🚀 go-pugleaf

Ion Storm wrote:
> 
> In article <7ik2sf$2ku$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, USA_First <usa_first@my-deja.com> said:
> 
> >An intelligent person might consider all the possible scenarios and
> >plan accordingly.  For instance, if I were to encounter a large, knife-
> >weilding subject standing 15 feet away who looks at me and begins to
> >close that space, I think pulling the trigger might be justified.
> >However, discovering a 12 year old crawling back out my window with my
> >27" RCA would be legally and morally irresponsible.  Don't you?
> 
> what does age have to do with it?  in Nam' six-years would walk up to you with
> grenades with the pin pulled...

If we were living in 'Nam, it might be a reasonable assumption that a
12-year-old was a deadly threat.  I doubt that would fly in any state in
the US, absent any other aggravating facts.

Justification requires a two-step test.  First, the person using deadly
force has to be genuinely in fear of loosing life or limb.  If it can be
shown that the person didn't have any such fear (eg: he was standing
behind bullet-proof glass, or he knew the attacker's gun was a fake), or
if some other emotion (eg: anger) motivated the shooting, then the
shooting is not justified.

The second step is that that fear must be a reasonable one, not some
paranoid delusion or a panicked-induced reflex.  The determination is
made by the "reasonable man" test: If a reasonable man in the same
situation knowing the same facts as the defender would have reached the
conclusion that the shootee posed a threat of death or permanent injury,
then the shooting was justified.  If you can convince a jury that they
might have done the same in your situation, you will be aquitted.

This is for California and most states.  I know Texas, for one, does
things a bit differently.