|
In my state I believe that you could justify and be safe to shoot the accomplice, even if not obviously armed and presenting a lethal threat. If the first target was completely justifiable, it follows that the second will be equally as dangerous.
But, here is the rub, I don't think that without presentation of a deadly weapon or other sign of possible serious attack, I don't think that it will hold up.
IMO. According to legal issues that I have followed and what I believe the principles of our law are, the accomplice must present an equal level of threat. There must be an equal level of danger, and fear of danger. Just being the guy standing next to the threat doesn't justify use of force against him.
I believe that if such a thing happened in my state, which has very strong protection for use of force, there would be a prosecution and possible conviction for shooting an unarmed, or if armed, non-threatening accomplice.
Our state laws, as many others do, require that the shooter provide evidence that the threat was tangible and believable.
We have liberal castle laws, but our responsibilities are different for just normal encounters outside of the home.
__________________
None.
|