If it was a justifiable shooting, you don;t have to argue how you found yourself in that situation. You may have to argue the definition of the threat, i.e. "he had a baseball bat" or "he had a knife" etc. Once you define the deadly force from the bad guy you have already explained how you found yourself there. Next your lawyer asks if members of the jury have ever had a family member in a hospital. Then your lawyer asks them if they want criminals to run free in hospitals harming people. While it may not be fun, I do not suspect the grand jury or trial would last long.thetexan wrote:Yeah. You would start trial with one footin the grave.
How can one argue that you found yourself in a situation where the use of deadly force was reasonably believed to be immediately necessary at a location where you where legally prohibited from be present?
This isn't an accurate statement/question. If a person had obeyed the sign they still would have felt it immediately necessary to use a gun when the treat presented itself. They simply wouldn't have had one at their disposal. The sign doesn't remove the need.thetexan wrote:Had you obeyed the law you would have never felt it immediately necessary to use a gun that you never should have had to defend yourself in a situation you never should have been in?
thetexan wrote:tex