View Single Post
Old 14th September 2020, 08:17 AM   #166
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You're denying that there is a proportionate response qualifier?
No, I am denying that it demands the opponent be armed.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
There is not much more severe response than killing with five rounds of high powered rifle fire.
Sure, but if you are in fear of death or serious injury then using lethal force can be covered in the self defence statute we have been discussing.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Considering that as far as we know, Rosenbaum had not so much as threatened to give him a nooggie.
Indeed... we don't know that. Even so, explicitly telling the person claiming self defence that you intend to injure/kill them isn't required.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
People chase each other all the time, that's hardly a capital offense.
If you chase somebody in a way that leads them to reasonably believe you are going to kill, or severely injure them, then they are entitled to defend themselves, potentially with lethal force. "Capital offense" has nothing to do with it, since it isn't a question of the culpability of the person who got shot. The violent class-3 sex offending arsonist could have been intending to hand him some religious pamphlets for all it matters.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
And the reporter witnessed that Rosenbaum didn't grab at the gun till Kyle had already fired.
That is not what the witness said. You may be reading that into what the witness said, but none the less it isn't actually what the witness said.

Last edited by shuttlt; 14th September 2020 at 08:19 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top