I wouldn't worry too much about precedent....few self-defense shootings are going to involve a man emptying a 2nd gun into a criminal who no longer indicates he is any sort of threatI have no sympathy for the man shot, but can't defend the shooter's actions in this particular case either. Its unfortunate for him it turned out this way, but his actions weren't exactly standard operating procedure for anyone who has taken a self-defense course or two. had he shot him, and held a gun on him until the police arrived...or shot him again after some sort of threat was perceived, I wouldn't doubt his choices in any way. However, standing over a prone criminal who seems to be incapacitated and not making any current threats or actions, and emptying your gun into him is pretty hard to justify. Again, i wasn't there, and ahve no sympathy for the shooter's "victim" but this is ar from a clearcut case of a "good shoot". IMO, it doesn't qualify as FIRST degree murder, but also don't necessarily believe this guy was in the right, either. He WAS a hero, UNTIL he stood above that man and emptied his gun. Until that point, he did nothing wrong, and SHOULD have been praised as a hero. His own actions brought his hero status into question though. As far as the question of wheter or not he was armed....its pretty easy to check someone shot in the head and unconscious for a weapon, and doing so seems like a more prudent course of action than emptying your revolver into him on the off chance he MIGHT be armed. I was taught to only shoot when there was a clear and present threat, no the possibility someone might be a threat. I see gangbangers on a frequent basis, and have no doubt whatsoever they are "dangerous"....that doesn't give me the right to shoot them preemptively though. If you aren't being immediately threatened, you can't shoot (or RESHOOT someone based on some idea they MIGHT be a threat.
