Either Martinez is so ignorant of the law that he should be disbarred or the @zz of an “author” is intentionally misquoting him. Or both. What am I talking about?
“And it would only be justified by the victim’s threat of deadly physical force.”
Wrong. Threat of serious bodily harm is also legal justification for use of deadly force in AZ (I looked it up to make sure AZ didn’t have some weird quick in its self defense laws). Gee, a 43 year old charging a 59 year old despite the fact that the 59 year old had just put a round into the ground? I’m sure he just wanted to talk and there was no threat of serious bodily harm. /spit
We actually did have such a quirk in our law, up until it was reversed in 2006. Until then, the law stated that a person who used deadly force in an act of self-defense was required to prove his innocence, rather than the way it is in the rest of the country - innocent until proven guilty.
all that you should ever say is “ He said he was going to kill me. I believed him”....and nothing more