Alright a friend and I are reading the same thing and get two completely different interpretations of it.
This is on page 37-38 of the Handgun Safety Certicate study guild booklet.
"The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when to resist the attempt to commit a forcible or life threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that ... (C) the person acted under the belief that such a force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life threatening crime. Murder, mayham, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes"
Here's his interpretation "You may shoot someone in California is they are attempting to rob you."
And I was thinking "You can only shot someone to prevent an imminent injury"
Who is right?
(actually, I know I'm right, but need help showing him this)
Thankyou.
This is on page 37-38 of the Handgun Safety Certicate study guild booklet.
"The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when to resist the attempt to commit a forcible or life threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that ... (C) the person acted under the belief that such a force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life threatening crime. Murder, mayham, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes"
Here's his interpretation "You may shoot someone in California is they are attempting to rob you."
And I was thinking "You can only shot someone to prevent an imminent injury"
Who is right?
(actually, I know I'm right, but need help showing him this)
Thankyou.