jp49911
Regular Member
A lot to consider
As others have pointed out you have to consider that things may be different than they appear. Also, while I agree that an unarmed person can definitely be a threat to your life, I'm not so confident D.A.'s, juries and judges would feel. I'm pretty pessimistic given the common perception of guns in our society. The headline the next day would probably be:
Gunman Claims Self-Defense In Shooting Unarmed Man
It would probably be uphill from there. Even if we are making sound decisions based off of well thought out risk management assessment, you have to consider the criminal and civil ramifications. Of course the arrest, bail, loss of firearm, trial, legal fees and hassle of the criminal case would be a nightmare even if you were acquitted and got your weapon back (a year and a half later). You could be hit with a civil suit by his wife for taking their family's only means for income. You'd probably win that hands down but you still have the legal hassle and bill.
Point is, even if you would be justified to use lethal force based on risk assessment, unfortunately the law may not agree so I say ALWAYS avoid it unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. I like Dreamers suggestion of less than lethal tools as an option in such cases. Spray, taze, retreat do whatever you have to before shooting an unarmed person. I'd run down the street screaming help before I face a murder charge and put my self, wife and child in the situation of not having me for 20 years, if the person was unarmed.
As others have pointed out you have to consider that things may be different than they appear. Also, while I agree that an unarmed person can definitely be a threat to your life, I'm not so confident D.A.'s, juries and judges would feel. I'm pretty pessimistic given the common perception of guns in our society. The headline the next day would probably be:
Gunman Claims Self-Defense In Shooting Unarmed Man
It would probably be uphill from there. Even if we are making sound decisions based off of well thought out risk management assessment, you have to consider the criminal and civil ramifications. Of course the arrest, bail, loss of firearm, trial, legal fees and hassle of the criminal case would be a nightmare even if you were acquitted and got your weapon back (a year and a half later). You could be hit with a civil suit by his wife for taking their family's only means for income. You'd probably win that hands down but you still have the legal hassle and bill.
Point is, even if you would be justified to use lethal force based on risk assessment, unfortunately the law may not agree so I say ALWAYS avoid it unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. I like Dreamers suggestion of less than lethal tools as an option in such cases. Spray, taze, retreat do whatever you have to before shooting an unarmed person. I'd run down the street screaming help before I face a murder charge and put my self, wife and child in the situation of not having me for 20 years, if the person was unarmed.
