On May 31, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Greg Jacobs wrote:
>> On a completely intellectual level, I would like to begin a brief discussion
>> of the case in Oklahoma wherein a pharmacist was convicted of murder and
>> sentenced to life in prison.
>> The pharmacist fails to catch him and re-enters the store.
>> Apparently, after retrieving a second handgun, the pharmacist fires a /coup
>> de grace**/shot or shots into the previously downed felon.
>>
>> Absent testimony and cross examination, specifically testimony that the
>> felon on the ground posed a threat, is there any question that the
>> justifiable act of using deadly force in self defense has been overcome by
>> the act of what appears to be a pre-meditated execution?
It seems pretty clear to anybody who has studied self-defense law, even as a
gun-course student.
Let me counter with another case which I feel treads the fine line just about
as closely as I have ever seen it tread. It sounds contrived, but I assure you
this event really did happen and was reported in the Boston papers.
Around 1993 in a western Boston suburb, a man and his wife were watching TV in
their house when a man known to the wife (but possibly not to the husband)
broke down their front door, brandishing a pistol. The assailant, who was
apparently a co-worker of the wife, made immediate verbal death threats against
the wife.
The husband wrestled with the attacker, who eventually dropped the gun and
(having lost this advantage) fled.
While retreating down the walk, the assailant turned around and quite clearly
threatened to come back later and kill both of them in their sleep. So the
homeowner, who had picked up the discarded gun, shot him in the chest and
killed him.
Of course, self-defense law requires that the threat be immediate. But in the
presence of this precise threat made to you, how safe would you feel letting
this fellow walk? (Keep in mind that a police report would almost certainly
have resulted in no immediate protection due to the hearsay nature of the
threat.)
Ironically, his town, like most others in Massachusetts, requires "demonstrated
basic knowledge of deadly force law" from all prospective gun OWNERS (not just
carriers). However, as this man was not himself a gun owner, he was never
required to learn any of it.
(The homeowner was, of course, convicted... the poor b**d.)
--
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty
Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch
http://libertyhaven.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
