I was going to talk to the grand jury aspect of your example, but I made athe assumption that you were discussing what I was discussing since you quoted me - clearly I was wrong.
I would expect every defensive shooting to go before a Grand Jury - and I see nothing in this legislation that would change that. If you believe you should be allowed to simply walk away without significant questioning from a shooting you have committed simply because you believe you were acting in self-defense, I have to say that is quite unrealistic. Going before a Grand Jury does not require you to be guilty of anything - in fact, that is precisely the purpose of going before a Grand Jury - to determine if you acted appropriately. That is going to happen regardless of whether the law states that violence is acceptable before questioning whether avoidance is possible.
In all cases, you're going to have to explain your actions. That's called life.
In regards to civil suits, assuredly those are possible. But again, they are possible regardless of the law this legislation alters. Show me how people defending themselves are typically found liable in civil suits brought by their attackers and then we can agree that _something_ should be done about that. Not only do I not believe that is anywhere near common, but this legislation doesn't address that at all.
|