[Joe 6-pack]

“The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon. The other two were concealed handgun weapon carriers, and they pulled their weapons,” Grubbs said.

Sgt. Daniel Grubbs is an idiot. This guy was an assailant, not a victim.

[SargeK]

The sergeant is correct, in a narrow technical sense. However, when it comes to law all there is, is a ‘narrow, technical sense’. The deceased is a ‘victim’ of homicide - defined as the intentional killing of another. He is the ‘victim’ because he was himself the perpetrator of criminal attempt of homicide.

The law provides for justification for reason of defense of oneself or another, which was correctly applied by the authorities here.

So although it sounds in a first reading like the decedent is somehow not responsible for his own demise, that’s not the case. Bad guy tried to shoot his ex lady and her new friends. Intended victims shot better. Cops and prosecutor correctly investigated and applied a just law.

All is well.

[piytar]

Grubbs ran toward trouble, did not simply shoot anyone with a gun, and otherwise appears to have behaved properly. My bet is that theonly idiot here is the POS “journalist” who added his spin to the story.

[Raven6]

I kind of felt the same way as you... Then, as I thought about it and remembered the actual title of a class I teach, I realized he was indeed a victim. The class I teach is titled “Don’t Be a Victim”, and that is exactly what his targets made sure happened: Bad guy became a victim because his intended targets refused to do so. I will not be a victim, the bad guy will.