This is the type of situation that I'd never really considered. Suppose the firearm belonged to an individual who was attacking a felon. Would the felon still be in hot water if he disarmed the attacker and defended himself with the same firearm? I know that by the letter of the law he probably would be. But does that mean the felon has to just accept being killed to stay within the law? Doesn't seem right, but logic is not a factor in the legal system.
I am willing to wager he will be aquitted, when a jury gets a hold of this.
He is also likely to be off his daughters Chritmas card list for next year tho, as she has possibly been enabling the deceased for a while. Glad they are both OK.
I agree. He knew the score. He was willing to sacrifice more of his freedom to save his daughter's life. Let's hope the DA takes that into account, unless he is an SOB trying to pad his stats.
Originally Posted by sigmanluke