If I see some nutjob holding you down and repeatedly stabbing you I can legally draw and fire my firarm to stop the attack.
Well, I'd prefer that you knew first aid in that situation since it would be far more helpful than you shooting him.
Boy, I missed how incorrect that answer was. And this asshole had the gall to say I didn't know what I was talking about.
He would only have the legal right to assist me if I had the right of self-defence.
To put this in context, I have just shot someone who was robbing me. 45limpdick walks into the situation and shoots me. He would be liable since I had just shot an aggressor.
Of course then Laci prefers once-great Britain where they will throw the victim in jail and let the criminals run free
Hmm, maybe if the British Tax collectors the soldiers at the Boston Massacre, or the people who owned the tea ships had used deadly force.
Britain will be great long after the USA has become a footnote in history.
Also, FWM mentions that self-defence is a justification. It is a defence to the charges, it is not a get out of jail free card. If the use of self-defence is improper one can still have liability, especially if one uses deadly force. Also, this is a criminal defence, not a civil one. You can still be civilly liable for improper use of deadly force.
To be quite honest, I wish these people would keep their guns to themselves.
FWM cited the case of Munir Hussein who used excessive force in "defending his home from an intruder". Well, not really, they chased the guys down the street after the attack. The Judge in this case commented that:
“If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”
Yes, I do prefer the rule of law to the vigilantism that the gun cretins advocate.
NOTE: I didn't originally catch that Muni Hussein had chased the perps down the street and then wailed on them. That DOES put the incident in a whole different light.
One cannot let defence become offence by using too much force or by attacking after the threat is gone.
As for cops v. civilians, Cops have a couple of things that civilians don't (1) training and (2) protection from liability. A cop is slightly less likely to get into trouble if they make a mistake in judgement (e.g., shooting someone by mistake). A Civilian will have to deal with the civil and criminal liability of their actions.
I know that the mantra is "I don't dial 911". On the other hand, you cover your arse if you do dial it to let them know something has, or is happening.
To be quite honest, prevention is a whole lot better than shooting someone: especailly if you are going to end up in court (criminal or civil).