It is morally permissible for a victim to use lethal force as a response to domestic abuse

However, I must attack them, but first I choose to defend my own. C1: American Roots You would be correct in stating that the Declaration of Independence is indeed based on the philosophy of John Locke, therefore I contend that both my argument of the Declaration giving the right to life conflicts with your argument of John Locke granting murder out of self-defense are void due to conflicting evidence. You made the point about my case collapsing, I contend that self-defense is not infringing on another man's right to life so long as it does not kill that man. Also, at no point in my case did I ever contend that jails were moral, and the morality of jails is not up for debate here, so it is an invalid argument to state that the fact that jails take away liberty wrecks my case. C2: Alternate Solutions I will defend my case by attacking your own further down the page. C3: Proportionality I find nowhere in your case any evidence that makes disproportional punishment (death for abuse) morally permissible, except for the John Locke part that I contended be thrown out for both cases. However, I shall continue with my case for it. If I were to punch you in the gut, you may punch me back, but under no circumstance may you shoot and kill me. Or, if I were caught robbing $100 from you, I will owe you $100, but may not be given the death penalty. If a husband strikes his wife twice, that does not give her permission to kill him. I find that under no circumstance would disproportional punishment be morally permissible. =Attack= C1: The abuser makes the environment inescapable. I see the words "often" and "frequent" in your argument. The fact that a proportion of the victims of abuse may be low income or may be isolated from friends and family does not give the right to all victims to kill their abuser. Also, I would like to point out that domestic violence occurs among all sorts of financial situations, so the argument cannot be made that all victims can't afford to leave. The same goes for the argument that the abuser will stalk them. Your point about the victim attacking and killing their abuser off-guard diminishes the contention that it is self-defense, as they are in no immediate danger at the time. Also, it diminishes your argument that they "deliberately grabbed a kitchen knife during a fight", because when the person is off-guard it is clearly first-degree murder. C2: The law is unhelpful. I would like to point out that the police are not the only means of escape for a victim. There are battered women's shelters and other social services available. You mention how mandatory arrest statutes increase the number of women arrested for using defensive force, yet would the same not happen if the woman murdered the attacker? Also, the term you used was it resulted in increased "likelihood" that they will be arrested for defensive force, not that the rate of those arrested for defensive force increases. You mention that battered women are less likely to call the police, this does not mean that the police are unavailable, but that there are options for the women that they are choosing not to use. =Cross Ex= 1- Can you explain to me how disproportionate punishment is moral on any grounds? 2- If a woman is more likely to be arrested for using defensive force thanks to mandatory arrest statutes, would the same not happen if the woman murdered her husband? 3- If a domestic violence victim murders their attacker while he is off-guard, how does that constitute as self-defense if the victim is under no immediate danger? Can I kill a person on the street that I don't like because he might have attacked me? How can we be certain that the attacker would attack his victim again?