Shooting someone who is intending to do you serious physical harm is NOT just shooting him "for giggles'. That you cannot make the distinction shows serious flaws in your character, your conscience and your thought process.

Additionally, if you felt compelled to come after me with deadly force because a relative of yours violated my rights and got himself killed in the process, YOU would be guilty of attempted murder and would very likely find yourself killed in the process of carrying out your crime.

The "law" wouldnt let me walk. The Texas State Code would ensure i was never charged. Killing someone in self-defense is no more a chargeable offense than crossing the street at the crosswalk with a light. In other words, its perfectly legal.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Several men beating a man would be the same malicious behavior.

Here in the civilized world, we call that attempted murder, regardless of the sex of the victim.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Not as far as I know. You'd have to prove intent, for that.

Uh - yeah - sure. The same rocket scientists who wouldn't seem to understand that their relative was a mental midget who got himself shot while trying to beat a man to death would some how have the mental capacity to procure cyanide and carry out a covert assassination or the skill to surreptitiously sabotage an automobile.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Regardless of whatever fine distinctions of the law you wish to make, multiple attackers on a single target is most assuredly a situation in which the potential victim is justified in using deadly force, regardless of the sex of the attacked.

In this country, we do not expect victims to discern the motives of their attackers before responding.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Unfortunately, you're getting ahead of yourself. You have no way to know beforehand the intent of the presumed aggressor, as a matter of fact, he isn't even the aggressor until he has actually assaulted you, so that makes your preventive use of deadly force unjustified. Maybe you're paranoid and belong in a psychiatric ward. Who knows?

Well, the law having proven unjust already, and complicit of your crime, I'd have to make sure I didn't get caught. I love a challenge.

Great. I'm sure cannibalism is legal too, somewhere...

And thus ends any real conversation on the matter...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Pure slander. Again, your paranoid speculations are not an accurate description of the situation. I have no inclination to take the law into my own hands, but if I were subjected to such an injustice, you have my guarantee that I would.

Clearly, you have no comprehension for when the use of force to defends oneself is permissible...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Only if you so choose. By the way, THAT would be premeditated murder. Demonstrably so, unlike the situation we are discussing.

Newsflash, Steve. The law is different from state to state, all the more so from country to country. It makes your sentence quite silly.

If I shoot four people threatening to kick my ass, that's premeditated murder?

I've got news for you, Sport, I happen to know otherwise...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

What if there is a single unarmed attacker? What if he didn't even attack you? What if there are no witnesses?

The problem is, in your scenario, the victims are clearly the dead men.

I don't know which State it would be illegal to shoot four would-be assailants (armed or otherwise). Perhaps you could help me out and tell me.

Or you can dodge...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Threatening how? You don't like their faces?