The reason you are sooo restricted in firing your weapon is for the fact that you COULD shoot or kill an innocent.
Again, pure-dee idiocy. Take a look at the law. If you were to actually do that, you would notice that the law specifies the circumstances under which you can use lethal force
. It does not
about using a gun. The fact of the matter is that when circumstances allow for the use of deadly/lethal force, the instrument used to inflict that force is immaterial. In fact, deadly force can be used without the use of any weapon at all and the exact same
restriction apply whether the victim uses his hands, a baseball bat he left in the cab of his truck, or a pistol he kept in the center console. The weapon used has zero bearing and your continual references to Moose’s use of a gun only further illustrate how poorly you grasp the law.
I also notice that you glossed right over my question, so I’ll ask it again:
“My understanding of your assertion is that an otherwise justified self-defense situation, when the individual using self-defense is larger than the assailant, will change that situation to one where the victim is no longer justified. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, prove it.
You are making a radical assertion, it is incumbent on you to provide the justification. Shouldn’t be too hard, if what you say is true. Right?”