A recent Colorado Politics cover story made me think back to when I was teaching political science at the US Air Force Academy. In fairness, most any political topic makes me think back to those years, so I admit it is nothing special to be reminded of such things back when I was teaching our nation’s future military aerospace leaders about the Constitution, rights, and such.

This particular story contrasted Colorado’s laws regarding self defense within the context of the recent Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. Now, I’m not going to talk about the Rittenhouse case here, as it has been discussed at length elsewhere by smarter people than me. Instead, I’m going to talk about other Colorado issues involved in standing one’s ground.

I encourage you to go ahead and read the article linked above. I’ll wait here, it’s really good stuff.

All done? Cool. As my regular reader (Hi Jeff!) will recall, I often taught my students that the real challenge of the Constitution is not about protecting rights when those rights are clear and absolute. Rather, the difficulties come in when you try to deal with situations in which fundamental rights are in conflict with each other (e.g., free speech and don’t incite a riot), or when there is a big grey area.

Such is the case all too often with “stand your ground” laws. These laws (the one in Colorado was called the “Make My Day” law, after the famous line in a Clint Eastwood movie) basically say that if you feel your life is at risk, you can protect yourself with deadly force. At least that’s what the proponents of such laws would likely say.

And there are absolutely situations in which there is very little doubt that you have the right to protect yourself, free from later prosecution. The classic example is the “Castle doctrine,” referring to one’s home as one’s castle. Most state laws accept an essentially unlimited right to defend your self and your home from direct attack. Shoot a burglar coming at you with a knife at 3 a.m.? You are immune from being charged in the death. Such cases are both clear cut and, well, rare. Very few “self-defense” cases involve such obvious and simple situations.

Now, before you label me as an anti-gun lib, please know that I own multiple firearms and have a concealed-carry permit. And I was a military cop the last couple of years I was on active duty. I believe in the secondamendment, but with reasonable restrictions (no anti-aircraft guns, no flame throwers, and, frankly, no 30-round magazines, but that last one is for a future column).

But as the article points out, sometimes these issues are far from well-defined and easily adjudicated. Back in 1985, when I was still sitting nuclear alert tours at FE Warren Air Force Base up north of here, a kid the same age (17) as Rittenhouse was being followed leaving a liquor store. When the guys chasing him wouldn’t stop, the young man – in fear of his life – stabbed and killed one of the aggressors. He was found guilty of manslaughter and was facing life in prison without parole. His verdict was ultimately overturned on appeal, because the first Colorado judge had failed to instruct the jury that there is, under our state’s laws, no “duty to retreat” from the encounter. Most states have that same idea in their laws – if you are being chased or attacked or otherwise harassed, you don’t have to try to get away, regardless of how easy or hard such an escape might be. And again, smarter people than me will argue about the legal merits of such a stipulation (note: there is near unanimity that there is never a duty to retreat in one’s home).

The article discusses related cases, where deadly force was used in ways that can seem entirely legal or rather questionable. But there is a moral principle, at least in my mind, that runs through all these cases; a principle that is largely ignored: the ethical imperatives regarding deadly force.

I used to ask my cadets about the use of deadly force (a particularly important conversation for students about to enter the profession of arms). Would they kill an intruder in their homes who was attacking a family member? Absolutely and for sure. I can’t remember a single cadet ever objecting to that action.

How about if the bad guy (or the guy you think is a bad guy) is running out of your house carrying your TV? Would you kill someone with a shot to the back in such a situation? Well, yes, said nearly all the cadets. They would take a life over a TV.

How about if he was just running away?

What if he was a stranger, pounding on your front door at 3 a.m.?

It quickly becomes a slippery slope.

As always, I end up with far more questions than answers. I’d like to think that most of us would agree that it isn’t a good idea for, say, a 17-year-old kid to grab an assault rifle and run toward a riot rather than away. And I suspect we all pretty much agree about killing someone attacking us or our loved ones.

But the middle ground is far less clear and carries far more consequences. Indeed, truly life or death consequences.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.