I agree for the most part, except the part about him being unarmed. It generally doesn't matter if he's armed or not. The typical guideline to follow is immediate protection of your life, or the life of another in your presence.We don't see all the evidence and facts, and only have one side of the story.
From the authorities point of view, you shot an unarmed man, in a house that he had just as much right to be in. Also, you didn't really flee, since you went armed back to the front door and had a reasonable expectation of encountering your uncle. That doesn't sound like someone who is afraid for their life, it sounds confrontational.
If I was the DA I would have brought it to trial too, and I've only read your side of the story.
That varies from State to State. In Alabama, for instance, you can use deadly physical force if you reasonably believe that someone is committing or is about to commit assault in the first or second degree.10A wrote:I agree for the most part, except the part about him being unarmed. It generally doesn't matter if he's armed or not. The typical guideline to follow is immediate protection of your life, or the life of another in your presence.We don't see all the evidence and facts, and only have one side of the story.
From the authorities point of view, you shot an unarmed man, in a house that he had just as much right to be in. Also, you didn't really flee, since you went armed back to the front door and had a reasonable expectation of encountering your uncle. That doesn't sound like someone who is afraid for their life, it sounds confrontational.
If I was the DA I would have brought it to trial too, and I've only read your side of the story.