This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
That is absolutely hilarious dead pan expression to kill a man threatening you. It’s so… casual.
What happened to Yoda? “Luke, don’t use the Force!” :-)
Luke shot first!
So if you’re lawfully armed and you’re credibly threatened with immediate and grievous bodily harm (at minimum), the extent of that harm is not known in advance and in the fraction of a second one has to consider, drawing your weapon and using it to stop the attacker (and they teach you to shoot at the central body mass to effectively “stop” the attacker) is not self-defense?
I don’t get it.
George Zimmerman was (or is) guilty of some form of homicide because he accosted Trayvon Martin, not the other way around. But if Zimmerman did not stalk Martin and Trayvon had accosted Zimmerman, without provocation, and started swinging, then I think Zimmerman’s use of his weapon would have been justified. (But, of course, that didn’t happen, which is why Zimmerman is culpable.)
I don’t see how Luke’s use of the firearm is unlawful if he is being attacked like that. The attacker made a credible threat of serious bodily harm and was shot in the very act of carrying out that threat. I cannot see how this does not qualify as self-defense.