Originally Posted by farmerboy
All these people want to be scared about courts and reloads, getting sued after shooting, help in aftermath of lega crap, etc, etc and etc. if you're so scared of everything maybe you should leave your guns at home and start carrying a fly swatter.
Hogwash. It's not a matter of being scared. It's about understanding the legal ramifications of killing another human in SD. It is entirely possible to both: (a) do the research to understand the legal landscape; and (b) still be prepared to defend my family.
Originally Posted by Marquezj16
. . . .You're doing it again. You are assuming that after "b" the prosecutor will charge you with a crime. Don't they have a choice of looking at the evidence and determining "it was a good shoot"? . . . .
As a general rule, yes, the prosecutor does have the option of looking at the evidence and determining whether or not to charge. Just because the shooter claims it was a good shoot don't make it so, though.
One of the points that I think Frank is trying to get at is this: The shooter is not
the final arbiter of whether a shoot was good. That role falls to someone else (judge, DA, jury, etc). Bear in mind that the prosecutor is not required to believe the shooter's side of the story. If I shoot a BG, who survives, and the BG survives and tells a different tale than I do, a prosecutor could well decide just to let a jury sort it out. (Sometimes, that's the politically safe move.) There could also be all sorts of political pressure for a DA to charge.