“Shots 7-9: The threat has already ended, shots not justified.”
By that time the perp was already dead. The shooter was just making sure.
Nice answer, but not one that will fly in court.
If I were on the jury, I would never convict this guy, but when an overly zealous prosecutor tries a police officer for murder just because he had the words "You're F*cked" on the dust cover of his AR-15 that he used to shoot a suspect, you know damn well this guy will end up in court.
The defender’s counsel will almost certainly make that argument. Branca addresses the problems with that line of defense.
Would be much better to not have to mount that defense, IMHO.
This is posted more as a learning tool for those of us who choose to carry a defensive firearm. A LOT to learn from this one.
How do you know? Did you medically examine the robber just before the final shots? Did the video show the shooter (or anyone else) medically examining the robber for a pulse, heartbeat, or EKG activity prior to the final shots?
Did the shooter do a blood analysis to verify that the robber wasn't hopped up on drugs so that he might only appear to be unconscious?
Did the shooter count the bullet holes in the robber and measure the shot grouping to determine the likelihood that the robber was immobilized before the final shots?
Will it now be a requirement by leftist DAs that when a law-abiding citizen uses a gun in self-defense, he must do a complete medical examination and psychological evaluation of the criminal to determine whether that shot was sufficient to render the criminal incapable of causing an imminent threat of death to innocent people, before the citizen may fire an additional round?!?!?
Anti-Second Amendment woketardians need to be rebutted when they claim, imply, or insinuate that one or more of the shots was unjustified as self-defense.