Well, the practical courtroom strategy advice is you had better shoot him dead quick and dirty because if you get into a discussion about whether he continued to come at you and whether it was threatening or non threatening you have already lost your case and you will be pleading out to a voluntary manslaughter because you can't run the risk of doing 55 on a murder charge.
That was kind of what I was saying. You have to be able to convince the jury you had no other choice.
You better be able to say it was an onslaught of aggression and there was no time to even provide a warning.
In a criminal proceeding if you had time to warn him you had time to back away yourself and if you are pulling your gun and giving a warning then the situation wasn't so threatening was it? Either it is life threatening or its not. You either react or you don't. The legal system is practical terms does allow for the muddy situation described. Its called manslaughter not murder.
I agree with you there. I was just responding to the OP's scenario of him already having his gun out & the person still advancing.
But that does bring up a question for clarification (you are a lawyer, correct?):
The way I read the law is that "pointing a loaded firearm" is a felony unless you are justified in using just "reasonable force" (not deadly force) according to the self-defense statute.
I always thought, until recently, that pointing a gun at someone was the same as using deadly force but according to the law (as I read it) that's not the case.
IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
IC 34-41-3-2 is the self-defense law.
In that case you would be justified in pulling a gun on someone who you felt was going to use unlawful force against you in order to prevent the potential attack as long as you didn't actually use it unless you were justified in using deadly force under that part of the law.
IOW, pulling a gun on someone in self-defense is legally defined as reasonable force. Correct?
Perception of the situation is what is most key. We all view situations through our own lens and what one person may see as threatening another may not.
That's the reason for the "reasonable person" standard. That's what determines whether you can be found to not be justified as a 250 lb. guy to use deadly force against a "granny with a cane" (as someone else mentioned). It's "unreasonable" to feel threatened enough to kill someone in that scenario.
If not for that then anyone could claim justification, no matter what, by just saying they felt scared.