UPDATE: Texas EZ Trip Shooting Of Drunk

[4th law of robotics]

179. Alright, fair enough

You would rather fight it out. I don't dispute that.

I'm just saying that there are many people who would feel threatened from the get-go and could very well be dead after the second punch.

To take an extreme example: if a 90 year old 100 pound woman were being pummeled by some belligerent drunk (not always the most chivalrous of people) I wouldn't demand she wait till the 2nd or 3rd or Nth punch before she could have permission to feel threatened. I certainly wouldn't expect her to fight it out at all. Nor would I blame her for being unable to run away from her assailant. If she were to shoot the SOB dead after the first attack I wouldn't blame her in the least. And good riddance.

I take that extreme and work backwards: at what point is it acceptable to demand an individual fight for his/her life because there's a reasonable chance that he/she will win? And frankly I can't draw a line between those who are too weak/frail to have a chance and those who may win out by bronze alone. Not a clear one anyway. Some MMA fighter? Yeah he's probably safe. An average dude? Depends.

And since this was the second guy to be assaulted after the first person ran I think it's safe to say that help wasn't on it's way. At least not in time.

If your personal ethical code forbids killing in such a situation I have no problem with that. I would be extremely hesitant to even consider drawing a gun on someone no matter the situation. All I'm saying is that sometimes it is justified.