pendulum the other way, and we end up with castle doctrine laws preventing justice for people like Trayvon Martin. That case should have been decided on the criminal side of the courts. That's where it belonged. But over-reaction to civil suit abuse gave shelter to his killer. And while everyone pushes and pulls the pendulum on the scales of justice, the truth or 'morality' lay in the middle, but no one wants to leave it there.

We really need to fix that state by state now.