Logik wrote:Is that your plan A to freedom or last resort?
I don't see how murdering your master gets you to your objective? You only put yourself at an even greater risk/danger. Retaliation by next-of-kin, imprisonment etc.
Somewhere in your plan there surely must be a "run away" option?
Why not exercise it without the "kill master" option? ...
Given what you say below I find it ironic that you are asking for alternative courses of action. But consider it the plan I've now come up with after trying running away and now finding myself in shackles but with a sharp object in my possession and knowledge that my captor has the keys upon them.
The typical response to this is "Tony Martin". And the typical counter-arguments go something like "disproportionate force". As if I am supposed to have a fair, refereed boxing match with my assailant. ...
Mr Martin shot them as they were fleeing, disproportionate force.
Richard Osborn-Brooks was not charged as fear for life was upheld and reasonable force acceptable.
If I fear for my life I DO NOT want a fair fight. I want the scales tipped in my favor as far as possible!
If they have a hammer - I want an AR15. If they have a knife - I want an AR15. If they have a gun - I want an AR15.
I didn't choose to be in this fight. I am not in it to "be fair" - I am in it to NOT DIE. Fuck fairness. ...
This reminds me of a story a friend told me of his first visit to the US. He was a squaddie serving in N.I. at the time combating US sponsored terrorism and went into a gun shop where he was amazed to see what looked like assault rifles for sale, he asked the proprietor what they were used for, "Home defence" was the reply. When he pointed out that if he was to fire them in a house he could be likely to kill family members in the rest of the house or even neighbours he got the reply "What! Are you a communist or something?".
In UK law - I am already denied the tools required to defend my life effectively. So fist fight it is. ...
You don't have knives in your house? You can have knives, swords, cudgels, clubs, blackjacks, iron bars, crowbars, crossbows, riot shields, etc, in your house in the UK and use any or all of them to kill in self-defence, just expect to defend yourself in court for your actions.
Personhood is the recognition of that asymmetry. That when it comes to protecting the most valuable thing there is - individual life - there is no such thing as "unfair" and there is no need to justify ANY amount of force used if it successfully puts an end to the attack.
I do need to justify WHY I feared for my life, but after that bar is met - any amount of force is perfectly reasonable....
Hence you are allowed to kill in self-defence in the UK.
You don't have back doors in the US? You'd prefer to die or kill someone rather than leave your property? How American, but I guess Justine Damond gives a fair reason why not to leave your house.
Given you asked me at the top why I couldn't choose alternative options I find the above all a bit odd.
You, your country and your legal system can fuck right off.
Who's asking you to live under it?
Personally I can understand the American view about the right to buy arms but again, personally, I prefer to forgo some consumer purchasing power so that I don't have to worry when I drop my kids off at school that they'll be massacred nor that I'll be shot by law enforcement officers for a traffic offense or just for being the wrong type of person.