So evolution, Lucys bones, big bang doesnt prove anything is that what your telling me there are three forms of scientfic proff doesnt prove shit?

While many take the some what referred to as good side where the victim should use deadly force I believe different. According to the US Armed Forces, deadly force is force which a person knows is substantially likely to result in death. Domestic violence is a pattern of interaction that includes the use of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, isolation, and/or emotional, economic, or sexual abuse by one intimate partner to maintain power and control over the other intimate partner. Alternatives exist, therefore the victim would be violating the respect of human life to kill when alternatives exist. One alternative is to leave the attacker. Another is to use the law to your advantage. The police force exists to protect human life. This is the purpose of most laws, just as it is the purpose of domestic violence being illegal, as Carolyn Hoyle and Andrew Sanders explain, "another purpose is to enable the state to intervene, usually by prosecuting, in order to exact retribution, produce specific and, perhaps, 'treat' the offender, thereby reducing further offending in a more constructive way. Murder can never be morally permissible. It can be excused, but not justified. There is an extreme difference. If we ever allow murder to be morally permissible, we violate the most basic right, the right to life. The respect of human life achieves morality, while using deadly, deliberate force against repeated domestic violence does not. This cannot be morally permissible under any circumstances because the victim would never be killed and be able to do the same to the aggressor. Options which harm people become morally impermissible when less harmful options exist. Victims of repeated domestic violence can seek recourse to the legal system or escape through the use of non-deadly force. Debilitating non-deadly force can be used as an effective method for the victim to incapacitate the attacker and escape to seek the help of authorities. When a victim uses deadly force their action is excusable however not justified because to deem something justified is to say that it is the fair or just thing to do. However taking the law into your own hand and personal killing an abuser is never the just or fair thing to do. Now imagine your in that position and you kill the abuser, there is no proof however that you were getting domestic violence upon you. You get charged with man slatter and get 25 to life time in federal prison. Therefore that could have been the abuser not you. It is very dangerous as well, for it runs into the law. In many states, it is illegal to kill people even if they have abused you. Your saying you want to stop abuse but you’re just turning around and killing them which is considered abuse so if you say its okay to kill them you’re a hypocrite. Self defense is permissible but killing them is to extreme. Our moral system exists because of the rights claims we make against each other. According to John Locke, the social contract develops as a result of people wanting to coexist with one another and therefore agreeing individually that they will not violate rights in exchange for not having their own rights violated. Therefore, the only appropriate retribution is that which is equivalent to the rights which have been violated to begin with. Taking life is not proportional to the rights violation which occurs as a result of repeated domestic violence. Though the victim may be robbed of liberty and happiness, they still have the opportunity to regain it because they are alive. Life provides the opportunity to exercise all other rights, and therefore, it is more valuable than all other rights. A victim’s use of deadly force would therefore be disproportionate and morally impermissible. In short violence is never the anwser :) Thank you.