http://www.oregonlive.com/ap/storie...-18/1175243479121050.xml&storylist=topstories
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S53457.htm
The Oregonian reported that The Oregon State Supreme Court has ruled (in essence): a person really is not required to run before using deadly force when confronted by potential danger. I think it has been a common assumption here that the responsibility falls on the victim to protect both self and other in such situations.
Here is my question: If provocation is baiting you into a tough situation, and your choices are only two, which one of those two is the more honorable?
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S53457.htm
The Oregonian reported that The Oregon State Supreme Court has ruled (in essence): a person really is not required to run before using deadly force when confronted by potential danger. I think it has been a common assumption here that the responsibility falls on the victim to protect both self and other in such situations.
Here is my question: If provocation is baiting you into a tough situation, and your choices are only two, which one of those two is the more honorable?