Is a victim's deliberate use of deadly force a just response to repeated domestic violence. Pro or con?

Answer 1

There are ALWAYS exceptions, but I am not a proponent for the use of deadly force against someone unless they are using a similar deadly force against the victim. One must question why there has been repeated domestic violence in the first place. Does the victim have some other place to go? Friends, neighbors, relatives, abuse shelters? Were the police ever called? Have protection orders been issued in the past? Has the domestic violence been reciprocal between the parties? Too many variables exist to give an easy answer here.

Answer 2

I don't care if it is repeated or not... if a person uses deadly force to protect themselves then it is justified.

Your question lacks some serious information, such as what is the victim a victim of? What is the situation? What do you mean by "deliberate" (planned for months in advance or happened after a beating withing 15 minutes)?

Answer 3

Yes, in my opinion a victim of violence should not be held liable for defensive deadly force. Though I am no Judge so I don't make that decision.
At the same time, as long as Abortion is a protected right. Any so called fetus that is lost due to domestic violence should not be counted as liable to the attacker. As was in the case of Scott Peterson. That was a double standard which the Pro Death movement choose to ignore.
You cannot justifiably protect the unborn from domestic violence without protecting them always.

Answer 4

It can be justified if a reasonable person would believe that not to use deadly force would lead to later risk of serious bodily injury.

Answer 5

They should leave the abusive situation before they have to respond in kind.

Answer 6

It is not justified, but it is logical and understandable.