Reply #23: Because mere FEAR is not sufficient grounds for self defense... [View All]

[benEzra]

Guy has gun, he "feels" threatened.
He SHOOTS someone.
Someone DIES.
Shooter is investigated, someone is STILL DEAD.


Huh...how is that confusing??

I understand the intellectual argument, but when are frightened people thinking?

I'm done, you win.
I still think it is a BAD LAW.

READ THE DAMN LAW, MAN!!!!

Because mere FEAR is not sufficient grounds for self defense..."REASONABLE fear" is the general criteria, not just "fear." Reasonable fear being defined as

"(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

In every state in this nation, as far as I am aware.

You are saying condition A. above would be sufficient on its own to make a shooting automatically justifiable self-defense. That's absolutely, totally, completely incorrect. Condition B. also applies (the fear of death or serious bodily harm must be REASONABLE), as well as C. (you weren't the instigator of the conflict), and D. (you didn't use excessive force, i.e. lethal force against a nonlethal threat).

You are parroting Bradyite talking points without actually having studied the text of the new law OR the existing statutes and case law. Research the issue for yourself.