Thats complete bs you’re out of danger if you have the weapon. Total bs. Especially when you’re already injured.
I’m in Florida. Before Governor Bush signed The Castle Doctrine bill Floridians had a duty to retreat. That meant that if you were being approached by a man wielding a machete and you had a gun, you had a duty to retreat. Only if you could not retreat were you allowed to shoot the attacker. There were many cases where the defender did retreat but ultimately fired. The prosecution would argue the defender did not try hard enough to retreat. I even read where a prosecutor asked why the defender didn’t just shoot the weapon from the attacker’s hand. (Yes, some people are really that stupid.)
“Thats complete bs you’re out of danger if you have the weapon. Total bs. Especially when you’re already injured.”
Then display please anything written in the article of further aggression right before the chest shot when Diarra shot the thief and after he took control of the gun.
“Diarra proceeded to turn the firearm on the potential thief and shot him in the chest.”
There is nothing in there to indicate any further aggression. Diarra was identified as the attendant with the gun, which he wrestled from the thief, and “turned it” on him insinuating he had the gun identified and had to turn it on the thief.
I was law enforcement in the military for combat actions and if the combatants had ceased aggression, it was over. The same films were used at that time by the Tampa Police Department. If the individual in front of you is no longer a threat, then you can’t cap him as that is a new criminal act. We need more information than the article is presenting.
wy69