Stop editing your posts so I can actually reply please.
I never said I could use deadly force against someone in the commission of any felony, I claimed that if someone who had a gun said they were going to kill me they would be guilty of a felony and I would be justified in using deadly force in SD. Either way as long as I felt my life was in immediate danger I would be justified.
I guess you missed this part of my original claim? "The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm."
You stated that 'since it is a felony,' that would justify the use of deadly force. If that is not your meaning, you should reword your statement.
The first portion of your post had nothing to do with VA, and I would hesitate to give ANY credence to information from a site named 'the free dictionary by Farlex.' A case in VA will be adjudicated based upon VA statute and case law.
This actually looks like a decent collection of case law that may be relevant.
http://www.virginia1774.org/Page5.html
But, this is quite far afield from either MO, or Brown. Specifically, I believe that your statement about a person threatening another with a firearm would create the common law justification for using deadly force in VA for self-defense. I do NOT feel it is hinged on whether a felony act of ANY kind is imminent, and that is my contention. The 'free dictionary' link has no relevance, as it is not authoritative in any way for ANY state.
I disagree specifically with your statements about whether Wilson was justified or not, mostly because he IS 'innocent until proven guilty,' and without more information about the actual shooting beyond conflicting eye-witness accounts, it is impossible to determine if Brown was actually still a threat when the last shot killed him.
Brown may have actually still been a threat at that time.
Brown may have actually been attempting to surrender at that time.
We, on a web forum, simply do not have the information available to present any true case either way; so, I do see it as 'innocent until proven guilty.'
Brown is ALSO 'innocent until proven guilty,' which is a decision that will never see a court of law now. That does not mean that he deserved to die, nor does it mean that Wilson was not justified in using deadly force. It is also not a dichotomy where either Brown deserved to die, OR Wilson was justified.
It is unquestionable that Brown and Wilson had an altercation. The beginning of it shows a conflict between the PD/Wilson version, and some of the eye-witness accounts; most of which did NOT actually see the beginning struggle clearly enough to tell what was happening. The physical evidence from the car supports the PD/Wilson, by showing that the first shot/s were from inside the car, striking Brown's arm. Once they separate, it gets unclear again, and opinions seem to sway based upon whether a person does or does not believe the statements presented by the PD. In either case, stating that Wilson should be prosecuted, ignores the reality that there should first be actual evidence of a crime. To me, that means a higher standard other than one side of conflicting eye-witness statements. If the physical evidence supports those who claim Wilson killed Brown without justification, then charges should be brought against Wilson. If the physical evidence does not support those who claim Wilson killed Brown without justification, then charges should not be brought against Wilson. More on point, if there is a
lack of evidence supporting claims that Wilson was not justified in using deadly force, then it
must rest at 'innocent until proven guilty.'
We, do not simply bring charges against anyone, LE or not, simply because groups of the public call for charges to be brought.
