Quote:
|
Posted by Sarge: Obviously I was commenting on the story as related, not the innumerable possibilities which might have occurred, in the same situation.
|
Yes, of course.
My point was that that "the story as related" describes what
one party to the incident
thought had happened. That party
perceived that two people were behaving in a threatening manner. He then acted in a manner that, had the incident been reported by
anyone, would have required him to present evidence of justification. Of course, in the event, no report entered into the picture--but that was the luck of the draw.
The problem is that an investigation, had it occurred, might not only failed to support his defense of justification (due to absence of evidence of ability, opportunity, and/or jeopardy), it might even have led to the conclusion that his concerns had been completely unfounded.
Regardless, his having drawn a gun might well have led to his being shot. That shooting might well have been ruled to have been justifiable under the circumstances, but even if it were not, that would not have helped the OP's friend very much.
Quote:
|
Posted by Aquila Blanca: In common law, when the laws use the word "reasonable" it boils down to what the lawyers call the "reasonable man" theory. In short, the law asks a jury "Would a hypothetical reasonable man have acted the same way in this situation that this guy did?"
|
Yes indeed.
But first, the "guy" has to produce at least
some evidence that he had a reason for believing that he was in imminent danger--in danger of death or serious bodily harm at that moment.
Contending that one had left a concert downtown at night and that there had been muggings in the area provided a reason for believing that imminent danger existed would surely fall short, particularly when the only pertinent action had been words.