![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hcsblogdotorg.files.wordpress.com\/2018\/09\/criminal-shooting-target.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u201cShoot, when you have no choice! Don\u2019t, when you have other choices that are reasonably safe. When you have no choice except to shoot, who cares if it\u2019s \u2018legal?\u2019 When you don\u2019t need to shoot, who cares if it would have been \u2018legal?\u2019\u201d ~ Frieling<\/em><\/p>\n The foregoing quotation, from a celebrated lawyer, represents his inevitable answer to the naive question:<\/p>\n \u201cCan\/should I shoot someone if they \u2026.?\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1) You were not the \u201cinitial aggressor\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n When it becomes obvious to the jury that you were going about in public, armed with a deadly weapon, presenting yourself as \u201cbait,\u201d looking\/hoping for an \u201copportunity,\u201d an \u201cexcuse,\u201d to shoot someone, as did Paul Kersey (played by Charles Bronson) in the original (1974) version of \u201cDeath Wish<\/a>,\u201d don\u2019t expect much sympathy, regardless of other facts in the case.<\/p>\n Prosecutors refer to this attitude as \u201cthe malignant mind.\u201d The Latin is \u201cmens rea.\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201cDeath Wish\u201d motif may be made into an entertaining film, but neither prosecutors, nor juries, will have any tolerance for it!<\/p>\n Don\u2019t go anywhere with a gun, that you wouldn\u2019t go without a gun!<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2) Even when you were not the initial aggressor, when in a public place and faced with someone offering violence and\/or wishing to engage in violence, you declined confrontation and instead made a reasonable effort to disengage and separate (assuming it was mostly safe to do so).<\/strong><\/p>\n In order to qualify as an \u201cinnocent party\u201d you must not say, nor do, anything that a reasonable person would interpret as aggravating\/challenging the aggressor(s).<\/p>\n The horn on your car is there solely to \u201cprevent accidents\u201d Employing it to \u201cscold\u201d or \u201cpunish\u201d other drivers and pedestrians represents a conspicuous misuse, and is thus illegal, no matter who is \u201cat fault.\u201d<\/p>\n Like your car\u2019s horn, using your gun because you\u2019re frightened (assuming your fears are genuine and legitimate), is acceptable.<\/p>\n Using your gun because you\u2019re angry, is not acceptable!<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n When \u201csorting motives,\u201d the prosecutor needs to see yours as sensible and respectable!<\/p>\n 3) You were \u201cfirst to the phone\u201d and reported the incident to police as soon as you could.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the eyes of prosecutors, \u201cflight equals guilt,\u201d always! Guilt also attaches to excessive delay in reporting the incident. Those who flee the scene and try to evade police are always seen as \u201cguilty parties.\u201d<\/p>\n In conclusion:<\/strong><\/p>\n In most states, citizens of character are now trusted to \u201cgo armed.\u201d Legally-armed citizens are not required to be \u201cperfect.\u201d But, we are required to be \u201creasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n No matter the outcome, investigators, prosecutors, and juries need to interpret your actions as reasonable, and your motives as those of a \u201cgood person.\u201d<\/p>\nWhen you\u2019re involved in a deadly-force incident, particularly one where guns were present, here are some factors that will lend credibility to your case:<\/h3>\n