Quote (Kayeto @ Nov 29 2021 04:32am)
I'm impressed with how calm Carruth was.
From a legal perspective, crafty lawyers might be able to nab him on some technicality about Read having a right to be on the property. But from an ethical perspective, it was obviously self defense. Read was the angry one. He had threatened to take the gun away, then he made aggressive action to do just that.
If Carruth was justified to possess the gun in the first place, then he was clearly justified to use it based on that threat.
That's not how self-defense justification works. By coming back outside brandishing a gun, he escalated a situation to which he was a co-belligerent. You can't claim self-defense when you're a co-belligerent.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.