[Publius6961]

One is still required to believe, by the 'reasonable man' standard, that one's life or another person's life is in imminent danger. As a Constitutional scholar you should know better than to characterize a law without knowing it.

PC is rotting your brain, Dude, Something I would expect Susan to say, but to her credit, she refrained.

"Being right" in this context, is NOT the after the fact definition of "right." It is the personal honest belief of the victim of an attack, at the moment, right or wrong.

[Dilbert56]

"Being right" in this context, is NOT the after the fact definition of "right." It is the personal honest belief of the victim of an attack, at the moment, right or wrong.

I take this to mean: If someone were pointing an unloaded gun at me, and I had no way of knowing it was empty, I would be justified in using deadly force even though my life wasn't actually in danger. Because it would be reasonable to conclude my life was in danger.

[TigersEye]

You normally make a lot of sense but that post was muddier than the Mississippi. What PC? The SYG law does require that the “reasonable man” standard be applied. Estrich is saying that it doesn’t. There is no PC in my thoughts and Estrich is full of crap. Please explain what you mean.