(08-31-2020, 05:43 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 05:05 PM)mikesez Wrote: Is chasing an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Is throwing a projectile (and missing badly) an imminent threat of great bodily harm? No.
Neither is.
These only become threats because of the possible outcome where the gun gets taken away.
If he had not provoked the attack via unlawful conduct, he would be allowed to defend himself with lethal force (shoot the gun) after making a reasonable effort to retreat (which he did).  
But because he provoked both attacks with unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced, and he must also exhaust all non-lethal means of defending himself or ending the confrontation.
He had options.  He could have ejected the clip, and held it out, showing the man he's not going to shoot.  If that didn't work, he could have and thown it at the guy; after all that guy threw something at him.  If that didn't work, at least he's now eliminated the possibility that the rifle will be used to shoot him, so he should feel free to use either end of the rifle as a club.

---

The people who engaged him that night hadn't seen those interviews.  They see a snot nosed kid with a rifle strapped to his front.

Regarding the first part in bold, he did not provoke the attack via unlawful conduct (unless putting a fire out in a dumpster is somehow against the law).

Second, your "possibilities" as far as what he could have done has gone off the stupid scale.  Throwing the "clip" at an attacker looking to cause physical harm to you?  Seriously?  Use a rifle as a "club"?

 

I need to save this post for future comedy.  Throw the "clip" at an attacker.     I'm literally LOL'ing.  Even my wife who is not real gun savvy mentioned to me "does he mean the magazine?".

a police officer should be a little bit nicer to a civilian who doesn't use the same terminology as him, especially when that officer clearly understands what the civilian is trying to say about the parts of guns.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand what I'm saying about the law. You're only there to catch and detain the people who cause trouble and report on what you saw. And you don't ever envision using a firearm as anything other than a firearm. You shouldn't have to. That's fine.  
But if you were the prosecutor, or a member of a jury, you absolutely would have to ask these kinds of questions. 
If he simply ejects his *magazine* at the beginning of the confrontation, all threat to life on either side is over. 
I know it sounds silly. 
It is an unusual situation. If his presence there was provocative, but lawful, the law wouldn't work out this way. If his presence there was unlawful, but also unprovocative, the law wouldn't work out this way. But as it stands, his presence was both unlawful and provocative, ergo his obligation to end the confrontation by the least meet lethal means possible never ended.

---