View Single Post
Old January 21, 2018, 09:38 AM   #22
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,915
That is how the law reads, with all of the normal caveats, reasonable belief, whether it was reasonable to believe, etc.
Whatever that means....

The point is that there is more to it than "if anyone in the vicinity is in extreme danger, lethal force is justified.".

The "normal caveats" for self defense usually include indications of an imminant threat of death or great bodily harm, and a basis for reasonable belief hat deadly force, and no less, is immediately necessary.

There's also the little matter of innocence.

That also applies in the case of defending a third person, and it can be tricky. In most jurisdictions, unless there is a basis for reasonable belief that that "anyone in the vicinity" would be lawfully entitled to use deadly force for self defense, the use of deadly force would not be justified.

Distance may or may not enter into the equation for a basis for a readable belief. did the acorns know what had transpired before the encounter? Does the actor have any way of knowing who the participants might be? There would be more than distance involved in addressing those questions.
OldMarksman is offline  
Page generated in 0.03081 seconds with 8 queries