Hmm... Maybe my OP wasn't clear. An example: What if, say, someone killed your wife or child right in front of you and then ran. If there was no law stating that the threat had to be "immediate," would you (not you persoally Bill, I mean anyone reading this) have the self control to let them run? Or would you enact your own form of justice.
This is all hypothetical, of course. What I'm driving at is that it's all fine and good for us to say we would do "only what is needed to end the threat." I'm just curious to see how many of us have really given thought to how they would react to such an emotionally charged situation (like the one I outlined above).
Someone fatally injures my wife in front of me, and there is a way that I can go after them...HELL YEAH, I'm going after them. And when I get them, I'm probably going to beat the **** out of them too! Duty to retreat or not, I dont care. I'd like to pose that same question to the judge and jury and lawyer for the dirtbag, that if they were in the same situation, that they would do the same thing, and they'd be lying if they said otherwise.