“Running toward someone else with a knife or lethal weapon and his back is facing you?? How’s that?”
Precisely, sir knight. It makes no sense.
We’re analyzing your statement, which is: “Shooting someone in the back is unjustified, unless they were charging at someone with the intent to maim/kill.”
The imagery is of a man charging someone with his back turned to the man he’s attacking. And you state that shooting this man in the back is unjustified. I’m trying to imagine such a situation.
If you admit to sniffing the whisky cork, your statement is understandable
I can try to put it into terms that you can understand, I’ll have to think like a 6 year old I suppose.
Suppose someone is running away from you. You will see his back side—you following so far?
That same person has a machete and is running toward someone else (his back is still all that you see), you still with me? Remember, he is moving away from you (you, who is armed with a gun) and towards someone else. You fear that he is going to chop that person up, so you dump some rounds into his back ( remember, he is moving away from you still), now do you understand.
I can try crayons if you think it would help...
So, we agree, finally.
Once again, here’s your statement: ““Shooting someone in the back is unjustified, unless they were charging at someone with the intent to maim/kill.”
The black thug charged the cop, so the other cop was completely justified in shooting the attacker in the back.