Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,929
Let me know how it plays out for you. We each have our own standard. Line in the sand. Blah blah blah. Do what you want. Just own the consequences.So being elderly (whatever that means) having pre existing medical conditions (whatever that means) have a physically fit, possibly drug impaired, unjustifiably and irrationally angry, (whatever that means) that is making verbal threats that they are going to beat the living bubblegum out of me, wouldn't justify a reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death?
It's all about the totality of the circumstances!
So a response of, I'll shoot you in the face, does nothing but elicit a response of, "I can beat the bubblegum out of you before you can draw your gun", doesn't increase my fear or risk of serious harm?
What if he asks me if I'd ever heard of the 17 foot rule?
Would that be a justification for fearing serious injury?
What if your previous experience spoke of someone who is likely in the midst of an amphetamine rage and the fact that he was angry over a disrespectful tilt of the head and eye contact.
So we have an unarmed person, and this elderly, physically impaired individual facing the above set of circumstances, wouldn't be justified in shooting this man in the face, if he attacked?
Well, I guess my use of verbal judo and the glint in my eye, was enough to keep us all from finding out how this would have ended, if the enraged tweeker had followed through with his threat, because I would have without hesitation followed through with my response to his initial threat.
And I would honestly love to have anyone of you on the jury.
ps. He didn't say bubblegum.
By the way it's the 21 foot rule. Not 17. And words are just words.
Ability. Opportunity. Intent.
Last Edited: