Come on, "pure crap", you could have disagreed more respectfully. Read what the OP wrote and then read my comment.
So you are saying that anyone is perfectly justified in shooting a person with a gun because "who knows what he was going to do next"?
I wrote: "That defense will get you a nice long time in prison." And I stand by that comment. The devil is in the details. I did not say he did the wrong thing by shooting. I found the rational as expressed severely lacking. One had better formulate a much more comprehensive defense that clearly states why you were in fear for your life or the life of others and be able to clearly articulate it. Thereby convincing all that any reasonable person would have taken the same course of action. That action as described must be found to be "Justifiable Homicide". Which in our legal system shifts the burden of proof back on you to "justify" your actions.
Then hopefully the facts will be on your side. It sure would suck if it turned out that the guy had a Airsoft pistol. No, I am not saying that a toy gun that looked real gets you jammed up. However it surely would not make things easier.
As a side note, always in the back of my mind lurks the ever present Mr. Murphy. Generating unending scenarios. 1. You never saw the perpetrator's accomplice. 2. A cop just happens to walk in the door and only sees you Pop the guy in front of you in line in the back of the head. 3. ...
Regarding your comments about Ayoob being "overly dramatic". Sure the guy is running a business. He has to eat too. What do you want, someone who will tell you what usually happens or someone who tells you what actually can happen? When you are dealing with Life or Death I vote on knowing the entire spectrum of possibilities. If I were running the same kind of class I would feel remiss if I stuck to teaching only the routine scenarios.
John O
I didn't mean any disrespect. Let me clarify. The general tone of what you have written is a bit more . . cautious than any person's sense of ethics, and in fact, the laws of CT allow.
If you as a reasonable person feel that either you or another person's are at risk of grave bodily harm, then you can lawfully use deadly physical force.
Reality has shown that in CT, "innocent" people who are just protecting themselves are NOT prosecuted. In most cases they aren't even arrested.
I can think of two cases in New Haven in just the last year, a very anti-gun town, where firearms were used defensively and the victim was not even arrested for his legal use of a handgun.
If someone is holding up a Burger King with a toy gun, you would be legally and ethically justified if that gun appeared real to you. You would be squeaky clean.
And yes, I am perfectly justified in shooting a guy with a gun who is using it for aggressive purposes because "who knows what he is going to do next".
Based on your writing, you are a highly intelligent person who is just a little mis-informed. I suggest you give this a read:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/Part2/2.8-1.htm
This is a good primer on the castle doctrine and the use of physical force by the CT Office of Legislative Research:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
To make a brief citation from the report:
Physical Force in Defense of Person
A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:
1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;
2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.
The words to key in on here are "reasonable belief" and "complete safety".
Don