That's a good analysis, in general, and he is correct that there are differing laws in different jurisdictions, some greater variable, and some lesser, so it behooves you to know what the law is in the jurisdiction you are in.
I'm in VA, and VA is where I took my law enforcement training. The law here is that you have to be in "reasonable fear" of death or great bodily harm. It's that "reasonable fear" that a jury will have to decide whether it was actually reasonable or not - would they, if they had been in your shoes, also have been in "reasonable fear"?
That's where a good lawyer comes into the picture, it's his job to convince them they'd have been scared silly and convinced their own death was imminent.
So one of the differences between here and Washington state is that we don't have that "subjective AND objective" test. Another key difference is that deadly force is authorized if you SEE a felony in commission here. It doesn't have to be against you, nor does it have to be in your home. If it's a felony, and they resist, they are bought and paid for.
But an important factor there is knowing what is and what isn't a felony. That can get kinda dicey, especially if you are not current on state law.
But the bottom line is just what he said - it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If I'm in doubt, I'm going to err on the side of survival, and let a jury sort it out later.
A case can be made for a small woman shooting an unarmed man if he attacks her here. The presumption is that he has the capability to overpower her and either injure or even kill her. For men, it's a little different. Generally one man cannot just shoot another man for assaulting him. However, if there are two or more assailants, then the picture (sight picture, that is) gets a whole lot clearer.
A frail old man, or woman, can possibly make the case to a jury that he or she was in imminent danger from an assault from a strapping young man. What is a "reasonable fear" will vary from case to case.
In the end, it's really what you can convince a jury of, and whether that falls under a legal shoot or not. Same for a vehicle, or a handy crowbar, or anything else potentially deadly.
I was also taught that if you have to shoot someone, make sure they are down for the count. No "winging" them or other mere injury, put 'em down cold. The reason being that if they live to roll into a courtroom in a wheel chair, they have a greater chance of eliciting sympathy from the jury, and that can go poorly for you. I used to know a guy that did 15 years in prison for shooting and wounding a man, and the judge said he'd have never spent a day in jail had he gone ahead and killed the guy.
Besides, shooting someone to wound them is cruel and inhumane.
.
.
I'm in VA, and VA is where I took my law enforcement training. The law here is that you have to be in "reasonable fear" of death or great bodily harm. It's that "reasonable fear" that a jury will have to decide whether it was actually reasonable or not - would they, if they had been in your shoes, also have been in "reasonable fear"?
That's where a good lawyer comes into the picture, it's his job to convince them they'd have been scared silly and convinced their own death was imminent.
So one of the differences between here and Washington state is that we don't have that "subjective AND objective" test. Another key difference is that deadly force is authorized if you SEE a felony in commission here. It doesn't have to be against you, nor does it have to be in your home. If it's a felony, and they resist, they are bought and paid for.
But an important factor there is knowing what is and what isn't a felony. That can get kinda dicey, especially if you are not current on state law.
But the bottom line is just what he said - it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If I'm in doubt, I'm going to err on the side of survival, and let a jury sort it out later.
A case can be made for a small woman shooting an unarmed man if he attacks her here. The presumption is that he has the capability to overpower her and either injure or even kill her. For men, it's a little different. Generally one man cannot just shoot another man for assaulting him. However, if there are two or more assailants, then the picture (sight picture, that is) gets a whole lot clearer.
A frail old man, or woman, can possibly make the case to a jury that he or she was in imminent danger from an assault from a strapping young man. What is a "reasonable fear" will vary from case to case.
In the end, it's really what you can convince a jury of, and whether that falls under a legal shoot or not. Same for a vehicle, or a handy crowbar, or anything else potentially deadly.
I was also taught that if you have to shoot someone, make sure they are down for the count. No "winging" them or other mere injury, put 'em down cold. The reason being that if they live to roll into a courtroom in a wheel chair, they have a greater chance of eliciting sympathy from the jury, and that can go poorly for you. I used to know a guy that did 15 years in prison for shooting and wounding a man, and the judge said he'd have never spent a day in jail had he gone ahead and killed the guy.
Besides, shooting someone to wound them is cruel and inhumane.
.
.