Quote:
Originally Posted by fdpaq0580
Even if the "now deceased" had gun in hand pointing at the "shooter" and was threatening to kill, it can still be argued that he, the "now deceased",was simply frightening and never would have killed anyone, or that the gun was empty, or, or, etc, and therefore the "shooter" was actually never in imminent danger. That being said leads me to think one (the shooter) is guilty because he was pro-active (shot first) instead of reactive (waited to be shot before he could return fire). Is that what is being argued here?
Still waiting for all the facts to be determined. Still, if being the first to use your weapon against a perceived threat (pro-active) makes you guilty in every instance, (and even the worst lawyer can play "what if" for weeks on end), then a lot of folks who bought weapons for protection better practice duck and cover before ever drawing their gun.
|
My understanding of the law is if a person points a gun at you it doesn't matter if he says nothing it is assumed he is going to pull the trigger.
The law realizes you don't have to wait to be shot at and possibly killed before you can pull the trigger.
Pointing a gun at anyone is playing stupid games and gonna win stupid prizes like your life.