What do you YELL!

WayneinFL said:
If you tell the guy to do whatever or else you're going to shoot, I've heard that could be used against you in court to prove malice or premeditation. Maybe one of the lawyers who goes through these forums could chime in and support or refute this.
Click to expand...


I suppose that would depend on what the BG was doing that you told him to stop doing.

If he was doing something that clearly gives you the legal and moral right to shoot him, I don't see how it would cause you trouble. In fact, you could defend your actions by saying, "Well, he was pointing a firearm at me, and I told him to STOP, DROP THE WEAPON OR I'LL SHOOT and he did not, so I shot him."

If a person is advancing on you with a raised crowbar, and you are pointing your gun at him, and you tell him to stop or you'll shoot, that's not premeditated killing. That's you actually holding BACK at first, NOT killing even though you justifiably could, and then doing so after the BG's failure to cease his attack.

Of course, I'm no lawyer -- but I sure as hell believe that the law on this ought to be based on this kind of common sense.


-azurefly
 
We Brits, in a crisp but authorative way shout:
Army! Stop or I Fire.

Then we can engage, unless life is imminently threatened when we don't have to give a warning; we can shoot immediately and without a warning.

The rules of engagement vary on the theatre we are in, but one's absolute right to self defence is inviolable. We are given it under UK Law and it really pisses off people like the United Nations, who accuse Brits of shooting too often! In Bosnia we had a 'reputation' and the warring factions we always complaining to the UN that when they shot at the Brits, they fired back! Some of the other European nations on that mission, UNPROFOR in the early 90s, would just hunker down and let the opposition shot at them all day long until they got bored and wandered off to do some more ethnic cleansing!:barf:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top