Why bother? I'm sure you'll just try to find a way to say it's not what was intended, or I misunderstood, so on and so forth. Even now, you're likely reading this with a relieved-but-smug look on your face, when the fact of the matter is you don't matter enough to warrant me running around this thread to copy paste the several instances where you treat misdemeanors in the same light Vivster was saying he would like to see ultrviolent crimes punished. 

tl;dr, You're not worth it, I was lending some advice for you to stop before you escalate things to a ban.

See, the thing is, Vivster's first statement didn't say squat about ultrviolent crimes (whatever that is). This is what Vister's first statement was. "If a person wants to willingly physically harm another person it always deserves death."

If he had said that he only meant seriously violent crimes, then we wouldn't have had this dicussion. Of course, he later clarified that he DID in fact only mean seriously violent crimes, akin to those that are currently punished with life in prison. So the discussion was over, even if I disagree with him. But then you came here and started talking shit about me. I then asked you to back up your statements and you unsurprisingly could not.

EDIT: But heck, I'll try to do it for you. The only post where I can understand that you might think as you do about it is this one: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7924686

And at this point, we were still discussing his original statement, which was much more extreme than if we were only talking about seriously violent crimes, and I asked it as a question to actually see what he considered to be too extreme punishment.

Either way, one out of like 10 posts in this thread =/= "all you've been doing in this thread".

Again, you're not worth it, so I'm not really interacting with you at this point. I realize my previous post was vague on that, so I'll say it up front for you to clear any confusion: I'm not reading what you have to say to me, nor will I respond beyond this point. I find your opinions awful and your reasoning half-baked, neither of which mesh well with your stubbornness. There is no common ground to meet you on, so good bye. 

Again, you're not worth it, so I'm not really interacting with you at this point. I realize my previous post was vague on that, so I'll say it up front for you to clear any confusion: I'm not reading what you have to say to me, nor will I respond beyond this point. I find your opinions awful and your reasoning half-baked, neither of which mesh well with your stubbornness. There is no common ground to meet you on, so good bye. 

This. If taking someone else's life is the only way to protect yourself or others from serious harm. I'm shocked by how many here decide to throw human rights out the window just because someone enters their house or tries to rob them.

1) The victim's life must be in severe danger. Or theat of loss of limb or severe impairment or disfigurement.  Threat of death is not the only justified use of deadly force.  If you come at me with a fork trying to stab me in the eye, or slash at me with a < 3" knife, you'll still be shot until you stop.

2) The attacker has already injured/killed someone. There is no way for a person in a self defense situation to know this or attempt to figure this out in the heat of a split second life or death threat, nor are past actions relevent to the current immediate threat.

3) The attacker posseses a weapon.  - A weapon is not necessary to constitute reasonable belief of threat of loss of life or grave bodily injury.  Somebody repeatedly stomping your head or smashing it against a wall or trying to choke you, or threatening to run you over with a vehicle for example.

4) The attacker has invaded private property and posseses a weapon.  Again, a weapon is not necessary, and persons who are lawfully on the property do not have the burden to determine the invader's intentions if they reasonably believe the invader poses an immediate threat at any point during the invasion.  

Legally, there are also many exceptions which presume that anybody using deadly force to prevent or stop certain crimes is AUTOMATICALLY presumed to be acting reasonably.  In Arizona for example, crimes in progress such as burglary, rape, kidnapping, car jacking, and arson of an occupied structure, are explictly enumated to be reasonble justification in threatening or using deadly force without any further justification required.

Equally important is the defense of a third party clause where all previous stated definitions justifying uses of deadly force also apply when the action is taken on behalf of another person who is reasonably believed to be in danger.

There is also a legal concept of escalation of force.  For example even if you can't use deadly force to protect property in your state, you can use physical non deadly force to obstruct or detain someone from leaving with your property, and if in the process they become violent, then you can lawfully respond to attackers unlawful escalation to deadly force to defend yourself under the normal justifications of using deadly force to protect yourself.

These are two legally seperate scenarios using lawful non deadly force to protect property, and deadly force to protect yourself when the treat of deadly force is made by the burgler in response to the physical force.  Example 1: you fist fight a guy trying to steal your stuff or obstruct the door way, he goes for a knife/gun and you shoot him = legal.  You used deadly force to protect yourself, and non deadly force to protect your property.  Example 2: You stand in the path of your car that is the only path available to stop someone from stealing your car or attempt to remove them from the vehicle and they put the car in gear and show intent to run you over = deadly force was just threatened or used against you = justified use deadly force in self defense.  In states that forbid use of deadly force to protect property, these two circumstances must remain clearly seperated and enumerable in court.

It's important to note that the person who is in the wrong to begin with is always the one forbidden to escalate legally.  This prevents "well you should have let him leave with your stuff, you provoked him to escalating and pulling out a weapon" - this doesn't fly in court.  Any case precident set otherwise would essentially undermine and completely undo the whole premise of law enforcement - eg: it's the polices' fault for chasing and making those bank robbers shoot back.  The instigator is ALWAYS in the wrong escalating and the defender is always legally protected when escalating to meet force with equal force and this applies to both law enforcement and civilians and is a very important cornerstone in law enforcement and use of force laws.