Should use of deadly force be different for human or animal attackers?
First I realize that humans are animals. I use animals to cover all non human animals for this question.
In my State the use of deadly force in self defense required that you be in fear of death or great bodily harm. My questions is this. Why do so many think that the standard should be higher when it applies to dumb animals? On this forum and many others you see comments about how a person would not used deadly force against an animal unless they were actually being bitten or mauled. Would this person wait to be stabbed or shot by an attacking human before using deadly force to protect themselves?
Why the discrepancy? Why should what is attempting to do do your great bodily harm change how you defend yourself?
Am I wrong to see this as a purely emotional response? That we do not want to think that fluffy actually intendeds to rip your throat out? Many of us are quick to say deadly force is permissible when we are in fear for our lives. That it is reasonable to shoot a person coming at you with a knife. Before they actually stab you. Yet when fluffy comes at you they say you should never shoot at just a threat. That you should only shoot if you are bitten.