Originally Posted by DaFace
I gave an answer that it's beyond a bloody nose and grass stains a long time ago. I'm not saying the law should be re-written. I agree that you can't spell out the specific injuries that are allowable and those that are not. Is that the point you've been trying to prove this whole time?
If you can't spell out the allowable specifics, you can't spell out the non-allowable specifics. It's really that simple. What's going on here is two groups of dumbasses on the "he's guilty!" side.
1.) dumbasses saying "I can't tell you what reasonable is because I don't know the facts, but that wasn't reasonable".
3.) dumbasses saying that no set of circumstances would warrant an armed man shooting an unarmed man.