Self Defense Quote from Commonwealth Attorney

I apologize if this has been mentioned in another thread, but did anyone else's jaw drop to the floor when they read this qoute from the commonwealth Attorney for Henrico:

"It is not essential to the right of self-defense that the danger should in fact exist".......

Given this is only an administrative statement, not admissable in court I assume, but wow. I wonder if she would apply such a stance against an accused citizen exercizing the same right as the police officer in question?

Link to article:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...of-unarmed-man-was-justified-says-ar-2099297/

The whole quote:


This is not significantly different that what User has posted here dozens of times and has posted on his web page.

ETA: Having said that, your question is still a valid one: Would the CA use this same criteria in the decision to prosecute a mere citizen, rather than a police officer...

TFred

Officer: I reasonably believed at that time.....
Judge: OK, no problem.

Citizen: I reasonably believed at that time.....
Judge: Really now, and what facts do you have to substantiate your claim?
Citizen: uh.....whut?

Disclaimer: Not the Citizen.