The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
In some States, including shîthole Oregon you can use lethal force against an arsonist, if said arsonist is about to set light to a structure where a person would be thought inside.
Throwing a fire bomb at a person...Same thing.
Your questions lately seem to come from a lens that once the initial, unsuccessful, act is done, you assume there wouldn’t be anymore violence from a person towards his/her targeted victim...Akin to being shot at until bad guy runs out of ammo...Why shoot him? He was out of bullets.
😎
Further, PB's positions imply omniscience, which is absurd.
No, my position implies that I need more information on the first shoot. Absurdity is staking out a position and being unable to articulate why you hold that position.
"well, I shot him because I was afraid" probably ain't gonna cut it in court.
Dayam. WTF has somebody been putting in your food?
If any of those videos do not show you the kid was easily "in fear for his life", then you need to polish your fugken eye sockets.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
