I'll take those over being dead.. ;)

Untrue.

Just to elaborate oh johny's response. It is legal to defend yourself and if that means you have to kill someone in self-defense, then it needs to be justified.

You can't kill someone if they were trying to rob you without a weapon. Though they presented a certain amount of threat, it isn't justified to kill them.

err they were gunmen.....by definition they had guns...
Posted via RS Mobile

wow

Nah I think they were just flexing their biceps.

Yeah but how do we know if he's not the kind to also do this kind of stuff?

This is not true. You cannot simply kill someone through self defence. The law states that you can match reasonable force to the threat you are presented with in self defense, and life or limb must actually be in jeopardy.

ie: If an unarmed assailant is attacking you (or armed with a lesser weapon than a firearm), you can't simply shoot him unless you can prove it was neccessary to use a gun to equalize force and you would be unable to defend yourself using lesser force. Court trials often work out in favour of women who use weapons for self defense since they're viewed as physically weaker, but men who defended themselves often get screwed in court.

Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

no, it's georgia for crying out loud.

:lol

you're doing it wrong, it's w0w

if this was in Canada... the "Saviour" would end up in Jail, and even if the second assailant was caught, he could sue and probably win

damn our legal system