Formulating Lawful Deadly Force Reasoning

Reverse Engineering Deadly Force Reasoning

My hope is that you will find this article thought provoking enough to incentivize you to further your ability to know the law and to effectively run your gun in self-defense. To receive the full article in your email please consider becoming a paid subscriber at $5 per month or $30 per year. 

Today’s Lawful2Shoot? Focus: Formulating Lawful Deadly Force Reasoning, which achieves a lawful finding in today’s legal system. This is a subject which addresses the mental foundation which every conceal-carry Floridian should firmly have in mind when they lawfully conceal a gun on their person.

How does one form a reasoning upon which to lawfully use deadly force when threatened with violence? And more to the point, what does it take to form a deadly force reasoning which a social justice activist, legal system, feels is a reasonable lawful use of deadly force?

Lawful people, with no prior criminal history, who use deadly force, and do so by completely following the law as perfectly as humanly possible in the moment of jeopardy, are found guilty by the legal system all the time.

These travesties of justice are commonplace mostly in politically liberal leftist jurisdictions but they also occur in conservative pro second amendment jurisdictions due to the social justice activist mindset that is spreading through society today like a cancer, resulting in the corruption of the so called ‘Finders of Facts” i.e. The Jury.

The purpose of this article is to give for your evaluation, a lawful deadly self-defense mindset which is reverse engineered. Instead of approaching this subject with the usual foresighted line of reasoning, I will take the twenty-twenty hindsight approach.

This reverse approach is most useful when contemplating a ‘worst-case legal system scenario’. I will start with the premise that you, as a lawful firearms conceal carrier, had to use deadly force and did so perfectly and lawfully, but did not take into account the added challenge created by the ‘social justice activism cancer’ inflicting today’s legal systems.

The following system of thinking is based on the reasonable assumption, that the prosecutor, judge, and jury will have their thinking dominated by today’s social justice activist mindset (SJAM), which they’ll use to ultimately overrule or infuse into, the letter of the law, and subject the application of the law to their own inner sense of ‘feel good justice’. And as a result, the jury delivers their decision, the entire system ‘feels socially righteous’, convinced they actively improved the justice system process with their personal inner perception of justice, i.e. Superior Truth.