...What I've said so far in this discussion is very unclear, sorry.
In your example, the man probably could have taken his daughter back without killing. So I kinda agree with it here.
I can bring my example back about the girl and her father... But I suppose that the blame belongs to the retarded system that we have for pedophiles and the way that we handle these particular cases.
And it was a bad example anyway, because she did kill him.
But still, what else could she have done to make him
pay? Not much.
So basically, you've been raped continually for a few years? That sucks little girl. We'll send your father to our special pedophile "prison" with free experts to "cure" him while he can brag to other pedophiles about what he did with you. Then we'll release him in a few years. You're suffering from a traumatism? Heh if it's that serious, you can probably pay for a psychologist yourself. Or let your new family do it. (Or the department of "protection" of the youth or whichever alternative.)
Edit: (To give a sense to these two paragraphs...)
She had the choice between letting him meet new pedophile friends, or go to prison herself and make him pay.
(...)but if he's not actually in danger at the time then there's no reason for him to be attacking. Either way, if he could have left without beating her up first then that's what he should have done. The self defence laws are very clear about not covering revenge or vigilante attacks, e.g. if the husband leaves the house but then comes back and attacks his wife he's way over the line.
That's what I'm saying. When it's not a question of life and death, don't do to them what they do to you, even if they deserve it, or else you won't get help from the police.
Maybe the reason why it was unclear is because I didn't make it clear that I didn't mean life and death cases.
I meant the countless other "secondary" cases.
Meh, maybe everything I said in this thread was off-topic.