micrometers
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2010
- 3,473
- 0
- 0
As a premise I completely disagree with the law as written.
For the sake of my question using the law as applied there is enough evidence to stipulate T feared for his life before Z. Why didn't T have the right to use deadly force in self defense vs Z? Which means T could strike Z as many times as it takes to render him at least unconscious.
Also if Z was that close to T (1-3 feet if fighting)why couldn't he shoot him in the leg?
The thing about deadly force, as I said, is that with a gun it's such a blunt instrument that it doesn't take sustained malice to injure someone. You want to protect yourself and all you have is a gun. You shoot and it's just too bad for the other guy. Your malice is momentary.
To incapacitate someone with your fists truly does take sustained malice.
If T was on top of Z, then I"d assume that his legs were not visible, just his upper body.
