|
Wow, are you off for an attorney. First off, I'm not making the perpetrator the victim. He should get what he deserves, but we are talking law. Why do you think everyone is telling Moose not to say anything more---if it was so clear cut then there would be no concern. You have heard what Moose said but not what the defendant's attorney will state or claim. Sorry, but a punch to the head only to then continue to the truck is not life threating. Did he see a weapon or ASSUME?
You will either have a judege(instead of jury) hear your case or at worst have to explain at sentencing. Who's to say it was a dark vacant area(matter of fact he hit a car next to him). The fact he used his gun is in no way his favor. He will be asked why he shot at that point---he saw no weapon was not in a life threatening situation and could have stopped the situation by simply holding the weapon on the suspect. What would you be saying IF someone did get shot in the car next to him? If someone had been shot you can bet they would want to know why he used his weapon. Just because there didn't happen to be someone there doesn't change the situation of NOT discharging a weapon in public without DEADLY force.
As was stated, the man apparently was going to take his truck, thus property that can be replaced. Nobody assaults a truck. If you are carjacked by an armed man you have NO right(by law) to shoot the man as he drives away---you went from a life endangering situation to shooting from anger. You have NO right whatsoever to shoot someone over property(money, car etc...) that can be replaced unless in your home or work domain.
|