> my point is that such laws are unnecessary since defendants
> have more than adequate protection even without them.
Well, these laws change the requirement for the defendant to prove that he had no other choice to the government having to prove that it was unreasonable to believe it. So I wouldn't say that this is of no effect. That's a very significant change.
In any other context, I'd be on the side of forcing the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was commited. Not so for you?
> However, they send a wrong message that violent confrontation is ok.
You keep saying this, but you don't seem to be able to back it up.
> It legitimizes violence by giving it special legal treatment.
Like I said: if this is true, it's done a lousy job of it.
/jordan