Reply #51: not gratuitous thanks. :)

[selador]

"The law in civilized societies requires that people do what is reasonably possible to avert injury or death to themselves without harming the person who they fear is about to cause it. (Nothing to do with waiting. But don't let me interrupt your strawfest.)"

that's arguably true (not legally in many circumstances, but certainly not legally in most). but what exactly is a person in a CAR stuck in TRAFFIC supposed to do when a crazed man runs up pulls his door open and reaches?

say "he"llo?"

"Of course, someone who "lol"s at the idea that it is inappropriate to kill a human being when there is an alternative would seem to have run pretty low on that."

the alternative is that the person in the car NOT shoot him.

which would mean, based upon the facts/circumstances available to him, place himself in undue danger.

{it wasn't gratuitous. it was legally justified.

I would be legally justified in calling you poisonous toad (if I happened to choose to do that). You might nonetheless think it was gratuitous. See how the two things are completely unrelated?"

they are sometimes related, but that's not the point

it was justified AND it wasn't gratuitous. it was, frankly, a CLASSIC good shoot.

the cops who investigated did the right thing, and so did the guy in the car based upon what he knew

we'll never KNOW what the guy would have done. and that's irrelevant to legality/gratuitousness. the issue is facts and circumstances as a "reasonable person" (legal standard) would apprehend them