It only seems like thread drift, Al. We're really talking about intent, here, and testimony with regard to intent.
Although travels in so-called allied nations, unarmed, is a bit off... but I've BTDT, and agree.
My point over anger wasn't whether one should yell or act like a maniac, simply that regardless of how well we keep our actions and words under control when under stress, most of us will in fact feel anger, or even rage.
Did it drive our actions? In most cases, no. Was it there? In most cases, yes, but it was kept suppressed. If we don't acknowledge that, in addition to being in fear for life and limb, we were also mad as hell over being put in that position, are we perjuring ourselves by omission? Or are we doing as advised by legal experts and attorneys, and leaving out irrelevant factoids that could come back and bite us?
And if such legal advise is valid, then...
Ok, I can't help it... at risk of veer, saying "Halt!" to the BG, Eghad, I hope you get a schutz-hund trained mugger.
But again, Al, my main point is that everybody picks and chooses how they frame an account, and what facts, impressions, emotions they will include. I believe the term used for those who do not temper what they say or how they say it, often as not, is "the convicted."