Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Only S&W and Me
...but please point out a simple scenario where, "I should draw and possibly shoot".... what scene would merit drawing to stop the threat...
|
I don't think this type of question can be answered properly using a "cookbook" approach, i. e., if A then do B. First, much depends on the exact law of the jurisdiction in which the event takes place. Second, it's always going to be a matter of judgment based on the exact circumstances. As they say, "The devil is in the details."
The legal standard, in general, is that one may use lethal force only when a reasonable and prudent person, in like circumstances and knowing what you know, would conclude that lethal force is necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. To demonstrate that there was indeed a real danger from the assailant, one must show that the assailant had (1) the
Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm; (2) the
Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and (3) an innocent was in
Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he has the intent to kill or cripple. A person claiming self defense will need to be able to articulate why in the exact situation as it unfolded he concluded that lethal force was necessary based in the forgoing paradigm.
Your hypotheticals 1, 2, 3, and 5 are simply too broadly drawn to be able to venture a worthwhile opinion. It's all about the details. And in your scenario 4, you are an instigator and therefore not an "innocent" for the purposed of self defense; you are contributing to the escalation of conflict.
There are no simple formulas.