[John O]

me->If the perp is still armed there is still a threat. If I sat on the jury and the perp was still breathing I'd consider there to still be a threat.

you->Reread the original comment....

Having stopped the threat, not everybody has the makeup to then take the kill shot.

Let me be blatantly clear. If the perp is still breathing, you have not stopped the threat. If he is still armed (you know he had one gun, You don't know if he was carrying another) you have not stopped the threat. If there is any chance of future retaliation, you have not stopped the threat.

If I were sitting on the jury in any case where a person shot and killed a 'person' who had assaulted (attacked, tried to rob, etc) them, I would find the person not guilty due to self defense.

See what I am saying?

[Niteranger68]

Let me be blatantly clear. If the perp is still breathing, you have not stopped the threat. If he is still armed (you know he had one gun, You don't know if he was carrying another) you have not stopped the threat. If there is any chance of future retaliation, you have not stopped the threat. If I were sitting on the jury in any case where a person shot and killed a 'person' who had assaulted (attacked, tried to rob, etc) them, I would find the person not guilty due to self defense. See what I am saying?

I completely understand what you are saying, it's just doesn't jibe with the laws in my state. We are debating the way thing are vs the way they should be. If you shoot an armed attacker, he falls down seriously wounded, his arms spread out on the ground, and his weapon falls beyond his reach, you do not have legal grounds to finish him off. There is a fine line between personal defense and retribution. Now, if we were all guaranteed 12 John O's on the jury, we might act differently. But when I think of a 12 person jury, I think of those morons on the OJ jury. I don't want to trust my freedom to 12 random citizens.