John B wrote:
Fine. So it's self defence, you're acquitted, and all is fine legally.
It's only if you try and kill him *while he's running away* that
there's a problem.

It seems to me there's a little hole here. Mr V is threatened
by Mr Y. Mr V feels his life is under threat, and begins to
act to kill Mr Y with a handly weapon. In between the time
V begins his "defensive attack" and the time the weapon kills
Mr Y, Y has (quite sensibly) turned to run. Y is therefore
(e.g) shot in the back. Should V be judged on the situation when
he decides to act and commits himself; or on the situation when the
bullet strikes home?

ObTransport: Interview with Bernhard Goetz
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...17/lkl.01.html

#Paul

wrote in message
...
John B wrote:
Fine. So it's self defence, you're acquitted, and all is fine legally.
It's only if you try and kill him *while he's running away* that
there's a problem.

It seems to me there's a little hole here. Mr V is threatened
by Mr Y. Mr V feels his life is under threat, and begins to
act to kill Mr Y with a handly weapon. In between the time
V begins his "defensive attack" and the time the weapon kills
Mr Y, Y has (quite sensibly) turned to run. Y is therefore
(e.g) shot in the back. Should V be judged on the situation when
he decides to act and commits himself; or on the situation when the
bullet strikes home?

Mr Y is at fault, as he instigated the whole sorry affair. If Mr Y hadn't
threatened Mr V, none of that would have happened.


ObTransport: Interview with Bernhard Goetz
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...17/lkl.01.html

#Paul