The attorneys might make that claim, but it was no such thing. You can shoot with the left hand just as well as the right hand for close range.
The aggressor was a lethal and immediate threat the instant he stepped out of his vehicle with a gun in hand. Doesn't matter which hand.
It was a good self-defense shoot.
“You can shoot with the left hand just as well as the right hand for close range.”
That is a basis for a criminal trial. Not a wrongful death suit. Different field of play.
“The aggressor was a lethal and immediate threat the instant he stepped out of his vehicle with a gun in hand.”
Not neccessarily. He could have gone the other way. Remember, this is a suit, not a criminal trial. If the plaintiff’s lawyers can prove the shooter was contributory to the death, it is a paid injury and depending on the state, how the reward will be given. In California, for instanse, killing someone who is imminently endangering your life is a key to stand your ground scenerios. Any contributory action by the shooter can be a problem in the suit. And he being the only shooter and the only person to obviously aim a gun are strikes against him.
“It was a good self-defense shoot.”
Not with what I see. We can’t see the angle of the gun in his left hand as it is behind his body. But if the gun was not aimed at the shooter, the guy outside the car is allowed to carry a gun if he has a permit and has no liability to dispose of it. Anger does not fill the descriuption of threat by itself. And this is why I think it may get interesting.
wy69
“You can shoot with the left hand just as well as the right hand for close range.”
That is a basis for a criminal trial. Not a wrongful death suit. Different field of play.
“The aggressor was a lethal and immediate threat the instant he stepped out of his vehicle with a gun in hand.”
Not neccessarily. He could have gone the other way. Remember, this is a suit, not a criminal trial. If the plaintiff’s lawyers can prove the shooter was contributory to the death, it is a paid injury and depending on the state, how the reward will be given. In California, for instanse, killing someone who is imminently endangering your life is a key to stand your ground scenerios. Any contributory action by the shooter can be a problem in the suit. And he being the only shooter and the only person to obviously aim a gun are strikes against him.
“It was a good self-defense shoot.”
Not with what I see. We can’t see the angle of the gun in his left hand as it is behind his body. But if the gun was not aimed at the shooter, the guy outside the car is allowed to carry a gun if he has a permit and has no liability to dispose of it. Anger does not fill the descriuption of threat by itself. And this is why I think it may get interesting.
wy69