True, but that wasn't the question.
So, you contend that if someone pulls a gun, you may not shoot until he actually has you in his sights? Interesting....
No, you can not shoot until they become a clear and immediate threat to your life. (A guy with a knife stating he is going to kill you, and walking towards you, but still 30 feet away may be a clear threat, but not yet immediate. Same with the gun drawn but not pointed at you, and no obvious intent) For those of you that have seen the story of the jerk that pulled his gun because some snowballs got thrown at his Hummer during a blizzard in DC, if I had been standing on that sidewalk, I would not have had reason to fire. Now if he had started raising the gun, that might have changed.
Let's see--if he has a contact weapon and is close to you, you may assume that he has the ability and the opportunity to cause you great bodily harm, and if he moves at you, you may assume that you are in jeopardy. If you have no other recourse, you may then use deadly force to defend yourself.
But you think that if he pulls a gun and chambers a round, and he clearly has both the ability and the opportunity to kill you, you cannot assume that you are in jeopardy--that he intends to shoot you--until he actually has the gun leveled at you?
There are different levels of threat between having a gun pointed at the ground, and actually having it pointed at you.
If he already has the gun out and pointed at the ground, if he intends to kill you, why is the gun pointed at the ground, and not at you with the trigger being pulled?
You have to show more than Ability and Opportunity, you also have to show Intent. You can not assume Intent.
In the scenario that started this, no the person walking 20-50 yards in front would not have reasonable cause.
Why not? There are multiple other people on the sidewalk, there are buildings or houses along the side (assumed), and the person with the gun is walking along with a female, and was walking up the side walk BEFORE you approached them. There are many reasons they could have a gun which have nothing to do with you, and at that distance in the dark, you would have a hard time convincing a jury that they were focused on you. They could be a bounty hunter getting ready to go to a house, or any other options.
If that was Reasonable Cause, then I could have shot that DC dick as soon as he looked my direction with a gun out, because he was a threat to my life.
With the contact weapon, the distance is close, and the intent being directed at you can be argued. Besides, if you know how good a shot most people are in those conditions, you can't truly claim fear for your life....
What is your basis for that conclusion?
Remember, this isn't happening at the shooting range. From the point of view of the person who is not drawing the gun, and perhaps from the point of view of any witnesses who happen to notice what is going on, the man drawing the gun on an apparently unarmed man would have no other apparent reason to draw the gun and to chamber the round except to shoot that man, or perhaps to threaten him with deadly force for the purpose of robbing him or kidnapping him. Either way he would be justified in firing.
Right?
Wrong
Due to the above mentioned multiple other possible reasons for the gun, the distance, the overall situation and lack of proof it was directed at you.
Also as you your self just said "If you have no other recourse, you may then use deadly force to defend yourself." What other recourse would he have? Run, hide, call for help, present to low ready and order the other person to drop the gun. Shooting someone that you think might be a threat to you is not the only recourse in that situation!
Oh, and the punk in front couldn't take the shot anyway.
There are bystanders further down the sidewalk behind the intended target. A miss, or over-penetration could kill an innocent person. That forces a properly trained and moral person to use other options than point-and-shoot.
If the is then somehow able to draw from concealment and then fire quickly enough, the gun on the ground would serve his self-defense case rather well, I should think.
A gun 30 yards away, that was never pointed at you, and never indicated as being intended for you... = Murder
I come back to CYA - Can You Articulate
"Umm, I saw this guy walking along with his wife, and I saw him pull a gun out, and I felt my life was in danger, so I quick-drawed and blasted his arse away" Could you tell what kind of gun it was? Paintball, airsoft, glock? "Umm, no, it was too far away to tell, and with it being dark and all. But I could tell it was a gun!" Where was it pointed? "Umm, at the ground by the guys feet" Did he indicate he was going to use it on you? "Umm, he looked at me" was he looking only at you? "Umm, no, he was looking all around him, and at the guys walking behind him"
Although I am having fun imagining the punks accent as I write that, you get the idea... Even if I did that without bias, Dark, considerable distance, gun pointed at ground, multiple other possible reasons around, no directed intent,
bystanders, and no other means to leave tried, it still wouldn't look good.
I sure hope I am never on a street with you. Who knows, I might see somebody getting attacked 20 yards from you, and pull my weapon to intervene, and get blown away by you because you feel that I might at some point point the gun at you and become a threat.
Again, there are other options.
If the guy with his wife should have taken evasive action, the punk up the sidewalk should as well. Especially since he doesn't have the body of evidence of the strange actions that appear to be threatening. All he has is somebody drawing a weapon and pointing it to the ground quite a distance away, with multiple other people around.
This is not a point and shoot world! This is not a war zone! We will get there soon enough...