“While [Appellant’s] belief may have been real to him, it was not reasonable and therefore the use of force used by [Appellant] was not justified.”
That distinction is lost on many people, to their legal peril. Just because someone thinks they’re in danger of serious bodily injury or death doesn’t mean the court is going to accept that state of mind. State of mind has to be reasonable. “In fear for my life,” a subjective test, has become something of a mantra but in the absence of other objective factors, it may be unreasonable.
“The evidence offered at trial illustrated that the volume of shots fired and the intended aim of the shots inflicted on the victim were above and beyond self-defense.”
This is not the first time we’ve seen this defense fail. Shooting rapidly to ‘stop the threat,’ i.e., using a pistol as if it were a shotgun, won’t always hold up in court. The ability to think while shooting is an important skill.
Also to be noted are that the Trial Court limited the testimony of one expert witness to certain areas and completely excluded another expert’s testimony. The Appeals Court upheld both the limitation and exclusion. Just because your attorney wants to have someone testify on your behalf doesn’t mean the Court will allow it.
The circumstances of the incident from the perspective of both parties are worth reading and considering.
A related issue that came up today is pertinent.
“Annoyed, he decided to confront him.”
And then the drama began.
Every encounter carries an element of risk, as John Hall of the FBI Firearms Training Unit observed. While the victim survived this incident, being shot six to eight times will most likely result in problems for life.
I am not a lawyer and nothing in this post constitutes legal advice. I just prefer to think ahead and stay out of prison for avoidable circumstances.