hi dig,
as you know, i think these laws are asinine.
but if folks write them and vote for them, i don't see how a person can act illegally by staying within them.
i agree it is robotic, and certainly it seeks to remove emotion from the decision, but that's kinda the way the law mostly works.
is a person legally justified in defending themselves? sure. if they reasonably believe their life is in danger. the law apparently says the weapon you use to do so may be of a lethal sort.
now if we are arguing morality, that's a whole different affair. just because one is permitted to carry a gun does not mean one should not carry pepper spray as an alternative.
florida law does not ask this question. so it didn't come up. but that's where i think right action and lawful action diverge.
but z did not think about that. he chose the kind of weapon that ends life rather than the one that defends it. so there's a discrepancy between the thing he was permitted to do and what might have been a better and gentler choice.
this is the way i might reflect on my actions if it was me - did i do the right thing in arming myself in this way? or was it just the legally permissible thing to do? did i give myself the option of preserving rather than taking life? even in a position in which i myself was fearful.
in z's shoes, i might ponder those points while seeking absolution in a monastery for a few years. by choice.
| 