[winodog]

So the two teenagers laid you down on the grass and left the scene but you shot both of them in the back?

I can hear the attorney now.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

The attack was still on. The victim had no way of knowing the perps were not going to return and do him bodily harm. I would think he would also argue that was the first chance he had to retreive his weapon and assume a defensive posture.

[Ninian Dryhope]

This happened in Texas, not Massachusetts.

[Candor7]

I can hear the attorney now.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Definite problem there.

He should have killed em both.

Or dropped em in the car wash instead of walking into a drawn gun.

But there is too much wisdom in hind sight.

The moral of these incidents is illustrated over and over. Shoot first, early and accurately to kill, when using justified deadly force.

[TET1968]

"So the two teenagers laid you down on the grass and left the scene but you shot both of them in the back? I can hear the attorney now."


Unless your attacker turned around to retrieve a weapon or to attack another victem, shooting him/her in the back may be quite costly to the shooter.

If the attacker lives and testifies he/she was running away from you when you fired a round into their back.....oh gee.