Heh nice quote. Shame the guy was found guilty because he was found to have deliberatly shot to kill. He did not intend to scare them off but to kill them! Do you classify that as reasonable force?
Errr...genius. When police discharge a firearm in defense of their lives, they do not try to "scare off" a would-be cop killer. They shoot to
HIT their target. What the hell is the point of
shooting to miss? Doesn't that kind of negate the very purpose of aiming a firearm at someone and pulling the trigger? Show me a firearms training course in the free world that trains shooters to
miss their targets. Just one. Even
one self-defense expert in the free world who advocates that people shoot to
miss.
You'll find dozens of self-defense experts and civil authorities who warn
against firing a warning shot to
scare off intruders, but none who advocate it. You're pretty much the only idiot on the face of the planet who thinks this. Feeling pretty stupid right about now? No, I don't suspect you are, because idiots never grasp the extent of their own grotesque stupidity.
Martin shot because he was afraid for his safety upon discovering two violent career criminals in his house. His intention was to protect himself and the prosecution presented not a stitch of evidence to suggest otherwise. Martin was blinded by the criminal's flashlights seconds before he shot in their direction. Whether or not he intended to kill the intruders, wing them, or just make them sh-t their pants, has no bearing on the issue of
justification. He was perfectly reasonable to perceive danger or threat to his own safety because there were
violent criminals illegally in his home for nefarious purposes. He did not invite them in and shoot them. They entered his home illegally to victimize him. Nothing else matters.
