We talk a lot about things that we should teach in government schools but don't.

How about requiring that kids learn basic use of force law and ethics?

I'm not saying that kids should be indoctrinated on a certain set of use of force ethics. I know that people disagree. Still, have some kind of socratic discussion between students about when it's ethical to use physical force.

In regard to law, it's fairly objective. Still, I don't think you can talk about the law without discussing ethics.

Again, the five kids who were arrested a couple of blocks away from my house were an average age of fifteen, and told the cops that they had guns in case they needed to defend themselves if confronted by a homeowner.

Incidentally, it's also probably a good idea to teach kids what your fifth amendment rights are, and what your Miranda rights actually mean.

Still, it's clear that these thugs had no concept of use of force law or ethics.

They weren't telling the cops that they had guns in order to defend themselves in this context. They were telling the cops that they had guns because they were willing to commit murder in the process of committing their home invasions.

Still, adults are confused about this.

When the evidence was mounting that Kyle Rittenhouse was completely justified in his actions, the leftists who wanted to permanently destroy the life of a then seventeen-year-old were reaching for ways to make his use of force illegal. They were saying that you can't defend yourself while you're committing a felony. Their claim was that Rittenhouse was committing a crime by mere possession of the firearm, and therefore lost his right to claim self-defense.

That was ultimately proven to be incorrect on every level. The illegal possession of a firearm charge was dismissed mid-trial because they measured the length of the barrel and determined that, under Wisconsin law, a seventeen-year-old was allowed to be in possession.

Even if that weren't true, it would have been a misdemeanor charge.

Even in that case, it's not cleanly true that you can't claim self-defense while you're committing a crime in the way that these people were claiming.

Bernie Goetz was illegally carrying a revolver when he was attacked by four young men on the New York metro. He was acquitted on all charges but for the illegal possession of the gun. His illegal possession of the gun didn't mean that he needed to let the four thugs murder him lest he go to prison for attempted murder and assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

If you're in the process of committing an armed robbery, and somebody tries to stop you with his or her own gun, and you kill that person, you can't claim self-defense. If somebody attacks you while you're jaywalking, and you win that fight, you don't lose the right to self-defense.

I mean, I'm constantly seeing posts from people on all sides of the political spectrum saying that if they caught someone trying to kill or harm or steal their pets, that they'd use deadly force. In every state other than Texas, you'd go to prison for the rest of your life, because your pet is legally property, and you're not allowed to kill a person to protect property.

As a matter of ethics, I think that I'd be completely justified in killing a person who is causing harm to my cat or my sister's dogs. Legally, I'd be going to prison for a long time.

This is always a life or death issue. It's horrifying how ignorant we are on this issue.

I don't trust agents of the government (aka teachers) to do a great job teaching the nuts and bolts of this. It seems like a C student (aka teachers) can at least inform students that you can't claim self-defense while you're committing an armed home invasion.