I said that someone would be justified in using lethal force to protect their dog from someone trying to kill it, and half the forum lost their minds.
FWIW I agree with you on the issue but think the point was missed after looking up the original thread: if someone breaks into your house and poses a threat to your pet, they also pose a threat to you and you have grounds for personal self-defense. Even if they insist they're only there to kill your dog and have no intention of killing you, you have no reason or obligation to believe them.
Most people would consider their pet to be a member of their family. It’s obviously justified, both legally and morally, to use lethal force when the lives of your family members are in peril. Many posters in that thread (probably one of the worst threads in Atlas history tbh) said that you should value the life of your pet’s attempted murderer than the life of your pet, which is just ghastly
I used this as my example in this thread because 99% of pet owners in real life would tell you that of course someone would be justified in this case. It wouldn’t even be a debate. This is just one of those weird cases where terminally online people try to “um ackshually” something that’s obvious to normal people. It’s kinda like when some Rose Twitter types get really mad when a store owner beats up someone who tried to rob them