Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply.
Reasonable certainty is certainly ... reasonable. I have no argument with that. But who gets to define "reasonable"? The intended victim (turned killer) or the criminal's family?

Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe?
A holstered weapon, while it might make you uncomfortable, would not in and of itself be threatening. It will make you more aware of the person, though, which isn't a bad thing either. The man with the knife I described was in fact threatening. My scenario was intended to imply that he was displaying the knife in a threatening, aggressive manner, such as pointed at you, or slashing in your direction. I would consider that to be threatening, with reasonable certainty.

Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.
Fortunately, the look in someone's eye cannot be considered grounds for self defense. Unless he actually draws his weapon, or strikes you even without the weapon, his actions cannot be considered threatening. Unnerving perhaps, but not threatening.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.
I don't intend to imply any such desire myself. I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation. But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.

But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.
I agree with you. Even in the act of self defense we have to be held responsible for our actions. That's why I think mandatory training, real training not just lip service, should be a requirement. And why I think any shooting, whether self defense or not, should be fully investigated.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)
And again, I disagree. While any weapon can be lethal, even a baseball bat, carrying that weapon does not necessary show a desire or willingness to kill. It only shows a desire for self defense. If threatening my attacker with the weapon suffices in driving him off, I'd be quite happy not to have fired a shot. Bullets cost money, you know!