Even if that is a Molotov cocktail, it's not lit and hence is no threat.
Please stay factual. The video evidence given in the link I provided shows that it was lit. Did you watch the video before claiming it wasn't lit?
Someone chasing after you isn't necessarily a threat to his life. Even if he grabbed his gun, which isn't clear, he'll have a hard time arguing it was a threat to his life imo. Also how could he shoot him if his gun was grabbed?
Again, please stay factual. The "Threat to life" justification you use repeatedly is not the only justification to invoke Self Defense. As shown in the US "Self Defense definition" I provided, it says that a person may "When the use of deadly force is involved in a self defense claim, the person must also
reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of
great bodily harm or death" - so if the shooter sees an action which they "
reasonably believe" could inflict "
great bodily harm" to them (and not solely a "threat to life" as you've posted) then they can "claim" Self Defense. However at that point it is now up to the Police to investigate, the DA to prosecute and finally the court & jury system to make the final decision on whether that "claim" is actually justified, which is correct.
So in this case, as per my initial post, in every case where the shooter fired he can say that he "
reasonably believed" an action which could inflict "
great bodily harm" to him was about to occur, allowing him to make the Self Defense "claim", at which time the above mentioned investigation, prosecution and courts then take over to see if the "claim" was actually justified.
How is the man who is following him with a gun any greater threat than himself following the group with a gun?
Again, please stay factual. I have never said that "man who is following him with a gun" was a "greater threat" than the shooter himself was so I'm confused as to where in my post you believe I've stated or implied that the "pistol" guy was a "greater threat" than the shooter. If you could explain what made you think I said that I'll gladly clear up any misunderstanding.
You're also ignoring the vigilante premeditated nature of the crime. He went to an area where he knew there were protestors with a killing machine in order to intimidate and threaten them.
Once more, please stay factual. You said that I'm "ignoring the vigilante premeditated nature of the crime..............." which is given as a statement of fact. It is not, it is only your opinion of the event and not a fact. Your opinion hasn't been proved to true or false in a court yet so please try to remember not to confuse opinions with facts. Regarding my "ignoring" of any alleged vigilantism, I specifically gave my opinion about it in my last paragraph and gave the reasons why in my opinion I didn't believe it was a vigilante case but as mentioned above, my opinion is also just an opinion and not a fact, however I haven't phrased my opinion as a direct statement of fact i.e. I have said "I think he......" etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned, I've very happy to debate but please stay factual when making claims otherwise the discussion is useless.
