Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
I think the law is actually a lot closer to what Rathji said. If someone is threatening you with a knife and showing clear intention to kill you shooting them would not be out of the question, even if it kills them.
Not only is there the right to self-defence, the court will also take into account the heat of the moment.
Basically, what I am saying is that if someone tries to kill you, you don't have to get into some kind of star trek style duel w/ them using their weapon of choice. What is considered proportional is relative to the entirety of the circumstances. A knife is a lethal weapon and if the situation is extremely threatening you have the right to shoot them however you like. |
Yes, but a knife wielder is pretty harmless until they get into arm's length, especially to a man with a gun. The law could easily say that because I own a firearm, I should know how to use it. Because I know how to use it, I should be able to shoot to maim within 5-15ft. If I shot him in the head on my first shot, they could say that I failed to, or ought to have shot to disable, and because I didn't, I'm criminally liable. Not for murder one, but for something.
As for your last paragraph, I agree. Thats why I said, no one would rationally expect a person being attacked to switch to an equal weapon and engage in an, as you said, a "Star Trek" style duel.