That "reasonable and prudent" thing has been around for a long time, the first I heard of it was in a book, "You and the Law", published by Reader's Digest back in the 1970s. To elaborate on the "threatened" part: Deadly force is generally justified against an unarmed attacker if he puts you in "fear of death or great bodily harm". Of course your feeling of fear might be hard to prove or disprove in a court of law, so the legal question is, "Would a reasonable and prudent person in that situation feel fear?" Of course every case is different, and the law might read differently in different states, but that's the general gist of it.
Here's that thing I was going to tell you about concerning the lockdown:
This article is kind of sketchy, but I can fill you in on the details if anybody's interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment