It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Amuk
Originally posted by General Zapata
. EVERY kill in self defense should be brought before a court. If the defendant is found to have used lethal force when not necessary, the defendant should be prosecuted.
What I am saying is the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt EVERY time, unless they can PROVE the assailant was NOT going to kill you AND you knew it.
Originally posted by just_a_pilot
[ The attorney general makes the determination and that should be enough. Why should I have to worry about going to court if I came home and someone was raping my wife and I shot the SOB? No no no. No way EVERY time a shooter should go to court.
Originally posted by Amuk
Originally posted by just_a_pilot
[ The attorney general makes the determination and that should be enough. Why should I have to worry about going to court if I came home and someone was raping my wife and I shot the SOB? No no no. No way EVERY time a shooter should go to court.
That is my point exactly why should the burden of proof lay with the person who was attacked? It should be looked at as self-deffence unless they have PROOF otherwise.
Originally posted by Amuk
How do you PROVE the person was going to kill you?