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. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
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.
Haha, I love how Jill shows up here right when I was thinking about her situation.
But wasn’t it mentioned previously that you can’t weigh your life as more valuable than those of others? Or does this come down to which choice presented greater risks (i.e. the risk of you getting killed, vs. the risk of you accidentally killing one or more people)?
It says that risk of other’s life is less than risk to your own IF use of lethal force was already justified. If Jack were aiming at Jill with a rifle, she’d have been off the hook for cutting him loose. I suppose a closer analogy would have been if Jack had been trying to kill her, she cut him loose, then he landed on someone, saving his life but killing them. She’d be fine then.
I’d say this is why lawyers (allegedly) get rich. :-)