View Single Post
Old June 9, 2009, 09:33 AM   #46
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 3,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTMilitiaman
So most states will hold brandishing a firearm, even if it is unloaded, as brandishing a lethal weapon, at least by my understanding. Most states will hold you accountable if you shoot to wound an attacker for this same reason. This is because presenting a firearm is legally considered lethal force. If wounding or frightening an attacker is all that is required, many states will hold you legally accountable for escalating the situation with lethal force when it was not necessary. So presenting an unloaded firearm at the very least holds you to all legal risks associated with using a firearm without providing you with the capabilities to defend yourself if the firearm is actually necessary. This guy would have been better off, morally and legally speaking, with a baseball bat. As he was clearly unwilling and unable to use lethal force, he had no business using a firearm for self-defense. Being ready, willing, and able to use lethal force is a responsibility we all accept when we decide to keep firearms for self-defense. Even though most of us acknowledge that this is almost the worst case scenario, we accept the risk and that is what makes us legal, responsible gun owners. Those unwilling to accept these risks are best served pursuing other means to defend themselves.
Sorry, but I'm not quite sure that I follow your reasoning here. If you shoot and wound an attacker, how are you liable in anyway? That is called self defense. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon and you are justified to meet deadly force with deadly force.

You have every right to defend yourself while the attacker is still a threat. Now if you shoot the attacker after he a no longer a threat (he surrenders or is no longer physically capable of defending himself), that will most likely be manslaughter on your part. I'm not sure how the pharmacist will fare since he shot the attacker that was unarmed and already down on the ground. If the kid was still in possesion of a weapon and was attempting to use it, it would certainly be a justified shoot. We will have to wait and see.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02457 seconds with 8 queries