You cannot kill an unarmed man because you feel threatened
Does anyone here have balls.
You clearly have NO training in the law of self-defense. Pick up a book, for your own sake, or get training.
You argue like a liberal. Name calling, trying to evoke an emotional response. No one is legally required to brawl with someone intent on brawling, particularly if you are assaulted out of the blue.
That is actually un-true and there are cases to prove such. But, that un-armed man has to be considerably larger than you and menacing you to a degree you believe him when he says "I'm going to kill you". My wife and I belong to an organization that covers you in legal battles should we ever be involved in a shooting. Part of the requisite is attending their seminars and being carefully instructed on our state laws. Very eye opening some of the scenarios the lawyers put forth that were clean shoots. This one, however, I agree was a bad shoot. For some of the same reasons you and others have noted.
You cannot kill an unarmed man because you feel threatened
Does anyone here have balls.
##################################
Some people here have ball/s. But first I should ask you what that question (absent question mark) means.
Anyway - I don’t know if you are posting sarcasm, or otherwise.
.
Try some thought experiments. Your brain could benefit from the exercise.
>>You cannot kill an unarmed man because you feel threatened<<
On the other hand, one who has already been assaulted should not be required confirm whether his assailant is or isn’t armed by risking his life to find that out.
Define "armed".
The police seem to do it all too often.
The police seem to do it all too often.
“You cannot kill an unarmed man because you feel threatened”
I am under no obligation to allow myself to be beaten to death by some thug twice my size just to save his life.