Prosecutors and antis love statements like this, as it can be so easily argued that here we have an admission that the difference between the non-deadly termination of a threat and an unnecessary deadly shooting is demonstrated. I wouldn't want to be hauled up before a grand jury, even in Texas, if I had caused that death and (I stress) there was an issue as to the legitimacy of the shooting. My attitude if I ever fell into such a situation would clearly be shown by showing this posting to the Grand Jury.57Coastie wrote:AEA wrote:That was up in my area! No,......wasn't me or the guy would have been DOA!
"Shoot to kill, then sort it out later."
Reminds me of my advice earlier on the forum, that we should always assume that the whole world will read our postings. Likewise for e-mails.
Before the Zimmerman shooting I would have thought you wrong, afterwards I do concur. Statements like that are a bit cavalier and if taken out of context could look very bad. I think that man (chl) showed great restraint. I don't know I would have. Maybe he felt the threat level not sufficient due to his physical condition or the current situation. I don't know. I do know my threat assessment would have been a little different for a lot of reasons. I cannot say for sure what I would do, but I would be leaning toward use of force if for no other reason other than the already having occurred felony assault. The assailants intent is clear, his intent was to kill and I don't think any jury or prosecutor would get any traction trying to convict a chl holder for using deadly force. The silly comments in online forums, that's something that shouldn't happen.
