Quote:
|
That is an interesting and unique situation. I'd proffer even in Texas, unless you are actively supporting the police, your chances of not going to prison for shooting someone at 50 yards is insignificant.
|
While distance can be a factor in justifying deadly force, it is by no means either an automatic justification for close assailants, nor an automatic disqualification for distant opponents. It is just one factor of many that could play into determining justification.
If the circumstances of the situation are such that deadly force is justified (let's say an active shooter, or an assailant who is firing on the defender from a distance), then the fact that the attacker is 50 yards (or more) away won't eliminate that justification.
Obviously, longer distances will neutralize a contact weapon, if the only person in jeopardy is the defender--but not if the attacker is endangering another innocent who is closer than the defender. Similarly, longer distances might make escape much easier, or it may have little effect, depending on the circumstances.
Quote:
|
But not people with pistols. Your example doesn't work.
|
I am not aware of any laws that have different justification levels based on the type of firearm used. If the circumstances justify the use of deadly force, then it doesn't matter if you use a rifle, a shotgun or a pistol. Likewise, if the circumstances don't justify the shooting then it won't matter what type of gun is used.
In the days of the UT shooting, the legality of carrying a pistol in TX was questionable, at best, however it was quite common to see deer rifles in pickup truck gunracks. A perfectly legal practice. The reasons rifles were used against the UT shooter were: 1. That's what people had. 2. That's what worked well. If they had used pistols to fire back that wouldn't have affected their justification, just their effectiveness.