Clifford
Footballguy
But isn't the opposite case already true:This is a terrible idea and totally akin to playing MMQB. One of the general philosophies of punishing people in a criminal court is that their evil intent needs retribution. Accordingly, the focus should be on the reasonableness of the actor in the scope of the facts known to him or her at the time. Somehow omnisciently examining all facts, even those not likely known to the shooter, flies completely in the face of that.OK semantic difference then. I'm sure yours is the correct legal, but to me objective means not subject to any one person's view point. The objective judgment on the reason of a subjective view point to me is only one degree away from subjectivism.
What I would like to see in way of reforming these laws, which certain suspects are clearly trying to abuse, is to add a true objective test that would counter-balance the subjective belief of imminent harm. IOW, medical expert testimony on the condition of the shooter and whether their victim could have actually done significant physical harm. Or the presence of a weapon, whether seen or unseen, that could have killed the shooter had he/she not fired at that exact instant.
Like it or not, some people clearly interpret self-defense laws as they stand today to mean they can murder people, so long as they can prove they were scared.
A and B have terrible argument. B angrily reaches into purse. A shoots B for putting B's hand in purse. If there is a gun in the purse, even if unseen and unknown to A at the time of the shooting, would A not be able to claim self-defense after the gun was discovered?