Quote:
|
I did not know they were dead, I simply thought they had fallen, and would get back up and attack me some more, but I could not flee with my woman because then this guy attacks us...
|
Unfortunately, you didn't see the 5 eyewitnesses in the garage that saw you fire on the lone individual who was left standing there, if he is no longer a threat. What's your excuse for that one?
The point of lethal force is to stop the threat. Period. That's it. Once the threat has stopped, your LEGAL right to use lethal force has ended. If you have 3 guys on the ground after being hit (if you could have hit all 3 of them without hitting a bystander... good luck with that in the surroundings where this went down) and one lone person standing there, your right to use lethal force is gone unless the last person of that group attacks you on his own. Then you can use force against him IF he poses a LETHAL threat. That will depend on the situation at that particular time. If 3 guys are on the ground and not moving and the last guy standing is not a threat, then disparity of force issues disappear along with your right to use lethal force.
As far as the ability of a jury tp decide whether or not you'd be found guilty or innocent in this case, what type of jury do you think is going to preside over that trial? One that is pro-gun and pro-2nd amendment? Good luck there. Prosecution would never allow that. You might not find someone guilty in that case but I'll wager that you're not the "normal" type person the prosecution would want to have on that jury to try and convict. Perception is reality. What the jury
percieves the situation to be at the time is what they base their decision on. If that perception is that you're guilty of (insert charge here), then you're guilty. Regardless of whether or not you were justified or not...