/johnny
Call it what you may, but if I am in the confines of my roof and walls and you enter unannounced, uninvited and in any way raise your voice or hand, I FEEL THREATENED.
End of story.
Yes, if I have time to go to another portion of my quarters to retrieve a weapon, I more than likely have time to pick up a cell phone and hit #9, hopefully for the likes of some of these fools, that call goes through prior my dispatching you, but it doesn’t mean you are not going to be needing medical attention.
“Why did you shoot him 6 times”?
“That is the capacity of the weapon I had in hand”.
Of course, no cute quips or asides directly after the incident - NEVER to the press unless ‘they’(authorities) are starting to railroad you - and then under advice of counsel.
There is a very fine line to post shooting reactions, can’t be to confident, remorseful or act ‘out of it’.
First request to LEO - “Please call me an ambulance”, of course at 73 I will be given some ‘leeway’ etc.
Not bad being on record for a 911 call either, where you are requesting medical help also.
In other words, he committed suicide.
“It does make life more difficult for the prosecutors... Basically, if self-defense is raised, it shifts the burden to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was not justified.”
This says more than he intended. Examine that statement.
“Shifts the burden to the state...” As opposed to what? Instead of them proving that you are guilty, you have to prove that you are *not* guilty?
It doesn’t work that way. There is no, zero assumption of guilt where you have to prove you are *not* guilty *first*.
So taking his statement at face value, he wants a gun control regime that *assumes* guilt of a gun user who uses his gun, without the state first having to prove he broke the law when he did so.
"Pardon me, Mr. Criminal Assailant on my property, and please refrain from attacking me while I locate my cellphone and call the police to tell them I'm in danger and need assistance."
Ludicrous.