Which means, in fact, that there is no standard. What is a reasonable person? Will you have neighbors testify as to the shooter's character?

My consternation is not negligible.

That's beside the point, Eric, we're discussing the legality of the shooting.

All right. Scenario is, you're on the street, at night, no witnesses. Some guy hits your car with his own, he starts to shout, he looks threatening to you. Do you shoot? If you shoot, do you think you can get away with it?

Certainly, but it does mean that there's no one to confirm that you did, in fact, defend yourself, and not murder an innocent.

Well, sure, but you're not the police. The police have a dead body (the victim), and you (the suspect).

This begs the question of how the police determine what is a legitimate threat and what isn't. This is what I've been wondering since the beginning of our discussion, in case you didn't notice.

There shouldn't be a "standard". That's just the point.

Someone who's a black belt in Kung Fu would be well suited to defending himself against two unarmed, but determined, assailants. Some middle aged insurance salesman with a gut, though, who hasn't see the inside of a gym since watching "Rocky" probably wouldn't be.

Yet both should be allowed and able to defend themselves. Should the insurance salesman be told he can't use a gun just because someone else doesn't need one in the same situation?

That'd be fucking stupid...

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




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

Not that there is no standard, just not a simple formula. Human beings are not machines. Because of this, A + B does not always equal C. Sometimes it equals F, sometimes blue.

The "reasonable man" standard means what a normal, well adjusted adult would do in that situation. In other words, probably the opposite of what you would do

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

Good points actually. I am eager to hear the answers.

__________________

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

No, it isnt beside the point. That is the WHOLE point. If someone is attacking me, I have a legal and moral right to defend myself. If I decide, based upon the circumstances, to use lethal force, that choice is mine and mine alone to make. In my state at least, there is no such legal concept as parity of force or an unreasonable response. An attack which could cause me ANY harm justifies the use of lethal force. This isn't a gray area - its codified explicitly in Texas code.
If he remains in his car, and is just shouting, probably not. If he comes at me with an obviously aggressive posture, it is very probable my gun will be drawn. If he does not stop when told to and continues his aggressive advance, I WILL stop him.

Will i get away with it? I don't like the way that is phrased as it implies my actions would be illegal or even questionable. The scenario you presented could well escalate to a point where I would not be breaking any law by stopping the threat. There would be nothing to "get away with". Now if you meant to say "would I go to jail for my actions", then I'd have to say no, I would not.
This is true, and this is where other factors would come into play, such as the size of my assailant, the circumstances of the attack, my (non-existent) criminal record compared to his, etc. Did i call 911 immediately afterwards, or did i run? Did i wait for the police? How did i react when they arrived? Normal people who have been forced by circumstances to take a life react completely differently than someone who has committed a crime. These are all factored in. If i acted like someone who was put in a bad situation and had to defend his life, i'd very likely not be charged. If i acted like a criminal, yeah, i'd be going to jail.
See above. there are many other factors which come into play. From a legal perspective, if it is considered a self-defense shooting, i will not go to jail. Period. There is no gray area on this.

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

Did the person intend to hit my car or was it an accident? Did he get out of his car after doing so, and then approach me in a threatening manner, or was he yelling while examining the damage to his vehicle?

To "look" threatening and "act" threatening are two very different things. If someone looks threatening, that probably won't cut it. If they act threatening, that likely would.

And it's not a question of "Can I get away with it?". No reasonable, sane person, with any sort of firearms and deadly force training, is going to ask themself that.

The question would be "Am I justified in shooting this guy?". If I conclude that I am, then I better be damn sure that I made the right decision.

So far, I'm battin' 1.000...

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




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

Okay, I'll take your word for it. The possibility for abuse seems excessive to me. I wonder how many postmen and cops get shot each year.

What IS an aggressive advance? My point is, if you shoot him before he committed a crime, YOU are the criminal, not him, your conviction that he would have notwithstanding.

Sorry, I was trying to keep it short.

It all sounds very unscientific too me. Which is probably why Texas courts keep convicting, and executing, innocents.

I understand. In some instances, murder can be legal in Texas.

Accident, guy gets out of car, it's ruined, starts shouting, seems to be getting more and more excited, comes closer to you.

Subjective. Different people have different body language. Some people move very fast when they're excited, can be scary. Doesn't tell you anything about their intentions though.

I did not mean to imply that you would ask yourself this question at the moment.

Well, you could still be wrong. It's not like you never are...

Postmen? None that I've heard of, but you're welcome to look it up. I'm sure there would be a news story or 10 about it if your fears had any basis in reality. Ignoring the fact that a postman has the legal authority to come onto your property to deliver a package...

Cops? Some of them get shot, but not the way you're attempting to imply. Again, I'm very certain there would be news stories about it, and then there's that whole legal authority thing.
You cannot seriously be asking this question. There is a world of difference in body language and posture when someone is approaching you aggressively with intent to harm and just walking up to talk.
Thats because you're not listening to a damn thing being said, and you want justice to be a computer program.
You understand incorrectly. Murder is not legal in Texas.

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

That could get ugly if the guy doesn't calm down. Again though, there's that whole body language thing. Big difference between excited/frustrated/scared due to the accident and an aggressive/attacking posture. Children understand this instinctively. Why YOU don't is beyond me. Perhaps things are different in France?
Just as I have the responsibility to exercise good judgment and not shoot someone who is merely overreacting, others have the responsibility to be certain their actions are not perceived as threatening.

What you're attempting to do is say there are times that innocent actions can be misinterpreted. This is true, and is an unfortunate reality of life. If your fears had any basis in reality though, we'd see thousands of incidents per year of private citizens killing others over traffic accidents, and yet we dont. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because your fears are baseless?

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

I would probably try to calm the situation verbally. If that didn't work, I'd try to keep my car between him and me. If that didn't work, and if he kept advancing towards me in a threatening manner, yeah, I'd shoot him.

And I would be justified in doing so...

The person's intentions don't matter much. It's how the actions are perceived. If someone feels threatened, he have an absolute right to defend himself...

Certainly seemed that way. Otherwise, what's the point in mentioning it if it's not going to be asked right before the trigger gets pulled?

When it comes to using deadly force, I have never been wrong...

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




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