I’m saying that what you can do - “get away with” to put it roughly - has changed substantially over the past 50 years.
So, now even people like George Zimmerman, defending himself in the commission of an aggravated assault against him, get raked over the coals.
When it comes to George Zimmerman I agree. He was clearly in fear for his life.
The only thing they had going for them, was possibly an illegal concealed carry, or some other angle.
That failed.
He got railroaded by the press and the Left. Obama opened up his yap and offended about everyone with a few functioning brain cells.
Let’s go back to the pharmacy.
If it was your son and he tried to rob a place, was shot, and was laying in a pool of blood, unconscious, and there was no gun within ten feet of him, wouldn’t you be pretty upset if the pharmacist went and got another gun, came back and executed him by shooting him in the head?
I’m not trying to defend the kid per se. He deserved to go to the hospital and obtain medical care. Then he should have been tried in a court of law. And then he should have done 7 to 10 in prison > IMO.
If your son got in with the wrong crowd and was laying there, he wouldn’t deserve to be executed.
If he had become a threat again, and the pharmacist had came to the conclusion he had to be shot again, and he did, I think he would have been fair game.
While this may not be how it happened, it’s important to me to introduce a concept.
We generally don’t kick a guy when he’s down and out, even if he has done something terribly wrong.
By no means do I think the pharmacist should put his life on the line for this concept though.
As long as it is “REASONED”, you allow the guy to live.