Originally posted by ThreeFingerPete
View Post
Where does it say that you have to actually be assulted to justify deadly force? It doesn't, you have to be in fear of your life or grave bodily harm. Without knowing what the guy was on, and with the people/dog eating stories of late, if I'm getting charged by a guy that is aware that I've drawn down on him, I am going to assume the worst, and shoot him.
Also, you saying that he shouldn't have had his weapon drawn is pure opinion based on the limited facts that have been presented. If there is a percieved threat, I have no issue with taking any precautions available.
Even you yourself said that the civilian would probably go to jail, not certainly, because you know that there are cases where it could be ruled justifiable.
People are making way too many assumptions that, in some cases, are being clouded even futher by their FTP attitude. My point was to try and pull the LEO aspect out of it, to show that this could possibly be justifiable, regardless of the shooters chosen profession.
Comment