Ok, John H. Here's a basic belief of mine. I'll do my best to define my terms.

The belief: It is a bad thing to kill a human. As Raymond Chandler (I think) said, it is 'the ultimate cruelty,' because you are taking something that can never be returned, even in part.

But it is permissible (though never good) when it is the lesser of two evils. Almost always that means killing if it is necessary to stop a person who is attempting to kill or severely injure another person. ("Severe injury" is mutilation, broken bones, permanent injuries.) My reasoning is if a bad guy is attempting to kill an innocent child of mine, and I must shoot him fatally to stop him, I am responsible for the death of a human, although a bad guy, and that's not good. But if I do not shoot him I will be responsible for the death of my child, and that's worse.

It is generally not permissible to kill someone because you believe he is going to attack you or yours some day nor to kill someone because you believe he has killed someone else. The reason is that you may be wrong, and if you kill an innocent man you can never undo it, and you are a murderer, not a savior.

This is why, in the US, the laws allow self-defense and forbid pre-emptive or punitive shootin' and cuttin'.

And that is why I believe the courts should not be allowed pre-emptive or punitive homicide either. They may be wrong, and they sometimes are, and then they not only kill the innocent, they let the guilty go free.

I realize this is not nit-pick proof. There is no single legal definition of self-defense from state to state, for instance. But writing is laborious for me and it's as clear as I can make it at present. Tell me what you don't agree with.

clint