Oh not me...He was quoting boomerang...Morgan wrote:He's suggesting you were being catty.
I guess this is one way for a new poster to introduce themselves...
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Oh not me...He was quoting boomerang...Morgan wrote:He's suggesting you were being catty.
Like a bull in a china shop!pbwalker wrote:I guess this is one way for a new poster to introduce themselves...
pbwalker wrote:Oh not me...He was quoting boomerang...Morgan wrote:He's suggesting you were being catty.
I guess this is one way for a new poster to introduce themselves...
Well, not exactly.Morgan wrote:But he DID answer your question, and you have seemed to ignore the answer.
The act of the criminal grabbing your gun triggers (pardon the pun) a reaction from you. If that reaction falls under the deadly force provisions, then you're justified in using deadly force. There isn't anything hypothetical about most situations that can't be answered with the law. If the (insert whatever wild or mild hypothetical situation you care to contrive) makes you feel deadly force is legally justified, then deadly force is legally justified. You may have to PROVE that.
Heck, I could come up with a scenario where it may be justified to shoot a 5 year old... but it wouldn't be likely to HAPPEN.
You need to prove more than that you felt threatened. To stay out of the greybar hotel, you need to prove that your perception was objectively reasonable.Morgan wrote:That's what I said... "you may have to prove that." :)