No need to dodge, Steve. Who says they were "assailants"? You? You're the perpetrator of a multiple homicide. Maybe you're a serial killer. Maybe you wanted their money?

If someone shoots a single unarmed attacker, the shooter has acted legally. The presence of a weapon under the control of the attacker doesn't matter.

Have you never heard of someone being beaten to death? Choked to death?

Adrien, you don't knnow what the fuck you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop making yourself look so silly...

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




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

If you want to know the details, they're all contained in this thread. Go read them and educate yourself.

In the meantime, please tell us, and provide references for, which States do not allow someone to shoot an attacker...

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




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

I'm not commenting on the incident you mentioned earlier. I was replying to EricOKC. The point was, there is no way for the police to know who assaulted whom, and even if there was, would I be justified in shooting a 6 year old who bit my ankle? No? A 14 year old who outweighs me by 20 kilos? Surely you realize that the problem is more complex than you make it out to be.

Theoretically speaking - this means that you could indeed shot and kill 3 or 4 guys that you have a beef with, (and who didnt want to harm you) and then get away with it if you said that it was in self defence?

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Or you could be a mugger and claim you were being mugged.

For instance, but so could you in France and Denmark I guess.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

I suppose this means that I could meet up with you, EricOKC, and Matt Larson somewhere in the U.S, shoot all of you dog dead, and then get away scott free if I said that it was done in self defence? There had to be no witnesses of course.

Just as much as I would have nothing against shooting unarmed attackers, just as much do I think that such an incident as a very minimum should go to court.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Thus the legal standard commonly used: a reasonable person in that situation would feel threatened.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Its NOT slander my friend. As there would have been no injustice, you would simply be letting your emotions dictate an erroneous and childish response - hence the "rocket scientist" reference. Obviously not the actions of a very smart individual.

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

I have no doubt that, in the cesspool that is France, you're absolutely correct...

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




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

Depends on the situation, but if he's attacking me, he pretty well deserves what he gets.
Depends. Is he in my home without permission? Then it doesnt matter if he attacks me or not. In the eyes of the law in my state, he is assumed to be there with ill intent.

Just some random guy on the street? Well then, I'd be committing murder.
The lack or presence of witnesses does not change whether or not I have a right to defend myself.
I do not consider a criminal killed during the commission of a crime to be a victim, except perhaps of his own stupidity.

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

I can't even comprehend such a situation, as I would never act in such an irrational manner...

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




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

Of course it is, but then again, i dont believe the original scenario as described involved a 6 year old biting an adults ankle.

Dont be an idiot.

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

Well, in my situation, I was taken into custody (which I fully expected). The possibility of my being charged was very real. The DA's office examined what evidence there was; mainly weapons found at the scene bearing the fingerprints of the hands I said they were in (one right, one left).

Could they have charged me? Sure. And the DA's office would've looked like complete fucking idiots once the evidence was examined in open court. So, yeah, I could've been charged, and I could've been tried. And there would've been a snowball's chance in Hell that I'd have been convicted.

Then again, the DA wasn't inclined to charge me, anyway, as the two people in question weren't exactly unknown to the criminal justice system. My recounting of the incident went along with how the two were known to conduct themselves.

The only difference in my situation was that I was in a position to adequately defend myself, and defend myself legally...

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




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