Only if those doing the purging just happen to align politically with the rulers of Eugene
otherwise, excpect them to send their full force of the Lane County SWAT and the Eugene PD "special" teams against people who are trying to defend themselves. After all, the criminals are a protected class 
Ignorance of the law of gravity is not a defense.
I like the outcome but think he's be behind bars if that had happened here.
I don't know I would say he's in legitimate threat of his life. The perp has assaulted him with a deadly weapon and is still in the act. To me it's like a mugger pointing a gun at a woman and she backs up and drops her purse on the ground. She could take him out as he leans down to get the purse. I see it the same way personally. But I guess that's why we have grand juries.
I completely agree but, you can watch the perp reholster his gun, the victim couldn't see it but that doesn't matter. I'm just guessing that a DA here would use that as evidence that the perp was disengaging and well on his way to turning his life around
I would say it does matter and agree that he was still under threat. The good guys assumption should be that " it's more likely than not" that the firearm is still in play until proven otherwise. "My gun wasn't pointing at you at the time you shot me so I call foul" doesn't wash as unjustified and making assumptions on the side of safety is never a good idea in an encounter like that.
Very good points!I would say it does matter and agree that he was still under threat. The good guys assumption should be that " it's more likely than not" that the firearm is still in play until proven otherwise. "My gun wasn't pointing at you at the time you shot me so I call foul" doesn't wash as unjustified and making assumptions on the side of safetly is never a good idea in an encounter like that.
The perp is still demonstrating ongoing motivation and the means to inflict serious bodily harm. It only take a moment for him to turn and shoot and there is no rule that says he has to have a valid reason to do it. How many times do we hear of a person fully complying with a bad actor and they get shot anyway for not apparent reason?
I'm not saying he likely couldn't have taken cover and let them leave the scene, but his actions were reasonably argueable to still be within a self defense claim, IMHO.
One factor not to overlook is.... he is a LEO, sworn to uphold the law and eliminate threats to the public. I'm sure that has a bit to do with him chosing to engage the perps. If a uniformed officer had done what he did, I think there would be little question if it was a good shoot or not.
For the average "Joe", it may not be as cut and dry, but I still think he would make out okay facing a reasonable jury. Meaning... not in a predominately woke city. They'll crucify him for simply carrying a firearm while not on duty and in uniform.
Hope something that's named that cleverly works better than the Inflation "Reduction" Act, LOL
