No reason why we cannot both
be right, D1. The drunk certainly put himself into a situation where he could get hisself killed. But the guy was not only unarmed, he was blotto drunk. Hey, that's an interesting point, come to think of it. Gerasimenko had
to know the guy was drunk. So, that's a clue that the guy might have been, well, might have been a drunken lout looking for his own place or something. Could he be a danger? Sure. And, certainly if the drunk had some intent to do harm to the guy, the wife, or the 2-day old baby, then fine--You can have him...give us Barabas.
But the odds are, far more likely, that he's just a goof with a drunk on
. Gerasimenkowould likely have legal justification for killing thebastard. Butthat doesn't conclusively make it a good idea
.Killing a man who is really
presenting a threat to you and yours is a good idea
. Killing a man who is drunk and presents no real
threat (is just making interpreted sounds like he is) is not that great of an idea
. How do you tell the difference? Good question, that.
Killing unarmed and blotto drunkgoofs is simply not a great idea. It should be avoided if at all possible. Shooting them is not all that great either but at least it's not that bad. Shooting people is a serious thing. Very serious. It should be done only when absolutely necessary. The converse is true, too. It should be done every time it is necessary. I don't see that Gerasimenko did very well at all in his incident.
BTW, D1, do you teach your students to fire multiple warning shots through doors into apartment hallways at thigh height level?