[Manly Warrior]

No, no you are misconstruing my comments. How do YOU (a second person perspective) know the dead guy did not threaten the clerk, was not armed etc? There is no evidence (the clerk destroyed a bunch-video etc), the driver could have as well, and probably would have removed evidence from the dead guy & car (to protect himself maybe?). Etc.

I AM NOT Saying what you describe at all.

A Justified lethal force response must be the result of the threat's ability, opportunity and imminent application of lethal force to you; remove one component and under most/all state laws, you cannot respond in kind.

[Manly Warrior]

Hacklehead;

Review my post and post 152, you’ll see clearly that my comments (in italics in 152) stated what you miscontrued....

Best

[Hacklehead]

“I AM NOT Saying what you describe at all.”

I didn’t mean to imply that YOU were justifying the shoot based on the fact that the clerk couldnt be certain if the perp was armed. I was trying to show how ridiculous that position was. All we know are the facts presented in the story. There was no mention of the perp being armed, making threats or anything other than grabbing the beer and running. Other folks are bending over backwards to justify the shoot by putting in extenuating circumstances. IMO, if this story is as written, the clerk was not justified. In any case he will likely stand trial and the costs in time, money, and mental anguish will make him wish he never fired a shot, even if found not guilty.