>>2938912
well I have already hinted I am not an american and in law school I learned that many jurisdictions, USA included, have much weaker self defense laws and castle doctrine than many european countries, mine included.
Judges are eroding all of this lately, but until very recently, you could argue that is was legal to shoot at someone who is in the process of merely insulting a third person. Ofc you'd still have to get the court to follow the argument but it's not unfounded. Laws here allow you to defend any legally protected personal interests, including personal honor. The law would also allow you to protect a third persons legal interests on their behalf. All this is only if your action is suitable and meant to stop an ongoing infringement. The only restriction the law places on your choice of means is 'very gross disproportionality'. They have introduced this after a few very famous cases of legal shootings over nothing.
>Picrel is a case every law student here has to work through. Shooting children who steal cherries. The law also affords you protection when for example you fell into a rage and went avove and beyond what was needed, after you already stopped the assailant.
At any rate the important takeaway: The law affords almost no protection to the attacker. Especially the law does not demand proportionality or the defendant to take any risks. If you can put a slug in that guy at a distance then do it, no need to announce your presence when they could be packing or try to wrestle them. And that is a sensible law.
