Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If a person genuinely feels their life is in danger, the law cares quite deeply about it. A person has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves if they feel it's necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
Of course, I would. The facts wouldn't change because I personally were involved. But from this, I suppose when it's you everything changes?
In most states, it's whether a reasonable person would feel in great danger. Most states do not allow you to shoot a fleeing person in the back.
That's an odd question. What part of "I don't know anything about the testimony" is unclear? I can't possibly know something that I don't know.
Yeah, I recall this exact same tendency when people were defending the George Floyd killer after conviction or J6 rioters contrary to what a jury found (or what the defendant knows they would have found.). Slow down, people. You aren't in the best position to second guess this.
How about this:
Are you about to try making the case that the store owner wasn't a reasonable person? The jury heard the testimony and that evidence, and obviously thought he was.
When it’s you it definitely changes. Your adrenaline runs amok and perceived danger becomes real. People react differently when faced with a life and death situation.
Nothing in the article suggests that the jury was not reasonable. Your assumptions are your own.
This is where it comes down to how murder is defined under South Carolina law. South Carolina, in the link above, requires malice forethought for murder. The lack of malice forethought would have been sufficient to return a not guilty of murder verdict. However, the case does seem to fit the SC definition of voluntary manslaughter. Had the prosecutor went for that, the jury very likely would have convicted him. That’s why I wonder why the prosecutor didn’t file a charge of voluntary manslaughter.
I don’t think that’s the issue here. The question is whether it was a justifiable use of deadly force. The sticking point is that the victim fled and Chow gave chase.
You're telling on yourself. Maybe you would shoot someone in the back while they are running away, but I would not.
Agreed, so don't presume to know enough to tell me what I would do just because you think you would do it.
I would shoot someone that posed a threat. Presented with a situation like this one, where the life of a loved one was at risk, I don’t know at which point I would deem the threat over. Monday night quarterbacking is easy.
That’s the point I don’t and neither do you until you are presented with a similar situation.
Again, this is you.
This contradicts your previous sentence where you say what you would do. Quite often, we do know what we would do - what you don't get to claim is that you know what I would do.
