(Author wishes to remain anonymous)

Those who argue that self-defense equals force reasonably necessary to defend yourself, miss the point that that is a very retroactively subjective measurement. As a Marine who trained for war in Iraq, deployed, and who trained others, I know, as should be something we can all see, that we never know how much force is necessary to end a threat to a situation. Retroactively, anyone can make the case that, if a bullet ended encounter for the safety of the victim, well, maybe a knife could have saved both of their lives. If a knife was sufficient, then why not a fist? If you hit him, then why couldn’t you have just talked to him and asked him to step away. No, this placing an unreasonable amount of pressure and decision making on the victim who often has to react to only moments decision making time, and falling back only the training that they given themselves to negotiate the situation. Added to this that there is absolutely no way to know how much force was necessary to stop a dangerous situation. This is also why in the Marines, we use the greatest amount of force that we can rationally bring to the fight, because you can’t take back a decision where you tried to use almost enough force to end a threatening situation.

This is why we can’t argue this way. Arguing for the minimum amount of force is arguing on behalf of the criminal aggressor and making a case against the victim’s rights. It also relies on a very subjective measurement of perceived threat to, in the language of the left, blame the victim. This is why we argue based on rights. What rights did the two have when the situation began? Whose rights were violated? What rights were given up by whose choices?

Finally, we need to stop giving a voice to people making a case for protection of the criminal intruders. We, instead, need to educate all children in the very concept of what it means to lose your rights, and what it means to have them taken from you. They need to understand and be able to say to themselves, “If I get caught, I could die. I won’t go to jail. Whoever owns this house might kill me and he won’t even get in trouble for that.” Let them be reminded of the intrinsic cost/benefit, risk/reward structure of crime. Once can we do this, we can see there is no moral argument for ever holding someone at fault who has ended the life of an intruder while in the sanctity of their own home. We also can’t hold a person who was uninvited into someone’s home as a victim when it was their choices which caused the consequences they suffered. This is the rationale that the law observes and why Stand Your Ground Laws exist.