|
My feeling is... if someone needs killing, it won't matter to a jury if it was done with an AR-15, Uzi, 50 year old .38 revolver or a truncheon. Defense is defense.
Obviously the Fish situation from Arizona belies that, but that was a case of horrid defense counsel. Given the fact that the state legislature passed specific legislation in response to that particular case... I wouldn't take too much stock in its results (10mm being "too powerful" for self defense and hollowpoints are particularly evil).
The argument can be made with your light up front that you are very concerned about shooting someone (the wrong person) accidentally. If used to illuminate your target for positive identification, you can concretely say "I meant to shoot the man right there" and point to him in court (if alive).
Hard to argue the fact that a defendant WANTED to shoot the attacker and deliberately pulled the trigger... especially when his legal defense is self defense in the first place. Just re-affirms his case.
|