Haha, I love how Jill shows up here right when I was thinking about her situation.
But wasn’t it mentioned previously that you can’t weigh your life as more valuable than those of others? Or does this come down to which choice presented greater risks (i.e. the risk of you getting killed, vs. the risk of you accidentally killing one or more people)?
It says that risk of other’s life is less than risk to your own IF use of lethal force was already justified. If Jack were aiming at Jill with a rifle, she’d have been off the hook for cutting him loose. I suppose a closer analogy would have been if Jack had been trying to kill her, she cut him loose, then he landed on someone, saving his life but killing them. She’d be fine then.
I’d say this is why lawyers (allegedly) get rich. :-)