|>>|| No. 31021
>In Britain, it would probably count as unreasonable force
I don't know what law degree you have but it is toilet paper.
They were running at them wielding knives, what would you infer from this situation? What would the reasonable person infer? Is there any good reason why in the middle of the street someone should be running at you with a knife without an expressed intent to harm, and if there were (i.e it is just a prank bro) how would you distinguish between those 2 before it was too late? What do you think the probability would be that it wasn’t just a knife wielding thug, and just someone acting identical to one?
Consider also the following it is just a prank bro, could very well be just an alibi for if they were caught in their crimes, and even if it was genuine do you think it is a reasonable excuse for intimidation with a deadly weapon.
>it'd probably be best to aim for the attacker's hand to disarm them, if all you have to defend yourself with is a gun. That way, it's very likely that the attacker will at least live.
And what if they were to miss? or the person were to just use their other hand, or like in recent daft militant wog attacks in London they had the weapon taped to their hand to make them incapable of disarming. All of these things would have to be considered within the tiny reaction time they would have before this person might kill them or any of their friends and they might no longer have a clean shot.
Put it another way, this person has already committed themselves to running at strangers with a knife unprovoked, it is reasonable to assessment to assume they are not amenable to a mere warning shot.
No the law would very much find this reasonable self-defence and you would need an extremely racist jury (the shooter was black and the knife wielder was white) for it not just result in Jury nullification if they were presented with the argument by the court that they should convict.