Here’s ther rule for deadly force in the state of Washington:
“The State code provides that the use of, or attempted use of deadly force upon another person is lawful when used to prevent or attempted to prevent an actual felony against the individual using the force, or against a person in the individual’s presence or to prevent an actual felony within the person’s home or dwelling.
The use of deadly force must be lawful; the individual’s actions will be evaluated in light of his or her subjective impressions and all the acts and circumstances known to the individual at the time. The question is whether the shooter’s conduct was what a reasonably prudent person would do under the same or similar circumstances as they appeared to the shooter at the time.
In some cases, criminal and civil charges may be brought against a person who uses deadly force. If the shooter’s action is found to be justified in a criminal case, the defendant’s costs will be reimbursed by the state. (RCW 9A.16.050, RCW 9A.16.110)”
*****************************************
The second paragraph is the kicker. Although it seems that in this case, the numerous attempts of the man to stop/fend off the thugs that outnumbered him and his pregnant girlfriend was not working. So then escalation to pulling a gun would be warranted. (Outnumbered, pregnent are pretty good “circumstances” to be aware of. If the girlfriend ended up on the ground and being beaten it would be even more of a no-brainer).
It doesn’t need to be to protect oneself (or another) from death. It can be done to prevent a felony (assault and robbery in this case). The assault that occured would seem to be a First Degree (worst) assault, designed to inflict significant injury.
Thanks. I expect these laws to be reasonable similar in most states.
My intent and responsibility to myself is to survive an incident so that a jury can decide my fate rather than some feral Blacks out for racial vengence.