Quote:
Originally Posted by trixdout
I don't get how the kid is not an immediate threat. At any point, if Phil chose to tale him all the way where ever this kid would stop, the could have fired the gun at him. I see an immediate threat at any point of this incident up until the cops would have arrested the kid.
How is everyone looking past the fact that this kid had a gun that was not legally his.
Let us start trial with prosecuting the kid for attempted first degree murder.
The kid more than likely had all intentions of bringing the gun with him to buy those pairs of shoes. He obviously didn't think of taking the gun last second. That's attempted murder. Running over the kid was self-defense.
|
Self defense is when you defend yourself against a threat. Someone walking away from you is not a threat. If someone broke into your house make sure you shoot him in his chest, not his back while he is running for your house. Shooting him the back gives you little ground to stand on with self defense. Same thing in this instance. The immediate threat was not there. If Phil would have beat the kid, in his vehicle, after the gun jammed his defense of self defense would hold up. The fact that he has a gun doesn't mean he is a threat. Should we all attempt to kill anyone that has a gun? Phil should have simply called the cops. Maybe even attempt to follow the kid........ That's a big maybe.
No one is overlooking the fact that the kid was a dumbass and needs to pay for his actions. To say that the kid had planned to take the gun with him is speculation. Speculation typically doesn't hold up in a court of law.
Neither of their lives will be the same. gonna go out on a limb that Phil has a lot more to lose in this situation.