Interesting position...
You are right, I would react to what I perceive as a threat...
Then you cannot expect others to do differently. Nor should the law remain powerless to cite as a crime against which you admit you believe you have a right to use deadly force.
then again, you could be reacting to me because you believe that I am a threat. So, where does this leave us, we both believe we are right and need to defend ourselves. All this would need to be sorted out by the cops and courts of course, after the fact...if we both survive the encounter that is.
And this all provides good reason why an armed society ought to be a polite society. If nearly everyone you and I (or the Black Panthers, or the wing nuts in Washington) met were armed and as prepared to defend themselves as we are ourselves, we'd have compelling reason not to give anyone anything close to justifiable, reasonable cause to believe we intended to harm them. We'd avoid "brandishing" our guns. We'd probably avoid some of the bravado, machoism, and insults that might tend to cause a reasonable man to think a real threat exists even before we reach for our gun.
I would like to think that the relative absence of the types of cases you allude to is currently due to civility and prudence on the part of those who carry, rather than due to the relatively low numbers of persons who carry meaning that the odds of two armed strangers interacting being very low.
Kind of like a cop is screwed no matter what he does, right? He sees a kid getting snatched up by a adult and tossed into a car. Is it the kids parent or a pervert. The cop has the luxury of not having to decide one way or the other. QI is there if it was the kids parent and not a perv...his goof is mitigated and the parent is harmed by his goof. If it was a perv, he is a hero.
And without QI does the cop errs on the side of not intervening lest he place his home, savings, and freedom at risk? At which point, what is point of having cops at all?
Rather than looking at it as a matter of cop vs parents, look at it as a matter of relative risk and harm.
If the cop does nothing, the risk to the child is immense. Kids tossed into cars by strangers tend never to be seen alive again. They also tend to endure unspeakable acts before they are murdered.
If the cop intervenes professionally, the risk to the parents is minimal. A few moments for the cop to make reasonable sure they are parents and that he is merely witnessing a temper tantrum rather than a kidnapping or child abuse. The "harm" to the parent is measured in a few minutes of inconvenience.
Of course, the cop could choose to intervene in a way that is not reasonable nor professional. I consider that a different discussion. That some may consider it the central discussion probably shows where our respective biases lie.
I do not believe in minor "inconveniences" by the state as the price we must pay for safety. Unfortunately the courts do not hold my opinion as their own.
Neither do I. I do not believe in sacrificing freedom for safety. But neither do I think that anarchy, absence of laws, or an impotent police force will yield either freedom or safety anymore than sacrificing safety for freedom will yield either.
Slowing through a school zone is a bit of an inconvenience when I'm in a hurry. A dead or crippled child--including possibly my own--would be far worse and is a real risk in a school zone. A 3 minute stop by a cop making sure I'm the parent of the screaming child I just dragged from the store is inconvenient. Not having that stop if my kid is dragged out by someone else, is way more "inconvenient."
If an officer stops me for doing 70 in what he thinks is a 55 zone, but it was he and not I who missed the last speed limit sign, I suffer some mild inconvenience. Assuming an honest mistake on his part rather than some malice or deliberate attempt to skirt the law or violate my rights, I don't need a pound a flesh or a career ended. A simple apology will get frank forgiveness from me in such cases.
When I make a mild mistake and exceed a posted speed limit, or unintentionally violate a noise ordinance, or have a burned out tail light (or a popped fuse that blacks out the entire rear end of my trailer), I hope not to be subjected to some cruel or unusual punishment. I hope and expect the penalty will be in line with the violation, taking into account my intent and my record. A one time mistake from an otherwise law abiding citizen ought to be treated with more mercy than the same mistake that is just the latest in a long line of violations from a perpetual problem person.
I take the same view with police officers and others.
There are some problems that need to be corrected. There are some bad cops that need to be removed from their positions of power and trust. Would that otherwise good cops would help out the bad cops.
But I do not view my local police department nor officers as my enemies. I hope you don't. It is a shame that some, seemingly do.
Charles